| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Buskid
Top Member
USA
3368 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2002 : 7:06:12 PM
|
I know that we've talked about this engine before on here, but I'm just wondering what those of you who have experience with them think about them. How are they from a reliability and maintenance standpoint? Are there any common problems associated with them? How do they compare to the other diesel engines that were manufactured around the same time (Cat 3208, 671 Detroit Diesel, other Cummins models, etc.)?
I've only been in one bus with a Cummins 555. It had some other mechanical issues, so I couldn't get a good feel for how the engine really was. I've heard both good and bad things about the engines before -- but I've been given the impression that most people don't like the triple nickel.
Any thoughts from those of you with years of mechanical experience would be helpful. 
Crown Supercoach - The “Royalty” of Pupil Transportation |
|
|
Doug
Active Member
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2002 : 9:40:30 PM
|
I myself think the triple nickle is a boat anchor . It's big and underpowered . I don't think they are as reliable as a 3208 or a DT
|
 |
|
|
Doug
Active Member
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2002 : 9:40:41 PM
|
I myself think the triple nickle is a boat anchor . It's big and underpowered . I don't think they are as reliable as a 3208 or a DT
|
|
|
|
Buskid
Top Member
USA
3368 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2002 : 04:18:02 AM
|
Doug, thank-you for replying to my message. Someone I know told me most people refer to it as a "throw away" type of engine — I guess it's not worth rebuilding once something goes wrong. 
I've also heard from others that it was underpowered. Even though I'll probably never own anything with a triple nickel, I still wanted to learn more about the engine itself and the typical problems associated with it.
Crown Supercoach - The “Royalty” of Pupil Transportation |
|
|
|
wagonmaster
Top Member
USA
2298 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2002 : 04:23:36 AM
|
Doug has it about right, they would make a good anchor! They have reliability problems, they aren't cheap to operate when they are running and power always seemed to be an issue with drivers that had them in the fleet I was in at that time. They are noisey, they smoke excessively and they are prone to exhaust leaks and turbo boost pressure leaks, when so equipped. I seem to recall that they flunked the emissions tests very early when that process was just beginning.
There is no comparison between this engine and the Detroit 6-71, DT466, or even the 8.2 Detroit. The 6-71 isn't really a true medium duty engine and was used in light weight heavy duty applications. When the 555 was in production, the truck manufacturers were just discovering the medium duty truck and bus market. The engine mfgs. didn't really begin to gear up for it for a few more years, yet.
Joe
Edited by - wagonmaster on 11/14/2002 04:27:56 AM |
|
|
|
Buskid
Top Member
USA
3368 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2002 : 04:42:12 AM
|
quote:
Doug has it about right, they would make a good anchor! They have reliability problems, they aren't cheap to operate when they are running and power always seemed to be an issue with drivers that had them in the fleet I was in at that time. They are noisey, they smoke excessively and they are prone to exhaust leaks and turbo boost pressure leaks, when so equipped. I seem to recall that they flunked the emissions tests very early when that process was just beginning.
Just the person I wanted to hear from.
Thanks, Joe. I figured you'd have something to say about the engine. What prompted my asking is I've seen an influx of older school buses and other vehicles for sale lately with the Cummins 555 in them.
I've owned vehicles with the Cummins 220, 250, 262, 365 and V-8 903 — I still have the V-8 903. I also used to drive a bus at work with a Cummins 300. But the only experience I've had with the Cummins 555 was in an old Gillig that I was fiddling around with a couple years ago. The school district was giving the bus away, and the TD had me go out to see if the bus (along with the other 4 that were being given away) still ran. The one with the 555 had a misfiring cylinder, so that was a smokey mess from the start.
What made me question the engine further is the fact that I've seen many 555D series Gilligs that no longer have the 555s in them. Most were re-powered to Caterpillars it seems. Seeing that gives me the idea that the Cummins 555 didn't hold up too well.
Anyway, thanks for confirming my beliefs about the engine. I think I'll just stick to what I know when it comes to buying older vehicles.
Crown Supercoach - The “Royalty” of Pupil Transportation |
|
|
|
wagonmaster
Top Member
USA
2298 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2002 : 10:39:36 AM
|
Glad to be of help. The 903 was originally designed to be a compact engine for generators, pumps and the like. Their relatively light weight made them attractive to freight companies, so they were adapted to trucks. Natural progression took them to buses. We tested a VT-903 unit in 1979 while I was with Trailways. Always vibrated too much in that application (Eagle bus)to be a serious contender to knock off Detroit Diesel, so the project was terminated and both test units were returned to Cummins. We ran them in trucks while I was at Consolidated Freightways for several years, and they were fairly fuel efficient as I recall. Some parts will interchange with the 855 inline 6 cylinder unit. Just a little added info there.
Joe
Edited by - wagonmaster on 11/15/2002 10:40:12 AM |
|
|
|
Buskid
Top Member
USA
3368 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2002 : 10:49:41 AM
|
Hi Joe
The 903 Cummins I have is in a 1956 American LaFrance fire engine. It originally had an ALF "J" series V-12 gasoline engine, but it threw a rod. The fire dept. re-powered it with the Cummins in 1988 or 1989. I've had fairly good luck with it. I like the 671 Detroit Diesel that's in my bus better still, but that's just my personal preference.
Thanks for the additional information. I always find it helpful.
Crown Supercoach - The “Royalty” of Pupil Transportation |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Cummins 555 -- Good, bad?
