(first posted 6/10/2017) Several months ago we reviewed the Mack MV-620-D, a large demonstrator intercity coach from the late-1950’s that the company hoped would be selected as a replacement for GM’s PD-4501 Scenicrusier, then Greyhound’s top-tier coach. Unfortunately that didn’t come to pass, however, Mack had much better luck with its urban transit models; the C Series. While produced in far less numbers than the ubiquitous GM “Old Look”, it could count on several large metropolitan transportation authorities as loyal customers. Why did these cities choose the Mack? Likely because the buses enjoyed the same “tough” reputation as the company’s trucks…
While most associated with its truck line, Mack also built buses from its earliest days – in fact, the company’s first model produced in 1900 was a 20 passenger surrey-type bus.
Motor coaches were in the company’s DNA and a key part of its product line. From 1900 until just prior to WW II, Mack produced approximately 55,000 vehicles – 42,000 trucks and 13,000 buses.
Post-war, it saw opportunities in the urban transit market as almost every transportation company sought to recapitalize their war-weary fleets. Its first model, introduced in 1946, was the C-41. This was a 96 in wide, 33 ft coach that could carry 41 passengers. These initial 1946 models came only with a gas engine – the Mack 672 cu in (EN-672) inline 6 with a 2-speed Spicer 184 “Turbomatic” torque converter transmission. Model code was C (series) 41 (passenger load) G (gas) T (Spicer torque converter). In the picture above, new C-41-GT’s are headed via railcar from the factory to the Detroit DSR (Detroit Street Railways).
Detroit was one of Mack’s loyal customers and purchased some 332 Mack buses – the last one being retired in 1962.
Operators quickly placed their orders but also wanted a larger model, and in 1947 the 35 ft C-45 answered that need – it also had a new diesel version of the 672 engine (END 672); its model code was C-45-DT.
In 1954, the final version was introduced, the C-49-DT – lengthened to just over 39 ft . The front end was given a refresh, with the “Mack” script being replaced by the trademark “Bulldog” symbol. In 1953, an updated version of the diesel engine was also made available; the END 673, which was the initial model of the long-running “Thermodyne” brand.
In 1958, the bus was treated to a new front end – larger front windows, dual headlights and a somewhat “frowning” lower fascia – similar in style to the MV-620-D.
There were overseas sales also – here is a smaller C-39 version being operated in Ghent Belgium in the mid-1950’s.
Mack’s bus sales reached a peak during the immediate post-war period, then began a continual downward slide. In 1960, the company realized it could make much better use of its production facilities to assemble its in-demand trucks. So after 60 years, Mack left the bus business.
Mack C-49-DT (left) and GM Old Look (right)
What were some of the reasons Mack failed in the bus market, while at the same time being extremely successful with its truck line? Well, once again, it all comes down to cost. As with their trucks, Mack buses enjoyed a reputation for being extremely durable and “tough”. Rather than using semi-monocoque construction like GM, Mack buses used a separate body on frame design – with that frame being extremely robust (and heavy) – in fact, it was given the marketing moniker “Fortress Frame”. As a comparison, a diesel-powered GM TDH-4507 with the 426 cu in 6-71 engine weighed 17,850 lbs., while a Mack C-45-DT with the 632 cu in engine was significantly heavier at 20,260 lbs. Given their greater weight and larger engine, they were just more expensive to operate.
But as previously mentioned, some operators were extremely loyal to the brand – the most loyal being perhaps New York’s MTA, at that time named NYCTA (City Transport Authority). NYCTA had been a buyer of Mack’s both before and after WW II – 800 prior to 1939, and over 1300 from 1947 to 1956. That loyalty was not surprising given the Mack Bros. established the company and its first factory in Brooklyn, before subsequently moving to Allentown PA in 1907.
Thanks to the forward-thinking folks at New York’s MTA, you can still experience riding in a Mack. No. 6259 is a beautifully restored C-49-DT that is part of MTA’s historical fleet – it is brought out on holidays and special occasions – I hope to be lucky enough to catch a ride someday…
Fantastic coaches with that great Mack Thermodyne diesel exhaust note. Also built under license in Sweden by Scania-Vabis in a right hand drive version.
