Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-28-2019, 04:53 AM   #1
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 252
Detroit 6v92

Should I run away from buses with this engine? It is a two stroke....is it very fuel efficient? Easy to repair/overhaul? I am sure that all of the smog laws would prohibit it if it were a newly released engine. And it is at least 600 pounds heavier than some of then newer engines.
pengyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:08 AM   #2
Bus Crazy
 
Ronnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,160
Year: 1971
Coachwork: Wayne
Chassis: International Loadstar 1700
Engine: 345 international V-8
Good engine, easy to repair, often misunderstoud. Not many modern mechanics have worked on them. They tend to be noisy. Nicknamed "screaming jimmy". I like them but not for everyone.
Ronnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:11 AM   #3
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
Good engine, easy to repair, often misunderstoud. Not many modern mechanics have worked on them. They tend to be noisy. Nicknamed "screaming jimmy". I like them but not for everyone.
Noisy...probably because they are 2 stroke
pengyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:22 AM   #4
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 877
Year: 2000
Coachwork: Blue Bird
Chassis: International
Engine: TE 444
Rated Cap: 12
Good engine, just don't overheat it, 2 stroke diesel Detroit's are not like 2 stroke gas engines, they do not pull the charge through the crankcase and have exhaust valves
Kubla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:26 AM   #5
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 19,385
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pengyou View Post
Noisy...probably because they are 2 stroke
Buses are noisy and inefficient. Embrace it.
__________________
.
Roll Your Own Build Thread
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:33 AM   #6
Bus Crazy
 
Ronnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,160
Year: 1971
Coachwork: Wayne
Chassis: International Loadstar 1700
Engine: 345 international V-8
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
Buses are noisy and inefficient. Embrace it.
It has gone through my mind to stick a 6V-71 in the shorty.... with turbo up to 300hp.
Ronnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 07:37 AM   #7
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 19,385
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
It has gone through my mind to stick a 6V-71 in the shorty.... with turbo up to 300hp.
If you do can I PLEASE watch? I want a 2 stroke school bus BAD.
__________________
.
Roll Your Own Build Thread
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 08:18 AM   #8
Skoolie
 
Willie_McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 174
Year: 1980
Coachwork: Crown Coach
Chassis: Supercoach
Engine: Detroit 671T
Quote:
Originally Posted by pengyou View Post
Should I run away from buses with this engine? It is a two stroke....is it very fuel efficient? Easy to repair/overhaul? I am sure that all of the smog laws would prohibit it if it were a newly released engine. And it is at least 600 pounds heavier than some of then newer engines.
Personally I would prefer this engine to a lot of the newer stuff, very easy to work on once you understand how they work, all mechanical, super durable and resilient (as long as you don't overheat it as previously mentioned) parts are readily available nationwide. Sounds so so sweet, like a steel symphony.

What kind of a bus did you find it in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
If you do can I PLEASE watch? I want a 2 stroke school bus BAD.
I would love to see this! Found a thread on another site where a guy swapped a 671T into an old square crew cab Ford F350, was a crazy build, didn't fit under the hood, weighed as much as the rest of the truck. Just Awesome. I am getting a Crown and its like 75% for the Detroit.
Willie_McCoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 08:29 AM   #9
Bus Crazy
 
Ronnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,160
Year: 1971
Coachwork: Wayne
Chassis: International Loadstar 1700
Engine: 345 international V-8
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
If you do can I PLEASE watch? I want a 2 stroke school bus BAD.
I guess I will have to post some pics on the shorty when i get around to doing something with it. My wife is ready now to start on it....and I have been looking at engines for sale slowly....

You are certainly welcome to come up here and watch, might put you to work on it too.
Ronnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 09:04 AM   #10
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
It has gone through my mind to stick a 6V-71 in the shorty.... with turbo up to 300hp.

If she had a set of wings, man, I know she would fly....
pengyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 09:06 AM   #11
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie_McCoy View Post
Personally I would prefer this engine to a lot of the newer stuff, very easy to work on once you understand how they work, all mechanical, super durable and resilient (as long as you don't overheat it as previously mentioned) parts are readily available nationwide. Sounds so so sweet, like a steel symphony.

What kind of a bus did you find it in?
I don't remember the models/makes but quite a lot of them from the 80's and 90's.
pengyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 09:08 AM   #12
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
Good engine, easy to repair, often misunderstoud. Not many modern mechanics have worked on them. They tend to be noisy. Nicknamed "screaming jimmy". I like them but not for everyone.

How are they in terms of efficiency? ultimately mpg? compared to a cummins 8.3 or equivalent?
pengyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 09:14 AM   #13
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 19,385
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie View Post
I guess I will have to post some pics on the shorty when i get around to doing something with it. My wife is ready now to start on it....and I have been looking at engines for sale slowly....

