Read about the Great Fleets Across America
Subscribe

School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums
School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Professional Garage
 Enter Forum: Professional Garage
 92 thomas ford
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

87bluebirdtransit
Active Member

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2004 :  10:07:20 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Was the 92 thomas ford a piece of junk it seems like all the school disricts are selling them or not using them what the problem.

ModMech
Top Member

USA
948 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2004 :  10:55:41 AM  Show Profile  Visit ModMech's Homepage  Reply with Quote
They are now 12 years old. 10 years in rout service and 2 as charter/spares is a very common routine.

If you want customer service, you NEED an International!
Go to Top of Page

thomas86_a
Top Member

USA
4407 Posts

Posted - 07/15/2004 :  1:47:09 PM  Show Profile  Visit thomas86_a's Homepage  Send thomas86_a an AOL message  Reply with Quote
The Ford chassis was a pretty good chassis and the Thomas Built bodies seem to hold up pretty well. Our oldest bus now is a 93 Thomas/International, there is districts in Michigan with buses from the late 80's yet but there are also quite a few who have been retiring their 94-95 models in the last year. Many things go into when a bus is retired, the condition of the roads it drives on, the amount of miles it has on it, and how well it was taken care of.

If you have an International, you NEED customer service.
Go to Top of Page

Thomasfan89
Top Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 07/16/2004 :  12:45:43 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Answer- NOT AT ALL!!!! Fords hold up just as well as the rest of them! Our 1992s are still running arround and going strong (these are on Carpenter bodies though).The Thomas body should be relativly trouble free. Thomas holds up the best here. Depending on who is selling these and your location, a 1992 model might be considered "old". Some contractors don't like buses hanging arround much after they reach double digit age, and some districts are the same way. My guess is age. Hmm I might be interested in buying some . BTW a 1992 in Ohio is just a spring chicken yet
Greg
Go to Top of Page

Thomasbus24
Administrator

USA
3280 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2004 :  06:07:33 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Thomasfan89

BTW a 1992 in Ohio is just a spring chicken yet
Greg



*nods in agreement, gets in 20 year old bus and drives away*
Go to Top of Page

92FrdCarp#11
Top Member

USA
1455 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2004 :  12:49:17 PM  Show Profile  Visit 92FrdCarp#11's Homepage  Send 92FrdCarp#11 an AOL message  Click to see 92FrdCarp#11's MSN Messenger address  Send 92FrdCarp#11 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
My county still has 1990 Wayne IHCs in service as spare buses. They also have a few '92 Carpenter Fords as spares (1 of them being my old bus).

Johnny

Go to Top of Page

Thomasfan89
Top Member

USA
1142 Posts

Posted - 07/17/2004 :  6:17:59 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
*nods in agreement, gets in 20 year old bus and drives away*

And 20 years old is no joke either, my school has a small fleet and we are just now getting rid of our 1984 Thomas International. My district is still running their 1987 Carpenter IHCs which were all rebuilt by the mechanics and due to budget cuts, they arent going ANYWHERE!
Go to Top of Page

GMCBlueBird83
Top Member

USA
1478 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2004 :  10:22:05 AM  Show Profile  Visit GMCBlueBird83's Homepage  Send GMCBlueBird83 an AOL message  Send GMCBlueBird83 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 87bluebirdtransit

Was the 92 thomas ford a piece of junk it seems like all the school disricts are selling them or not using them what the problem.



Like others said, age or perceived age probably has more to do with than anything. But not everybody gets rid of the oldies.

A contractor near my old home town in New York still has many older Thomas Fords in service. One bus in particular, #49, is a mid 1980s model with an 8.2 liter Detroit diesel is still around. That very bus did a route in my neighborhood in the mid-late '80s and its nice to still see it on the road and in excellent shape.

They also have plenty of early to mid- 1990s models around as well.
So I'd have to say the Thomas/Ford combo is a good one.
Go to Top of Page

Buskid
Top Member

USA
3368 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2004 :  10:49:17 AM  Show Profile  Visit Buskid's Homepage  Reply with Quote
My "home" school district has a 12-year turn around on their buses. After 12 years, the buses are retired and replaced with brand new buses. The school district keeps some of the retired buses for a few months to be used as spares, but they get traded-in not too long after the others (usually a couple months after). The most recent buses retired this past school year were 1992 and 1993 Blue Bird All American REs.

