-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
TRI axle dump truck
- Thread starter PedroGutierrez
- Start date
Junkyard
Senior Member
I’ve got a running L10 in an International
Don’t know any history on it but when I drove home it ran good. Sits for awhile and pops right off.
Acoals
Senior Member
It's a bus engine. There, I said it . . .
Truck Shop
Senior Member
A small bus. Use to see those Safeway drivers pulling Snoqualmie pass, clean shaven at the bottom,
at the top a foot long beard and a year older.
Acoals
Senior Member
Na, won't fit in a school bus, at least not a Blue Bird All American (The only school bus worth driving). Yeah, I worked on and drove those for awhile.
The busses we had were 5.9 Cummins (Noisy, gutless rattletraps) or Cat 3126's (Nice)
The busses we had were 5.9 Cummins (Noisy, gutless rattletraps) or Cat 3126's (Nice)
cfherrman
Senior Member
In my experience they run forever, start easy in the cold, don't run hot, are quiet, and have tons of power. The power I look for is low end power not the top end power. Top end power is relatively useless to me and my rig is only geared to 44 mph anyway. My current engine is a 330 HP n14 and it has more pulling power than most engines I've come across. I will also have stationary uses for them in the future to run pumps. I just need to get my rig insured again so I can start making good money again.
crane operator
Senior Member
"L10" and "tons of power", don't usually get used as words in conjunction with one another. So I feel like I've had a new experience here.
A N14 at 330 and a L10 at 300 are two totally different animals. There's no replacement for displacement. Torque matters.
A N14 at 330 and a L10 at 300 are two totally different animals. There's no replacement for displacement. Torque matters.
cfherrman
Senior Member
My current spare engine is a l10 at 330 so hopefully I won't be comparing the HP between the too in a long time.
The rated torque is different with the l10 a couple hundred lower
The rated torque is different with the l10 a couple hundred lower
Acoals
Senior Member
Low end power is exactly what you don't get with an L10 ...
cfherrman
Senior Member
You would be surprised how much more power the l10 has over similar engines rated for more, now all the engines that compete with the N14 and up I'm not counting.
And I'm basing this on a 260 hp l10 and a 300 HP l10
And I'm basing this on a 260 hp l10 and a 300 HP l10
cfherrman
Senior Member
Also just wanted to add this is not power down the road because then the l10 is barely better than a boat anchor.
Truck Shop
Senior Member
I'm late to the party and it seems there are several conversations going on at this point.
My response to the original question is the Mack appears to be set up to haul coal like is mentioned. Unless you're planning to haul a lightweight material loaded from a silo it's going to be difficult to use otherwise. If the chassis is in extremely good shape you could consider replacing the dump body with a more suitable type or perhaps have the existing body shortened if it is determined the aluminum would have enough strength to do the work you have planned.
The Ford looks to be set up to work in general construction as is but as mentioned the chassis length and turning radius could be a problem on tight jobsites.
On the L10 discussion, the company I worked for had then 855 Cummins in their fleet at 290 and 300hp depending on the year. We hauled dry freight up to 80,000 pounds gross locally here in the northeast. In the late 80s and early 90s the company tried another truck manufacturer equipped with the L10 at 300hp. They initially had cooling problems and as a result head gaskets go bad but after they figured out a solution the trucks became pretty reliable. The manufacturer warranted the upgrades.
These trucks pulled as good as the 855 trucks as we often had similar loads going to the same place at the same time and I had no problem keeping up with coworkers regardless of what I was driving. On the plus side the L10 got 2mpg more than the 855 engines. At the end of the year it was a substantial fuel savings.
After 5 years of purchasing this truck brand and L10 combination, they went back to buying the original brand again with the 855. I think it was purely a matter of the cost per tractor the manufacturer offered.
My response to the original question is the Mack appears to be set up to haul coal like is mentioned. Unless you're planning to haul a lightweight material loaded from a silo it's going to be difficult to use otherwise. If the chassis is in extremely good shape you could consider replacing the dump body with a more suitable type or perhaps have the existing body shortened if it is determined the aluminum would have enough strength to do the work you have planned.
The Ford looks to be set up to work in general construction as is but as mentioned the chassis length and turning radius could be a problem on tight jobsites.
On the L10 discussion, the company I worked for had then 855 Cummins in their fleet at 290 and 300hp depending on the year. We hauled dry freight up to 80,000 pounds gross locally here in the northeast. In the late 80s and early 90s the company tried another truck manufacturer equipped with the L10 at 300hp. They initially had cooling problems and as a result head gaskets go bad but after they figured out a solution the trucks became pretty reliable. The manufacturer warranted the upgrades.
These trucks pulled as good as the 855 trucks as we often had similar loads going to the same place at the same time and I had no problem keeping up with coworkers regardless of what I was driving. On the plus side the L10 got 2mpg more than the 855 engines. At the end of the year it was a substantial fuel savings.
After 5 years of purchasing this truck brand and L10 combination, they went back to buying the original brand again with the 855. I think it was purely a matter of the cost per tractor the manufacturer offered.
Acoals
Senior Member
Why, just why?
cfherrman
Senior Member
L10s that I have seen often don't have enough gears as the two i have a lot experience with were 7 speeds, 8ll irc.
The one I drove a lot had a bad fuel pump and wasn't getting all the fuel and you would be going 50 in 6th maxed out revs, shift to 7th and still just go 50.
The one I drove a lot had a bad fuel pump and wasn't getting all the fuel and you would be going 50 in 6th maxed out revs, shift to 7th and still just go 50.
crane operator
Senior Member
Well I've got a older one that still gets out and about when I need it. 350 big cam, 13 speed, 4.88 rears. Got a big PTO mechanical winch in the deck behind the cab, and spring over walking beam suspension.
The counterweights make for a pretty good load on the old girl, but it walks it like a champ. Its not the most smooth ride empty.
Usually it fires up right when we need it. Had to do a fuel filter the other day, the old steel tanks flake off some rust.
I actually think the square tanks were on the later ones than mine. I've got a later aeromax too, but its got regular round truck fuel tanks.
cuttin edge
Senior Member
I can hear the squeak of the spring in the hood latches now.
cuttin edge
Senior Member
Like this one
