Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-23-2010, 05:22 PM   #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6
Year: 1985
Coachwork: Bluebird
Engine: Seized. Bummer.
Micro Blue Bird engine...


I've got a short/micro/mini Blue Bird bus. It has a Chevy 6.2 in it however it has the unfortunate problem of being seized right now. I think that both a combination of semi poor maintenance and driving that engine to death was the culprit.

What i'm wondering is if there is a better engine that would fit into this particular bus. I was told that a Cummins 5.9 would fit with some additional upgrades. We really need a engine that can handle the long haul while towing a load. If there's anyone that can offer any advice that would sure help.

Thanks, and cheers


dall
spoonman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 05:56 PM   #2
Bus Nut
 
M1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 471
Year: 1988
Coachwork: Ward
Chassis: Ford B600
Engine: 6.6L Turbo Diesel
Rated Cap: 26
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Get another 6.2L engine! When they are given some TLC, they will last forever. I have four 6.2L trucks and really enjoy them. Plus they are cheap right now.
__________________
We few, we Band of Brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
- William Shakespeare ("King Henry V")
M1031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 06:53 PM   #3
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6
Year: 1985
Coachwork: Bluebird
Engine: Seized. Bummer.
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHEESE_WAGON

BTW - like the username.... That's my favorite song by Soundgarden.
Yeah, that's where it came from. I don't think anyone else has ever called the reference.

I've just been skeptical about the 6.2 from the beginning (mind you this is from someone that knows -> || <- that much about any kind of mechanics) because it never seemed to want to preform. Like i said i know nothing of mechanics and when it seemed to never want to go above 60 mph i was a little confused. I understand that any diesel isn't going to typically want to go from 0-60 in 5 seconds or anything, but to have the pedal to the floor and only be going 60 at tops seems a little extreme. We did have some trouble with monitoring the oil and there was 1 case in particular in which i'm pretty positive it was overfilled. Basically i guess now that i think about it as far as being mechanically inclined, we are all numskulls.

I got the bus from someone that bought 2 identical buses from his local district. Their maintenance program was weekly (he knew the main mechanic). So when i got it everything looked pretty great and reasonably taken care of. But as i mentioned before, from day one it seemed to struggle at highway speeds. Maybe my ignorance is that to not know that such a thing is commonplace. I don't know.

My main interest in getting an "upgraded engine" was to make sure that i had the right tool for the right job. If the general consensus would be to try again, than maybe i should reevaluate my logic as well as expand my knowledge of the 6.2 and the 6.5.

Thanks Cheese_Wagon for the data and M1031 for the comments. It's widening my perspective already.
spoonman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 07:07 PM   #4
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 1,009
Year: 1993
Coachwork: Ward Genesis
Chassis: International
Engine: DT466/MT643
Rated Cap: 77
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

The "Optimiser 6500" is an upgraded 6.5 used in Hummvees and Stepvans, should bolt in. A gas 350 is also a viable swap.

But, might be better to just get a different bus.
__________________
Jarlaxle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism is a mental disorder.
Jarlaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 07:53 PM   #5
Bus Nut
 
M1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 471
Year: 1988
Coachwork: Ward
Chassis: Ford B600
Engine: 6.6L Turbo Diesel
Rated Cap: 26
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHEESE_WAGON
More food for thought on the durability of the 6.2/6.5....

Sorry, I couldn't watch the pain........
__________________
We few, we Band of Brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
- William Shakespeare ("King Henry V")
M1031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2010, 09:45 PM   #6
Bus Crazy
 
Stuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Estevan, Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,485
Year: 1990
Coachwork: Goshen
Chassis: Ford
Engine: 7.3
Rated Cap: 25
Send a message via AIM to Stuff Send a message via MSN to Stuff
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

good theory on the durability but i hate that cash for clunkers bs. just my opinion.
__________________
1990 E-350 Goshen Coach - 7.3L Diesel ---> https://www.skoolie.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5756

My Youtube channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/thestuffz
Stuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 07:18 AM   #7
Bus Nut
 
M1031's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 471
Year: 1988
Coachwork: Ward
Chassis: Ford B600
Engine: 6.6L Turbo Diesel
Rated Cap: 26
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

In addition, use Prolong (found at AutoZone and other retailers) in the crankcase. I went from 17 mpg in town to 21 instantly. Plus, the more air you can cram into the intake the better your fuel economy and torque will be. I'll post some pics of what I've done to my air intakes to help with shoving more air into the engine.
__________________
We few, we Band of Brothers. For he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
- William Shakespeare ("King Henry V")
M1031 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 05:50 PM   #8
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 1,009
Year: 1993
Coachwork: Ward Genesis
Chassis: International
Engine: DT466/MT643
Rated Cap: 77
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

The 6.2 is still a turd, no matter how much you polish it. I had the misfortune to own one in a K-35 CUCV, my wife has one in a K-5 Blazer. They are absolutely,totally, hopelessly gutless, athsmatic, 3-legged dogs. Her Blazer--the lightest thing a 6.2 was ever used in--was about 17 seconds 0-60 when stock. My K35 was horrid. It was actually painful to drive loaded and was actually so underpowered (even with 4.56 gears) as to be unsafe with a 5000lb trailer. Several MILES of full-throttle and it never topped 55MPH.
__________________
Jarlaxle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism is a mental disorder.
Jarlaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 01:53 AM   #9
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6
Year: 1985
Coachwork: Bluebird
Engine: Seized. Bummer.
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Just got back from a short trip.

