| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JoeHEB1
Advanced Member
498 Posts |
|
|
Sherm
Top Member
USA
621 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2017 : 12:47:08 PM
|
| Even if this proved to be a great engine, I'd still be behind all of the diesel customers at an IC dealer when I needed help... |
 |
|
|
second.flood
Top Member
USA
640 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 09:15:39 AM
|
If I were to try gasoline, I'd try this over the Ford.
I prefer low rpm, high torque. |
Edited by - second.flood on 06/15/2017 09:31:58 AM |
|
|
|
torque
Advanced Member
Canada
358 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 09:48:13 AM
|
LOL, you will likely get low RPM, like 0 RPM from the engine if it follows their previous diesel reputation, and the high torque you will get from your leg, while kicking it LOL.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :) JK |
|
|
|
JoeHEB1
Advanced Member
498 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 12:56:37 PM
|
| I would never try another Navistar engine (medium duty). The best Navistar engine IMHO is the 444E, and then EPA killed it. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 1:07:49 PM
|
Navistar doesn't make it boys and girls.
Anybody know anything about PSI? The Ford scares me...see spark plugs blowing out of the heads (or is that all resolved). |
|
|
|
JoeHEB1
Advanced Member
498 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 2:10:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thomasbus24
Navistar doesn't make it boys and girls.
Anybody know anything about PSI? The Ford scares me...see spark plugs blowing out of the heads (or is that all resolved).
Whaaaaaat!!!!! When we say Ford are we talking about the Roush V10? Cuz we have one in our warehouse box truck. |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 2:28:53 PM
|
Same base engine isn't it? Triton V10? Or am I mistaken?
They had an issue with the threads blowing out but again maybe that's resolved now. |
|
|
|
flint1
Senior Member
Canada
74 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 3:51:55 PM
|
| The PSI engine is a rehash of the GM big block. They have the rights to produce them. Should be durable as nails, only issue I've seen with them is rocker arm ball wear. Used to have to babysit 300 of them at an oilsands mine. Extreme abuse and idle time. |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2017 : 5:09:17 PM
|
| Ok that explains why it looks so familiar to me then. |
|
|
|
Kodie
Top Member
United States
2028 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2017 : 06:24:49 AM
|
PSI is a large manufacturer of engines, Navistar has no part in ownership of PSI or the manufacturing process. It's the same type of relationship that you see between Cummins and various manufacturers. The 8.8L engine was engineered from the ground up, using some of the same concepts as the old GM as was mentioned.
I've had the opportunity to drive the 8.8 and found that from a driver's perspective it operates just the same as a diesel bus. The biggest adjustment is not sinking the pedal when it's time to go, because you don't have to. Shift points are nearly identical to that of a 6.7 Cummins, which keeps the RPM's low. If memory serves me right, going 55 I was hovering around 1700RPM matched with an Allison transmission. Comparably, the Vision uses the V10 with a Ford truck transmission, which results in higher operating RPM's.
Some comparisons by spec:
Cummins ISB 6.7L
Rated HP: 240HP @ 2400
@1000 RPM: 107HP
@2000 RPM: 213HP
Rated Torque: 560 ft-lb @ 1600
@1000 RPM: 560 ft-lb
@2000 RPM: 560 ft-lb
PSI 8.8L
Rated HP: 270HP @ 2600
@1000 RPM: 103HP
@2000 RPM: 215HP
Rated Torque: 565 ft-lb @ 1500
@1000 RPM: 540 ft-lb
@2000 RPM: 564 ft-lb
Ford V10 6.8L
Rated HP: 362HP @ 4750, 320HP @ 3900
@1000 RPM: 71HP
@2000 RPM: 160HP
Rated Torque: 457 ft-lb @ 3250, 460 ft-lb @ 3000
@1000 RPM: 375 ft-lb
@2000 RPM: 420 ft-lb
I will be touring the PSI plant within the next couple of weeks which I'm looking forward to. I've heard great things about it.
http://www.psiengines.com/ |
|
|
|
JoeHEB1
Advanced Member
498 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 04:24:46 AM
|
| When I see the name International, I automatically think Navistar. My bad. If PSI is using GM concepts in it's design then it sounds promising. |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 05:31:06 AM
|
| It ran well, sounded great, was more approachable than the engine in the Vision. We've decided to stick with the 6.7 Cummins though. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 07:46:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thomasbus24
It ran well, sounded great, was more approachable than the engine in the Vision. We've decided to stick with the 6.7 Cummins though.