We had a few Scania-Vabis buses imported to Israel, more or less for evaluation purposes, as the co-op which bought them (Egged) only had experience with either conventional (various manufacturers), front- (Chausson) or mid-engined (Leyland Cub and Royal Tiger) buses at the time. They did not last more than 10-12 years in service and then sold off to scrap or to people needing them for storage or as living quarters/restaurant etc. I have a feeling one survived and was repurchased by Egged for preservation but nothing has happened so far. Strangely, although there were Mack buses in Israel, most were conventional E-Series school bus or truck chassis, and the only rear-engined Mack we had was an Israeli development by Mack Ashdod. Scania returned to the market with the V8 145 which was not a success either; in recent years it sold a few more buses including ones from its Chinese factory.
The picture below is of of a Swedish Scania-Vabis Mack Metropol used as living quarters somewhere up in the Golan Heights.
This bus looks like a Capitol rather than a Metropol; the windows differed between the two types. Do you know if these buses were imported new or were they second-hand from Sweden? Most of the Swedish ones were right-hand-drive and withdrawn when Sweden changed the rule of the road in 1967 but some were rebuilt to left-hand-drive and ran until around 1980.
Very belated response: yes, they were all newly built (they were imported before Sweden changed to LHD in any case).
Some more, from Egged’s FB’s page…
… and upon arrival in Israel…
Cool beans, T.!
Weren’t transit buses one of GM’s most worrisome flash points when they had a legitimate fear of getting trustbusted?
It certainly was – GM’s dominance of the urban transit and intercity coach market in the 50’s led the US Govt to file anti-trust action in 1956 – which concluded in 1958 with GM being forced to allow other manufacturers to purchase its proprietary 2 stroke diesel and Allison transmission. Jim.
See also 1956 Mack ADS-1 ”Dream Bus”. This one never advanced beyond the prototype stage. It was the work of famed designer Count Alexis de Sakhnoffsky.
Eventually sold and put into service at first with Schenectady Transportation Corporation in New York and later with ABC Bus Lines of Providence, Rhode Island, it met an unfortunate fate in 1971 in a catastrophic fire at ABC’s North Attleboro, Massachusetts garage.
A couple more views. Dig the enormous wide whitewalls in this pic….
..and from the rear…
Thanks Gene – I was unaware of this one – I’ll have to do a little research on it just for my own info. Jim
You’re very welcome, Jim.
Seattle Transit, never a Mack user, first attempted to purchase trolley buses in 1943 but Mack informed the company that it couldn’t build them soon enough and Twins were purchased instead.
Later, in 1954, five c-49 demonstrators joined five GM 5105’s and five Flxible 40PTB’s. Seattle Transit eventually purchased 100 5105’s including the five demonstrators along with the five Flxibles. The Macks were kept at a division unused and then sold to an Ohio property.
I later went to work for that transit system and I asked some of the senior people why the Macks were not purchased… The reply was always that they were “too slow”. I wondered if that had to do with the bus’es heavier build, combined with Seattle’s hilly terrain. However, San Francisco is equally hilly and hundreds of Macks ran in that town for many years.
I rode one of the Mack demos once, the only time that I’ve ever ridden one. I do recall seeing a number of them in Portland, Oregon in the early 1960’s. They looked to be a late 1940’s version. They didn’t sound too healthy and smoked a lot. Probably nearing the end of their service lives.
I later went to work for that transit system and I asked some of the senior people why the Macks were not purchased… The reply was always that they were “too slow.”
THAT would be a real feat, as EVERYONE in Seattle drives too slowly. I spent two years living in Lynnwood and commuting to Capitol Hill five days a week – probably half of that time stuck in 30mph traffic on I-5 or sitting at the unsynchronized lights on Denny Way. :/
San Francisco Municipal Railway had problems with Macks on steep hills. On the steepest hills, Muni used trolley coaches. In the Mack era, it had an extensive fleet of trolley coaches…Marmon-Herrington, Twin Coach, and St. Louis Car.
One diesel-operated line with a short few blocks of steep hills: the 55-Sacramento. Macks struggled. On the stepest block, between Grant Avenue and Stockton Street, they would often stall when carrying a full load with standees. Passengers would have to get off…at least some of them…and walk to the stop at the top of that block, then reboard. Those who think that today’s “me-first” Millennials are a new phenomenon, think again!
