| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
mr.thomas
Senior Member
USA
92 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2006 : 8:36:32 PM
|
| what bus brand is cheaper to own and maintain on blue bird or ic ? |
Edited by - mr.thomas on 02/14/2006 11:21:33 AM
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2006 : 8:48:51 PM
|
| In my area, IC's tend to be the cheapest initially. However, in the long run, Blue Bird and Thomas bodies have been much cheaper to maintain. Can't say much about the engines, they aren't bad. The bodies are the issue here. |
|
 |
|
|
IC RE 1629
Top Member
United States
5097 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 04:02:35 AM
|
| I'll agree with Richard. As much as I love IC's, they tend to lack in quality in many ways. In the long run, a BB or Thomas may be the better option. |
|
|
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 07:46:07 AM
|
While I have never seperated body vs chassis repairs, I believe that the expense of body repairs has much to do with how the vehicle is spec'd and wether or not it is operated in the "salt belt".
The vehicles I was responsible for ranged from just over $0.16/mile to a low of $0.095/mile in maintence expenses (oil, filters, tires, brakes, engines, body (heaters, switches, lights etc).
Of those dollars, the most were spent on BRAKES - BY FAR. Anything with hydraulic brakes ran us $0.12/mile or more (average all hyd was $0.138/mile), while those with air were all $0.11 or LESS (average all air was $0.10/mile). Our payback on the air brake upcharge was 55,000 miles, since we ran them to 15 years (or more in some cases) and 300,000 miles, over the life of the vehicle we made money by spending a few thousand more up front.
Next in line was tires. The 11R22.5 virgin tires cost us $0.005/mile steer, and $0.0033/mile drive, this comares very favorabally to the 10R22.5 at $0.011/mile steer, and $0.0067/mile drive.
Fuel varies so much from driver to driver, and route to route that the only cost controls you have a low numbered gears (4.44:1) and 170 HP engines. It takes fuel to make power, restrict the power, and you restrict how much fuel they can burn. At nearly $2.70/gallon, CUT your power ratings as far as you can (safely). We had very good luck overall with the 170-190 HP ratings. 170 HP is MORE than enough in a modern engine and 71 passenger conventional vehicle, 190 is even adequate in the big REs. |
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
|
|
|
BBInt.10
Top Member
USA
1042 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 11:17:04 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ModMech
Fuel varies so much from driver to driver, and route to route that the only cost controls you have a low numbered gears (4.44:1) and 170 HP engines. It takes fuel to make power, restrict the power, and you restrict how much fuel they can burn. At nearly $2.70/gallon, CUT your power ratings as far as you can (safely). We had very good luck overall with the 170-190 HP ratings. 170 HP is MORE than enough in a modern engine and 71 passenger conventional vehicle, 190 is even adequate in the big REs.
I always thought that lower horsepower engines were LESS fuel efficient because they spend more time floored at high RPM's. I drive a 71 passenger bus with a 175 HP engine, and would have to say that I feel it is underpowered. I floor it all the time while I go about 17 mph up hills, and just think to myself that perhaps if I had a higher HP rated engine, I could be going up those hills faster at lower RPM's and burning less fuel. Or at least with a higher HP rated engine, even if you floor it and reach those same high RPM's, you remain at those high RPM's for a much shorter time since you are going faster, resulting in less overall fuel consumption.
-Dave |
If all your problems are behind you... you must be a school bus driver. |
|
|
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 12:01:52 PM
|
I understand why you would think that, but thatis not how it really works.
It takes exactly the same energy to go up that hill wether you have 175 or 275 HP at your foot, the 275 HP engine will do it faster, but burn a LOT more fuel in doing so. If you traveled up that hill at the same speed with either engine, even then the higher HP engine would burn very slightly more fuel. |
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
|
|
|
CornBinder
Active Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 05:25:48 AM
|
Posted - 02/12/2006 : 12:01:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand why you would think that, but thatis not how it really works.
It takes exactly the same energy to go up that hill wether you have 175 or 275 HP at your foot, the 275 HP engine will do it faster, but burn a LOT more fuel in doing so. If you traveled up that hill at the same speed with either engine, even then the higher HP engine would burn very slightly more fuel.
-------------------
Exactly. Most diesel engines are the most fuel efficient at between 85%-95% rated load. So if you are going around all day at max power, you will save fuel, as opposed to a 50%-60% load on a higher HP engine.
Wierd how it works. |
|
|
|
Rich
Top Member
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 08:14:20 AM
|
Interesting, I was also thinking that the greater the horsepower the less fuel consumed since they work at lesser RPMs. But apparently that's not the case, as they say, you learn something new every day.