"approachable"? |
Bryan |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 10:17:25 AM
|
Approachable in that I can walk up and put my hand on it without reaching through a mountain of crap. FE Transits = least approachable.
Seems to sit higher and farther forward in the frame rails, but to be fair it's been a couple of months since I last examined a Vision. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 12:48:21 PM
|
| I see |
Bryan |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 1:36:35 PM
|
Question for you, Brian. Does the vision have an in-tank filter? Sales guy says CE does, suggested interval is I think 60,000 miles. Requires tank to be dropped to do the job.
|
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 2:52:31 PM
|
| No, in the fill line. Went to a Thomas class on their propane last year. They have two, one in the fill line and one in the supply line going to the engine. I think the recommended intervals on both BB and Thomas are in the 50k to 60k. I wouldn't be too impressed if the filter is in the tank. That is a major operation! Removing the tank and evacuating it is the worst thing about propane, by far. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
Thomasbus24
Administrator
USA
4544 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2017 : 3:11:52 PM
|
| Thank you. Agreed that in tank seems like a poor idea! |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2017 : 05:21:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thomasbus24
Thank you. Agreed that in tank seems like a poor idea!
Any time! After dealing with the DT problem I like talking about success. lol |
Bryan |
|
|
|
bluebirdvision
Top Member
USA
1081 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2017 : 08:14:15 AM
|
| My last 3 Chevrolet vehicles have had the fuel filter in the tank. (its just a screen) its a dumb idea, especially with the ethanol fuel. I guess they're all doing it now tho. I like to change the external ones yearly. |
Facebook Page: Blue Bird Corporation Fans
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_212311114614&ap=1
|
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2017 : 1:28:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by bluebirdvision
My last 3 Chevrolet vehicles have had the fuel filter in the tank. (its just a screen) its a dumb idea, especially with the ethanol fuel. I guess they're all doing it now tho. I like to change the external ones yearly.
There's one similar inside the propane tank. But, just like on your car, it isn't intended to be changed regularly. It's just a "rock gard" really. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
International-9.0
Advanced Member
USA
459 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2017 : 5:36:26 PM
|
As far as quality and durability...only time will tell. At least International is not MAKING the engine, so maybe it will turn out well.
I really do like the hp and torque ratings that come on this engine. It's really a large advantage to get power and torque at lower rpms. Even if you limit your max hp, you have the torque without winding up to 4,000 rpms. This results in less engine wear, less noise and probably better fuel economy. I think the Ford V10 has something like 300+ hp, but there's no need for that in a school bus. You need low 200s, maybe 250 in heavy applications, and you are set (as long as you have the low end torque to offset the lower peak hp).
Does anybody know the max rpm on the V10 and the 8.8? (not peak hp rating, but redline rpm). Does anybody know the peak hp rating for either engine? |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 06:34:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by International-9.0
As far as quality and durability...only time will tell. At least International is not MAKING the engine, so maybe it will turn out well.
I really do like the hp and torque ratings that come on this engine. It's really a large advantage to get power and torque at lower rpms. Even if you limit your max hp, you have the torque without winding up to 4,000 rpms. This results in less engine wear, less noise and probably better fuel economy. I think the Ford V10 has something like 300+ hp, but there's no need for that in a school bus. You need low 200s, maybe 250 in heavy applications, and you are set (as long as you have the low end torque to offset the lower peak hp).
Does anybody know the max rpm on the V10 and the 8.8? (not peak hp rating, but redline rpm). Does anybody know the peak hp rating for either engine?
If anyone has read my posts they know there's no love lost between me and IC (love my dealer, by the way). However, I wouldn't say that International can't build an engine. Their history proves that they absolutely can build one! I actually think if they were in charge of a propane engine that they could do a good job designing and building one. A propane is so much simplier than a diesel these days. We all know why that is, so I don't need to talk about that here.