On occasion, street repair work or overhead wire repair would disrupt Muni trolley coach routes and diesels would be substituted. On the 41-Union line, which was afffected by such work for months, the steepest hill was inbound, from Polk Street to Larkin Street. Despite a running start across Polk Street at the bottom of the hill, the Macks would slow to a crawl during the one-block climb. My brother and I would run up the hill, racing the Macks. We would win, much to the amusement of passengers watching us. This was during the transition to Muni’s GM Fishbowls, which were assigned to primary use with the Macks as secondary, which was why the Macks wound up on this route. Occasionally a GM would show up. As on Sacramento Street, with their eight-cylinder Detroit Diesel engines, they’d make the climb up Union Street easily.
Muni’s Macks were in two basic versions differentiated by their transmissions. The 2100-2300 classes had two-speed transmissions that made theit 1-2 shift at closed throttle. The 2400-2500 class shifted 1-2 smoothly and, with more Muni express routes on freeways, had an overdrive that permitted them to run at higher speed. The 2400-2500 class also had a one-piece rear window, while earlier ones were two-piece.
For the 39-Coit route with its tight curves, Muni would cut superannuated motor coaches in two, remove sections, and weld them back together into a shortie coach. They would do two, so there would be a spare, and the result would be a newly rebuilt bus of the prior Muni generation. In the Mack era the 39-Coit was served by shortie White gasoline coaches. In the GM Fishbowl years, shortened Macks did the honors. This practice ended when Muni purchased three new, short Orion coaches for the route. One shortened White has been fully restored and is operational in Muni’s historic bus fleet, which includes other Muni coaches including Macks.
By the mid/late 1960s the Muni fleet was looking old while other cities were re-equipping with new Fishbowls and Flxibles. The City wanted to float a bond issue to purchase an all-new fleet but it failed at the polls. What ultimately doomed the Macks was financing…the entire fleet was leased and the lease ran out. The cost of lease renewal and of maintaining a fleet of obsolescent vehicles no longer in production was too much. Muni acquired hundreds of GM Fishbowls, plus ten Flxibles. Replacement of trolley coahes, which last far longer than diesels, came a few years later.
Thank you for the low-down on SF’s MUNI Macks. The top photo is one of them on Market Street. That explains why of all the vintage retro coaches that Muni runs today, none of them are Macks.
Actually I just went to the Muni bus festival last weekend and one of the coaches they were giving rides on was a Mack.
G. Poon, do you know exactly when SF Muni stopped using the Macks? That lead picture of the Shopper Shuttle downtown looks like it could be late ’60’s or early ’70’s; I went to school in SF from ’69-73 and the Mack looks like a familiar shape, though I assumed all the “old” Muni buses were “old-look” GM’s in that era. I certainly remember the phenomenon of the driver asking passengers to get of the bus in the Berkeley hills, in the mid-’60’s with “old-look” GM coaches; the “new-look” buses could handle the hills much better.
The best guess I have would be the early 1970s. By 1971 all the GM Fishbowls were delivered and the Macks didn’t last much past that, except for the two “shorties” on the 39-Coit line. They probably ran into the mid-1980s.
Muni bought at least three Macks off the lease. Two, the 2359 and 2617, were the ones that were shortened and the 2622 is preserved in Muni’s historic fleet, though it needs some work in order to be able to run. “Shorty” 2617 was sold to a private collector.
In HS and City College in SF, I would normally ride the 36. Regular runs were Macks, and around 1968 (-ish?) the fishbowl GMs started appearing. The school tripper runs, though, were mostly the old Whites, even after the fishbowls had mostly taken over the normal runs. IIRC Muni had some Macks (as used, for instance, on the 34) that were geared lower for the hills – top speed maybe 35 mph, while the normal Macks could reach 45 or so and a few used on the freeway runs could reach 50-55. In SF, speeds above those really weren’t needed in most places.
Even the GMs struggled a bit on some hills. The 24 was eventually wired for trolley buses to deal with that on Castro Street, for instance. And the old line about the passengers having to walk up the hill with the bus following came back in later years, with, iirc, the AM Generals.