You are certainly welcome to come up here and watch, might put you to work on it too.
Sounds lovely, Ronnie.
__________________
.
Roll Your Own Build Thread
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 10:24 AM   #14
Bus Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 867
Year: 1990
Coachwork: integral
Chassis: Crown Supercoach II (rear engine)
Engine: Detroit 6V92TAC, DDEC 2, Jake brake, Allison HT740
Rated Cap: 37,400 lbs GVWR
I would never swap mine for anything else. I love all 2-stroke diesels - I was brought up in the land of Commer TS3s, Fodens and Napier Deltics *, so having my own 2-stroke now is just a natural progression for me! I get about 7.5 MPG on the open road, so no complaints there. My engine is rated at 277 HP at 2100 RPM, with 880 lb/ft of torque at 1400 RPM, but it can be easily turned up to over 300 HP if I wanted. It's just not as torquey as the big 14-liter Cummins 855s in Crown and Gillig tandems, but I still like it!

John

* PS - And if you're wondering, one of those engines is a 3-cylinder with six pistons and only one crankshaft (work that one out!), and another is an 18-cylinder with 36 pistons and 3 crankshafts, one of which rotates in the opposite direction to the other two . . .
Iceni John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 10:42 AM   #15
Bus Geek
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 5,767
Year: 2002
Coachwork: Bluebird
Chassis: All American RE (A3RE)
Engine: Cummins ISC (8.3)
Rated Cap: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by pengyou View Post
How are they in terms of efficiency? ultimately mpg? compared to a cummins 8.3 or equivalent?
I had an 8v71 in my first bus and got a solid 7.25 mpg consistently.

My current bus has an 8.3 Cummins and gets 9-10 mpg.
PNW_Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 12:11 PM   #16
Bus Crazy
 
joeblack5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: pa
Posts: 1,521
Year: 98
Coachwork: 1. Corbeil & 2. Thomas
Chassis: 1 ford e350 2 mercedes
Engine: 7.3 powerstroke & MBE906
Wow. Over 900000 miles to its first overhaul that would be 100000 versus 120000 gallon in fuel.
So about $50000 in fuel savings with a 4 stroke.
No wonder that the technology was pushed forward.
Some new 2 strokes motorcycles have fuel injection ...wonder how efficient they are relative to 4 strokes. That is besides the pollution advantages of it. One wonders how turbines would have done in long haul busses.
In the Netherlands Philips drove employees around with stifling powered buses. Unfortunately they had an accident. The technology later was used in submarines and some automobiles but never really took of.
Oh by the way . The Germans developed diesel engines in long range bombers during ww2. ...not to mention they flew some turbine aircraft as well.

Later j
joeblack5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 12:34 PM   #17
Bus Geek
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 5,767
Year: 2002
Coachwork: Bluebird
Chassis: All American RE (A3RE)
Engine: Cummins ISC (8.3)
Rated Cap: 72
My father ran a trucking company back in the'70s. They had a prototype, turbine powered, semi tractor.

Unfortunately the fuel economy was poor. That was the death of the project.
PNW_Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 01:02 PM   #18
Bus Crazy
 
Ronnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,160
Year: 1971
Coachwork: Wayne
Chassis: International Loadstar 1700
Engine: 345 international V-8
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblack5 View Post
Wow. Over 900000 miles to its first overhaul that would be 100000 versus 120000 gallon in fuel.
So about $50000 in fuel savings with a 4 stroke.
No wonder that the technology was pushed forward.
Some new 2 strokes motorcycles have fuel injection ...wonder how efficient they are relative to 4 strokes. That is besides the pollution advantages of it. One wonders how turbines would have done in long haul busses.
In the Netherlands Philips drove employees around with stifling powered buses. Unfortunately they had an accident. The technology later was used in submarines and some automobiles but never really took of.
Oh by the way . The Germans developed diesel engines in long range bombers during ww2. ...not to mention they flew some turbine aircraft as well.

Later j
Stifling powered? I assume a typo and you mean Stirling? Stirling engines just have such a low power density. Can not imagine them being able to be practical in anything other then stationary use.
Ronnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 02:58 PM   #19
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Winlcok, WA
Posts: 2,135
DD 2-cycle engines are very durable but as it has been pointed out fewer and fewer people really know how to work on them.



They are not as fuel efficient as most 4-cycle engines. In a motorcoach the fuel mileage with an 8V-92 and a Series 60 will go from 4-7 MPG to 6-10 MPG.



DD's will come in two different flavors--left hand and right hand turning versions.


The left hand turning engines will be in buses with a V-drive where the engine is mounted transversely in the rear of the bus.


The right hand turning engines will be in buses with a T-drive where the engine is mounted fore and aft parallel with the frame rails.


Most of the parts interchange but gears will be cut differently depending on what direction the engine was supposed to turn.
cowlitzcoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2019, 04:21 PM   #20
Bus Crazy
 
joeblack5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: pa
Posts: 1,521
Year: 98
Coachwork: 1. Corbeil & 2. Thomas
Chassis: 1 ford e350 2 mercedes
Engine: 7.3 powerstroke & MBE906
Ronnie, yes a typo, in 2005 a Swedish stifling submarine sank the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargames.
Stirling engines are somewhat a pet of mine. In Dory we actual have a stirling cycle freezer that is more efficient then other technologies. We have two imported whispergen stirling combined heat and power generators that run on natural gas. To me the stirling principle is fascinating since it is reversible.
Anyhow sorry for interrupting this thread.
Later j
joeblack5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×