RPMs on a V10-- I think red line is 5k. Just an observation, not from specs. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
black
Active Member
USA
49 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 07:05:22 AM
|
We were looking at life cycle cost of the gas engine versus diesel.
One of the questions was engine longevity and we see where Jasper offers a V-10 gas re-man for approximately $3,800.00. We don't see where the 8.8L PSI is even offered as a re-man. Just curious if someone knows if its available and the cost? |
|
|
|
exmod110
Senior Member
150 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 07:33:54 AM
|
| the last seminar I attended the Ford rep said that they had lowered the max operating rpm of the engine, but I cant remember the numbers though. |
|
|
|
JoeHEB1
Advanced Member
498 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 08:14:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by black
We were looking at life cycle cost of the gas engine versus diesel.
One of the questions was engine longevity and we see where Jasper offers a V-10 gas re-man for approximately $3,800.00. We don't see where the 8.8L PSI is even offered as a re-man. Just curious if someone knows if its available and the cost?
It could be that it's too new is why it's not available as a reman. I could be wrong though. |
|
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 09:32:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoeHEB1
quote:
Originally posted by black
We were looking at life cycle cost of the gas engine versus diesel.
One of the questions was engine longevity and we see where Jasper offers a V-10 gas re-man for approximately $3,800.00. We don't see where the 8.8L PSI is even offered as a re-man. Just curious if someone knows if its available and the cost?
It could be that it's too new is why it's not available as a reman. I could be wrong though.
It's not really based off of a current production engine. Ford is producing the V10 for pickups and medium trucks. GM is no longer producing the 8.8. I doubt you'll see a Jasper rebuild. Could be wrong, of course. |
Bryan |
|
|
|
Fastback
Top Member
1500 Posts |
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 1:08:15 PM
|
| ^^ Those are interesting links. Wonder how many units have been sold. That's what's going to get the attention of Jasper or another rebuilder. I've said this before and, after reading the info on the second link, I really hope this engine is all they are saying it is. Looks like a good torque curve and HP. The torque being what gets your attention. Anyone heard what kind of fuel mileage they are getting in a bus? |
Bryan |
|
|
|
International-9.0
Advanced Member
USA
459 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2017 : 5:08:39 PM
|
As for rebuilds...there might not be enough demand yet to see them available at Jasper or elsewhere. If the engine catches on, you will definitely see available options in the future. I'm sure the re-builders are just watching to see what rolls out. No point in investing in something that ends up not catching on or doing well.
I agree with Bryan that International CAN build a good engine. Look at their diesels from the 80s and early 90s. Even the 444s weren't bad compared to all the newer stuff (although not as good as the mechanical DTs). I think they probably had a bad bout of poor leadership and decision-making that put them in their current boat (that particular boat being a native american water vessel in a river of excrement without a means of propulsion [yes, stole that from BBT]). Perhaps they will turn around in the next 10 years and get back on track.
I think you are currently witnessing a revolution of the gas engine coming back! Exciting times! It will take time, but I think it will start to happen. I really, really like the flat torque curve of the 8.8L. I think that will be a very viable engine design to compete with the diesel and offer significant cost savings on purchase and maintenance. The mileage will be much poorer, but all the other savings will more than likely help to balance that out. The question is how much will the mileage differ. I will admit that big blocks always got terrible fuel mileage in the past, even if they lasted a while and had good low end torque.
These are not the carbureted engines of the 80s with no power and terrible mileage. They won't burn oil like crazy by 80 or 100,000 miles. They have no distributor or vacuum tubes. I imagine these are fully modernized gas engines. I think they will hold up very well over time (or we can hope).
One thing has surprised me though...I'm really, really surprised Ford has not begun to offer one of their Ecoboost engines in a bus. The block would be much smaller and be able to run much lower rpms. The low end torque on those ecoboost engines is very good. I'm sure this will be a possibility in the future.
Are they going to offer the 8.8 in a gasoline version or only propane? |
|
|
|
Fastback
Top Member
1500 Posts |
|
|
bwest
Administrator
United States
3820 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2017 : 08:11:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fastback
quote:
Originally posted by International-9.0
Are they going to offer the 8.8 in a gasoline version or only propane?