G. Poon, good rendition of the Mack bus era in San Francisco.
I grew up in SF in the 50’s and 60’s and would ride the Miracle Mile, 5 cent shuttle (“shoppers shuttle”–Mack buses), full route, just to kill some time during summer vacation. This was the Mission St. Shoppers Shuttle. Another one ran in the Downtown/Civic Center area of the City, I recall.
I became friendly with a few bus drivers on the route–they’d let me ride for free after awhile.
I can clearly remember the two types of transmissions by the sound when they shifted. One would have the engine come off power to idle and shift, the other would shift under power. Also, the models with split and the single rear window differentiated the type of engine/model, I believe.
I believe the Macks had power steering, as I recall the drivers having no trouble turning the steering wheels to get around a corner.
I’m a fan of vintage buses, particularly intra- and intercity coaches and support the Pacific Bus Museum located in Fremont, Ca.
I missed the Mack era, although undoubtedly must have seen them when in NYC in 1960 and 1964. That 1958 front end restyle is interesting; they obviously knew GM was coming out with its New Look buses the following year.
Like Gene Herman noted, story didn’t end here. Lets go to Sweden where Scania-Vabis Metropol and Capitol once roamed. Metropol was manuafctured from 1953 to 1955 and was 12,10 meters long and 2,45 m wide passangers sitting 48 and standing 32. Engine was Scania-Vabis D821 staight-8 180 hp
Capitol was built from 1955 to 1964, it was horter and narrower: length 10,5 m width 2,36 m, passangers sitting 34 and standing 32. Engine Scania-Vabis D10 six165 hp
https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/36962-scania-remembers-the-mack-scania-c50-metropol/
http://www.tugboatlars.se/ScaniaVabisMetropol.htm
Thanks for the links Tapani – very interesting – was unaware of this international connection. Jim.
Good information from all of you on Mack buses. I grew up in New York City. We rode Mack buses in Manhattan and The Bronx. Buses for New York City are 102″ wide, which makes them 6″ wider than the legal limit. Only for New York City are these made as far as I know. The Mack buses were comfortable and I remember many of them equipped with air suspension. I also remember being on one when one of the rear airbags gave way. We listed but we rode. I now live in Rockland County about nine miles north of the New Jersey border and a mile west of the Hudson River. We have plenty of hills. Some thirty-odd years ago a GM bus “old look” that was restored was trying to climb a hill northbound on Route 9W in Upper Nyack, NY. it was powered by a GM 4-71 naturally aspirated (yes, Rootes blower) and just coughed and wheezed and coughed and wheezed to make the 5% grade. I was behind this darling whipping along at 5 MPH. As for the mention of the Mack intercity bus that did not make it to market, is it the one whose picture I have attached? I saw one of these on The New Jersey Turnpike barreling along many years ago. I just looked and looked. While not steeped in buses, I have sold school bus chassis in my day and always look at transit buses. Okay, other people look at open blouses. I look at trucks and buses and old cars. When Cummins was touting their VTB-903 bus engine in 1979, I was avidly promoting it to properties.
New York City buses have been 102 inches since late 1959, but prior to late 1959, the legal width limit in NYS was 96″. All of the private buses were 96″, and, except for the 4510s (bought under home rule) all of the City-owned buses before the Fishie era were 96″, including the 2 big Mack orders for the City, the 400 C-50-DT, which only made it 10 years in NYC(some properties, such as TTC, SLPS, and Twin Cities Rapid Transit knew how to take care of buses, with some TTC C-50s serving into the 1970s(, and the C-49 order in 1956…those only ran 13 years under NYCTA.
Why did NYC retire the 1956 C-49’s after only 13 years? Seems like a waste.
Here’s another “Fishbowl-look” imitation on a Mack, done with black paint under the existing windshield when the bus was repainted into the new Alameda-Contra Costa Transit colors from the Key System yellow-and-green. This bus was purchased by county-owned AC Transit from its privately-owned predecessor, Key System. The sixty-one buses in this class, 1947-built Mack C-41-GT, were the last gasoline-powered coaches operated by AC Transit.