As for Thomas Fords being junk, I don't think so. The school district that my friend works for still uses 1990 Thomas Fords on regular routes. It's a smaller school district that only purchases 1-2 new buses each year, but those buses seem to be fine. The worst problem I remember one having this past school year was the air compressor quitting, and that really isn't even a Ford-related problem.

Anyway, I'd venture to guess that a lot of the 1992 Thomas Fords that are for sale right now are for sale because they've been in service for 12 years.
Go to Top of Page

Thomas Ford 85-16
Top Member

USA
4164 Posts

Posted - 07/18/2004 :  4:20:10 PM  Show Profile  Visit Thomas Ford 85-16's Homepage  Send Thomas Ford 85-16 an AOL message  Reply with Quote
Thomas Fords are a great combination... It's age, I'm sure. Certainly there will be a few lemons here and there, for any manufacturer, but for so many to be out there and no recall, it's most likely because they're 12 years old now.

Mike's Bus Yard - http://buses.zwebpages.com - Since 1999
Go to Top of Page

RD9000
Senior Member

72 Posts

Posted - 09/20/2012 :  2:39:33 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've only heard of a few issues with the Ford's of the 80's and 90's. One would be a couple of the engine choices- the 8.2 Detroit was a less than desirable engine (many ads selling vehicles with them installed will include a mention of a rebuild due to head gaskets), Ford's 185hp I believe 7.6 liter straight 6 diesel option was actually a tractor engine they produced in Brazil that can be difficult to find parts for rebuilding, and I have heard that some of the brake systems were a little less than loved by mechanics. I love them for around town. They drove like tanks. The mechanical throttle pedal would give your ankles and calves a workout! I'm a big Ford fan, and I liked their classic look.
Go to Top of Page

78fordwayne
Top Member

USA
2868 Posts

Posted - 09/21/2012 :  10:46:52 AM  Show Profile  Visit 78fordwayne's Homepage  Send 78fordwayne an AOL message  Send 78fordwayne a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
8 years later ? People who post these topics arent even looking at this web site anymore.
Go to Top of Page

08 Thomas EF
Top Member

526 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2012 :  12:09:17 PM  Show Profile  Visit 08 Thomas EF's Homepage  Reply with Quote
I'm actually surprised nobody mentioned the Lucas Girling brakes above.
Go to Top of Page

RD9000
Senior Member

72 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2012 :  1:26:53 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That was the name of that brake system! I didn't actually realize that it was that old of a post, but I think any interesting topic concerning buses is worth dicussing anytime ;) Some of the buses in the first district I drove for were 89-91 Ford/Wayne combos. I enjoyed driving them on routes. Those air brakes would lock up if you weren't too gentle! My route bus ended up being a '94 Blue Bird/Interational combo.
Go to Top of Page

Tatum
Top Member

United States
605 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2012 :  9:46:51 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by RD9000
One would be a couple of the engine choices- the 8.2 Detroit was a less than desirable engine (many ads selling vehicles with them installed will include a mention of a rebuild due to head gaskets).



This is funny. 8.2's were great engines, very fuel efficient compared to others.

Go to Top of Page

Tatum
Top Member

United States
605 Posts

Posted - 09/28/2012 :  9:49:11 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by RD9000
One would be a couple of the engine choices- the 8.2 Detroit was a less than desirable engine (many ads selling vehicles with them installed will include a mention of a rebuild due to head gaskets).



This is funny. 8.2's were great engines, very fuel efficient compared to others.

Go to Top of Page

bwest
Administrator

United States
2224 Posts

Posted - 10/01/2012 :  05:33:14 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tatum

quote:
Originally posted by RD9000
One would be a couple of the engine choices- the 8.2 Detroit was a less than desirable engine (many ads selling vehicles with them installed will include a mention of a rebuild due to head gaskets).



This is funny. 8.2's were great engines, very fuel efficient compared to others.





Except they didn't warm up, the engine wouldn't stay at the same RPM when holding it with a throttle cable, you couldn't hold them at a steady highway speed unless it was hitting the governor, they were hard as H to work on, & they didn't have any power. But other than that, they were a good engine.

Oh yeah, I love Ford but these old buses were just junk compared to a Chevy chassis. The brakes were troublesome at best, the things road like a log wagon, and the front end looked like it was going to fall off at any minute. LOL

Bryan

Edited by - bwest on 10/01/2012 05:36:28 AM
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
 


School Bus Fleet Magazine Forums © 2013 School Bus Fleet Magazine Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.33 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000