Gasoline version was just unveiled at a show in Oklahoma.
http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/722848/ic-bus-displays-gasoline-school-bus-at-oklahoma-show
Humm. Well, two things. One- I'd imagine it's competition from Bird and not exactly customer demand that is driving much of this. Remember, people were saying how crazy they were for putting a gasser back out there. Two- The gas version isn't going to be as cost effective per mile as the propane. Bonus observation here- It will be more cost effective than a Maxxforce DT. lol
Also, quietly, the Cummins engines are taking over the diesel market. Their stock price should be out of this world. How are those engines doing, overall, anyone have an opinion on that? |
Bryan |
|
|
|
aaronwilmoth80911
Top Member
538 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2017 : 08:50:21 AM
|
| The district I work for is interested in at least looking into running gas engines. The diesels are fine on power and efficient in their MPG, the drawback is the emissions problems. It ***** to have a brand new bus at the dealership more than it is out on the road for the first 1-2 years of its life, all due to regen issues. Issues that they can't get figured out. We've had a few that the dealership had to get Cummins engineers involved and they basically loaded the parts cannon and blasted away. With problems like that, its hard to not be tempted to use gassers. |
|
|
|
Fastback
Top Member
1500 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2017 : 08:52:11 AM
|
Our Cummins engines have been great, the SCR aftertreatment systems behind them not so much. Too nervous here to own anymore that are out of warranty.
No reason to try to match Bluebird's gas offering if there isn't customer demand.
Hard to believe but there is a rural school district not all that far from my location that has never operated anything but gasoline powered buses, they are quite pleased to be able to get some new buses in their fleet.
|
Why yes, the ORIGinal CHARGER is a Fastback |
Edited by - Fastback on 06/23/2017 09:01:07 AM |
|
|
|
International-9.0
Advanced Member
USA
459 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2017 : 5:48:18 PM
|
I think gas buses will make a comeback, at least to some degree. Perhaps not the way it was years ago, but I think it has potential. I mean, diesels now probably add a good 20k to the price tag over that of a gasser in the medium duty market...or has to be at least 15k. $15,000 buys alot of gasoline.
As mentioned by others, the diesel engines are made very well now. If maintained, they could last a very long time. The problem with them is the EGR, DFP and SCR systems. I imagine those will somewhat improve over time, but will always be an issue. Not only does it cost more when you purchase the engine...it also costs you going down the road. It's a good thing as the exhaust is nearly harmless now, except for good ol' carbon monoxide. However, it does come at a financial cost and with lots of headaches. These extra costs and headaches serve as an incentive toward gasoline engines.
I don't think gassers or even propane would have a shot if the diesel engines had not become so expensive and so trouble-prone. If they were still making fully mechanical medium duty diesels...there wouldn't be a medium duty gas engine on the road.
For heavy hauling applications, I think you come out better with diesel. For lighter duty and short trips, I think you would come out better with gasoline/propane. It all depends on the use and application of the vehicle.
Cummins has definitely taken a very large share of the medium duty market. I generally hear good things about them, but I do also hear complaints, as well. One of the things somebody told me that they liked was that the water pump was relatively easy to change out, but I suppose that could depend on engine version and model year. I think that the emissions stuff will always be a problem, but will improve with time. The longer they make it, the more improvements that will be integrated.
Perhaps engine design will stabilize since I don't believe there are any new EPA changes for a while. When the standards went up every 3 years, the engines were constantly being redesigned and the bugs never worked out. Think about the VT365 (dodges tomatoes and bottles thrown at him)....if that engine had been kept into production for a good 10 or 15 years, it would probably have been transformed into a half decent engine. I'm sure International knew that it was a transition engine and spent as little as possible on engineering fixes as they were busy perfecting their maxforce engines (or screwing them up, however you view it, hehe). By the end, the 444 was a pretty decent engine. Aside from the troubles of a HEUI system or the cam sensor stuff, it was a pretty robust and reliable engine. Certainly better than what's out there now. |
Edited by - International-9.0 on 06/23/2017 5:49:55 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
PSI 8.8L V8