AC Transit archive photo.
Thanks for the additional Muni and AC Transit updates. I probably spent more time in AC and Muni buses between the ages of 6 and 16, at least in weekdays during the school year, than in cars. Some of their sounds, smell (mostly GM diesel smoke, before the vertically routed exhausts) and feel (hard smooth leatherette seats, crashing suspension over city potholes and scary floating on freeway downhills at full throttle) are ingrained in my memories. But other than the GM fishbowl, I don’t remember anything about makes and models.
Looking at this picture, I don’t see anything that even remotely resembles a GMC New Look, or “Fishbowl” coach. Am I missing something here? It actually resembles more closely the GMC Old Look coach that was prevalent before the introduction of the Fishbowl in 1959.
I learned a lot from today’s contribution, as will all the Bus Stop Classics; it makes me realize how little attention I’ve paid to make & model over the past 50+ years. From Mack’s 1955 Annual Report, here’s the state of prospects for their bus line:
There is a very interesting point made in that Mack annual report, about the transit bus industry and financing. In 1955, most city transit agencies were private companies, and there wasn’t any local/state/federal subsidies to speak of. As a result, most of these organizations were somewhat shaky from a financial standpoint. This did indeed made it hard for transit companies to secure capital for equipment purchases, and in turn this had a negative effect on the bus manufacturers. Except for one.
As good as the Mack transit buses were, GM’s transits were well made, well engineered, and the most innovative in the industry. GM was the first to offer perfected monocoque construction, diesel engines, automatic transmissions, tranverse rear engines with V-drive, and air suspension. Those factors alone would have done much to insure GM a dominant position in the business, but GM had something of a secret weapon that was not readily apparent: GMAC. Since GM could provide financing for it’s transit bus customers, even marginal transit operations found they could buy GM buses at favorable terms when banks wanted nothing to do with them. This essentially forced these properties into GM products and in the process had a detrimental effect Mack, Twin-Coach, and White transit bus sales. If there was any question as to why GM had such a large share of the transit bus market in the late 50’s, the answer was simply a better product with readily available financing. GM didn’t much care who they sold their buses to, if they had to reposes the coaches there were plenty of other customers to sell them to. And in any event that very rarely happened.
When GM was investigated for being a monopoly in bus manufacturing, one aspect of the consent decree GM agreed to was to provide GMAC financing to other bus manufacturers.
Here in Los Angeles there is a certain urban myth that GM, Mack, Standard Oil, and Firestone Tire all conspired to run the quaint and beloved streetcar companies out of business. There was some elements of truth in the tale, but the fact is those streetcar agencies were marginal operations that had begun transitioning to bus operations as far back as the mid-30’s due to the significantly lower operating costs of buses over streetcars. I think GM saw the demise of the streetcar a foregone conclusion and vigorously tried to earn a significant portion of the replacement transit bus business.
Interesting point about financing.
The transit system I drove for was also privately owned until the late 70’s. We didn’t run Macks, but had a fleet of old look GMs from the 40’s & 50s.
The speedometers in most of the busses had retired long ago, so mileage was tracked by route. We drivers had to record our bus number on our daily trip sheets.
In a hurry to leave work for other weekend activities one Friday, I neglected to fill in the bus number on my trip sheet. The following Monday, I was called to the office and questioned as to what bus I had used on Friday.
Back in younger days, it wasn’t unknown to down more than a few drinks over the weekend. Mondays could be a blur and I couldn’t immediately recall the bus I drove that day.
I asked our office manager if it made any real difference as to the bus number I wrote down. He explained that to conserve cash, the company switched from buying tires to leasing tires from General Tire. Some busses still had company owned tires. Other busses had leased tires. He had to keep track of mileage on the busses with leased tires to generate the proper monthly payment.
First time I had ever heard of tire leasing. It pretty much summed up the financial straits privately owned bus companies were in by that time. When I graduated college in 1976, my part time bus driving career ended. Two years later, the bus company had to be taken over by the city to avoid ending service.