What it comes down to in my opinion is if you want to go up a hill at 17 or 45 (or whatever the road's speed limit is). I'd rather be at the speed limit than traveling so far below it, risking an accident. Besides, wouldn't less "flooring it" with the higher horsepower engines lead to less wear and tear on the engine in general? |
|
|
|
|
Dravo
Senior Member
USA
93 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 6:31:18 PM
|
There are some companies that can increase power and miles per gallon, by getting the engine to burn fuel more efficiently, and by increasing it's ability to breathe and exhaust better. A good primer is at: dieselinjection.net Click "Bruce's Horsepower and Torque Articles."
Thanks to Mod Mech for those detailed numbers! It shows how meticulous record keeping helps. Can any of those figures be extrapolated by brand name or equipment? |
|
|
|
IC
Top Member
USA
3413 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 7:04:14 PM
|
A bit off topic here, but why is a diesel's fuel economy seemingly unrelated to the load it is carrying? I've noticed this several times in trucks....I helped a buddy out a few weeks ago that needed to pick up freight in New Jersey (they wouldn't rent him the truck, because he doesn't have a CDL). Anyway, it was a tandem axle box truck and we drove it up there empty and returned with about 10 tons on board.
It burned the SAME amount of fuel empty as it did full. I would have thought a motor loafing would burn less fuel than one working hard! |
|
|
|
ModMech
Top Member
USA
948 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 3:08:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dravo
Thanks to Mod Mech for those detailed numbers! It shows how meticulous record keeping helps. Can any of those figures be extrapolated by brand name or equipment?
Thanks for the kind words.
Since most of the body repairs are from damage (cut seats, broken glass, accidents), I never felt that it was a worthwhile to track the body seperately from the chassis.
I will tell you that heater motors mounted vertically have aproximately 1/2 the life-span of those mounted horizontally (thomas), and at $35/unit that adds up.
With a mixed fleet of IC (AmTran), Wayne, Thomas and BB, I honestly do not see more repairs or dollars being spent on one over any other. I am SURE there is a difference, but with the chassis accounting for 90+% of the time and money, I cannot see how body make would really make any difference in the bottom line in terms of repair. |
If you want customer service, you NEED an International! |
|
|
|
92FrdCarp#11
Top Member
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 4:23:39 PM
|
| The Transportation Director for my county told me that Thomases are more expensive to work on than AmTran/IC. |
Johnny
|
|
|
|
baptistbusman
Advanced Member
USA
301 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 5:09:08 PM
|
Hmmm now if you are a church buying used busses, dont mess with anything that rymes with "cummins"
Cheapest for someone like me who deals with buses in their twilight years would have to be a Chevy with a 366 with a Bluebird body and a manual transmission.
The Cummins engines we have all have major issues either pump failurs, scored pistons or blown headgaskets.
I cant see how school districts do it. Diesels may be more efficient somehow, but to me, I just dont see how. When they go down, it takes a brain surgeon to fix them. And the repairs are so costly.
When my dad was a school bus mechanic in the 60's, 70's and 80's, they never had a diesel bus, and these International's with 345's and Fords with 429's were lasting 250,000 miles no problem. The cummins we have now hit 160,000 and they need rebuilt or repairs so costly that the bus isn't even worth the time or money.
Sorry to blow off steam, had a rough day today in the garage. |
1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. |
|
|
|
BBInt.10
Top Member
USA
1042 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 6:32:34 PM
|
Thanks for the info, ModMech. I certainly learned something. The guy who owns my company is a pretty good businessman, and he actually specs out his buses to run quite efficiently according to your calculations. We've got 11R22.5 tires, air brakes, and 175 HP engines in all our route buses. Thanks again for the info.
-Dave |
If all your problems are behind you... you must be a school bus driver. |
|
|
|
Wolf0r
Top Member
USA
2181 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 08:36:59 AM
|
| I knew this topic was going to be opinionated so here's my opinion. Bluebird has been using the same body for many years now, which makes for better parts coverage. Most of the wiring in the standard body is the same. Do you know bluebird has ran 2 spare accessory wires from fron to back? Look for an extra black and a white wire. The newer bodies run 6 wires back there. Very convenient. And also you get a 5 year paint warranty. The chassis wiring... thats a different story. All of the newer bodies on the other brands to me look cheezy. What's up with those mirrors the other guys are using. Looks like a pair of dumpster forks on a trash truck. LOL Just kidding guys. I have been working with Bluebird many years, and in my area it is the favorite. Sure they try the other guys, but end up back. We have a few IC and Thomas in our trade in lot. |
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
mrbluebird
Advanced Member
USA
381 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 09:05:10 AM
|
| bluebird is the way to go thanks rob |
YOUR CHILDREN'S SAFETY IS OUR BUSINESS |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
what bus brand is cheaper to own and maintain