Here in Uruguay we had C 41’s which were purchased by the city transit authority about 1948. Nearly every piece of equipment owned by them was operated in a careless way, maintenance neglected and sometimes even intentionally damaged. Macks as tough as they were, had no better luck and within a few years nearly all of them were withdrawn from service. But their excellent build payed off, not to the city transit authority that over the years would do nothing more than wasting their resources (needless to say, to the expense of taxpayers). Such was the case, the other large city bus company (CUTCSA, privately owned) purchased the C 41’s and put their bodies on new Leyland rolling chassis about 1968/69. The result, solid and reliable service for another 30 years!! I remember very well riding on those Anglo-American buses, the company used to build their own bodies and the C 41’s were registered as locally built bodyworks, they even had a tin badge which read so. I was not aware of their real origin so it seemed strange to see interior fittings which looked so different and felt higher quality compared to home built bus bodies. Even window glasses were of the laminated type, these were marked “PPG Duolite”. The same markings were on the windows of my grandfather 53 Plymouth Cambridge, so I had to conclude that at least some parts of those buses were American. I did not know that nearly all the bodywork was…..in the end, they were much more successful in the hands of CUTCSA as bus bodies than in the hands of their original purchasers….
The picture is not really good, but it shows the result of that recycling effort….
Interesting stuff; I was surprised to see a US bus in Europe in the 1950s.
I just discovered this site and it’s great. Reading this thread on Mack buses, I didn’t see any discussion of the smaller CW buses. I have a 1939 CW that I hope to restore one day but it’s looking pretty sad. Amazing that it’s still in one piece after sitting in the northern woods for 60 years. Attached photo is of a similar model in service with Fort William Transit, Ontario, Canada.
I grew up in Buffalo, NY in the early 1950’s and we had twins and Macks. I loved the twins and would wait for one and let the Macks pass. We would go to Toronto often as my mother’s family were all there and they had twins there along with Flyers. They had Macks in Sweden made by Scania-Vabis but they also had twins in The Netherlands operated by Maarse & Kroon. Also, they had PCC streetcars there that ran between Rotterdam and The Hague. They were very narrow to thread the narrow streets but they appeared to be full length at 47′ 9″.
Love that ‘in action’ lead photo. Over static publicity shots.
I actually like the design better, than the GM ‘old look’ buses.
The appearance of the body sitting further ahead on the chassis, with less rear overhang, really cleverly lends a Mack ‘bulldog’ look to its stance. Deserved to succeed.
Something about these busses looked very familiar so I did a little digging. Sure enough, they were the ones in service in Saint John, New Brunswick during the 1950’s and early 60’s. We lived just outside the city and the bus took my father to and from work for several years, as well as the family for shopping trips on the weekends and us kids to the occasional movie. We were allowed to take the bus the nine miles into town by ourselves from the age of nine or ten – a different era.
The bus company was SMT which stood for Southern Maritime Transportation, but the more popular version was ‘Smells Mighty Terrible’ (I’m pretty sure they were the diesel versions).
I found this picture of a typically foggy Saint John day, probably taken some time in the 1960’s (the ‘new’ Canadian flag is visible in the background). The ‘Fairvale’ bus in the picture is the one that went past our house.
https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/alltime/pics/saintjohn-SMT3223gmol2-luke.jpg
That is a great memory, and photo! Also, very reminiscent of the smoke-filled air filling much of Canada the past month!
Oops…having looked a little more closely at the side-by-side shots of the Mack and ‘old look’ GM busses in the posting, I think the Saint John busses were actually GM’s. The severely canted windshield on the door side, and the front overhead air intake, give it away.
Sorry CCers. 🙂
Where’s the “pic” of the municipal buses “Fred Flintstone”, and “Barney Rubble” used to run to catch??
Now they’re a “page right out of history”!
I grew up in Buffalo, NY with many weekends spent in Toronto, Ontario as my mother’s family were all there. Buffalo had both Twins and Macks but no GM’s at the time (prior to 1952) and I liked the Twins more than the Macks and would wait for a Twin letting the Macks all pass. In Toronto, all I remember was the Twins which I rarely relied on preferring the PCC’s on streetcar lines. I was there when Buffalo went from IRC (International Railway Co.) to NFT (Niagara Frontier Transit). I don’t recall if the Twins were gas or propane like Chicago’s Twins. I was not aware of there were ever any Twin diesels.