So the question still seems to remain for me, the right tool for the right job... What should i be looking for in an engine to keep us at highway speeds (55-75) and that doesn't mind towing a bit of a load? Is it not worth it to try and put something besides another 6.2 or maybe a turbo? As far as funds go, times are just as tight for us as it has always been. But to me it's worth the effort to save the trouble of having to get a new vehicle every year only to have the same problems that we had before.

So what do the learned think? What's the direction that i should be looking in?
spoonman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2010, 10:52 PM   #10
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 1,009
Year: 1993
Coachwork: Ward Genesis
Chassis: International
Engine: DT466/MT643
Rated Cap: 77
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHEESE_WAGON
Jarl - it's a diesel, not a hot-rod. What do you expect with 4.56 gears? The thing is lucky to survive 55 with the revolutions needed to run that speed with those gears. 4.56 is lower than anything you'll usually find in a production light truck or SUV. The diesel has the torque to pull higher (numerically lower) gears, so why run 4.56s with a diesel, seriously?
It was what the factory installed and presumably what the Army called for in CUCV's. The truck managed acceleration times similar to a loaded cement truck, mileage matching a gas 350 (worse than a 6.9-powered F-350 TOW TRUCK with 4.10's), and noise levels matching a paper shredder trying to shred gravel. Unfortunately, the 6.2 is about at its limit in a Blazer or half-ton pickup. For moving any real weight, a gas 350 (or even a gas V6) is a better choice.
__________________
Jarlaxle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism is a mental disorder.
Jarlaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2010, 09:00 AM   #11
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adirondack Mountains NY
Posts: 1,099
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
. . . Her Blazer--the lightest thing a 6.2 was ever used in--was about 17 seconds 0-60 when stock. . .
Really? We had a few '85 milsurp CUCV pickups at an agency I used to work at, and I timed a stock one at 27 seconds 0-60. They were geared to run at 55 MPH, but we routinely wound them up to 70. They would go about 79 on the flats, but only if drafting a bus, semi-trailer or motorhome. I usually got the short straw chasing the mobile command truck, and earplugs were a must!

We had a Banks intake and exhaust plus pyrometer installed on one, and its ability to pull a three-ton trailer up a certain incline on the interstate jumped from about 37 MPH to 53 MPH. Fuel mileage was not good, as the mechanic who installed the fat pipes also turned the fuel up to black smoke plus liquid drops out the back. One of the directors ordered that the command truck will NEVER be driven BEHIND that pickup. The stock fuel tank was good for about 2 hours of overspeed running on the interstate.

I've seen half of these trucks in private hands, so I guess they went to auction after I left.

That said, I wouldn't mind running one of those pickups myself, if I could install lower numerical axle ratios and an aux fuel tank. I would be sure the fuel pump was adjusted more accurately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHEESE_WAGON
. . it's a diesel, not a hot-rod.
Amen.
__________________
Someone said "Making good decisions comes from experience, experience comes from bad decisions." I say there are three kinds of people: those who learn from their mistakes, those who learn from the mistakes of others, and those who never learn.
Redbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 04:50 PM   #12
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 1,009
Year: 1993
Coachwork: Ward Genesis
Chassis: International
Engine: DT466/MT643
Rated Cap: 77
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

I have owned two 4WD diesel pickups...a 1992 F-350 with a 7.3 turbo and (currently) a 1979 F-350 SuperCab with a 5.9 Cummins. Compared to my K35, both accelerate faster loaded than it did empty, use less fuel (about 30-35% less in the case of the 79), and are more capable in every way. The 6.2 is a steaming, stinking turd. It's barely adequate in a K-5 Blazer, and hopelessly overwhelmed in anything heavier. You're better off with a gas V6.
__________________
Jarlaxle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism is a mental disorder.
Jarlaxle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 01:50 AM   #13
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6
Year: 1985
Coachwork: Bluebird
Engine: Seized. Bummer.
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

Well my main reason for trying to use diesel is the thought of longevity. So far since the beginning of the year i would guess that we've gone 55,000 miles or so, give or take a few, with a few more months left in the year. Are there reasonable gas engines that can take that kind of road time?

Honestly, if it could maintain a median of somewhere around 60-65 mph i could settle with that as long as it's not six months to a year down the road before a rebuild is necessary. When you need to get from Orlando to Charlotte in 10 hours or less it's nice to be able to cruse at something more than 50-55ish.
spoonman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 05:35 PM   #14
Bus Crazy
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 1,009
Year: 1993
Coachwork: Ward Genesis
Chassis: International
Engine: DT466/MT643
Rated Cap: 77
Re: Micro Blue Bird engine...

I've seen many Ford 5.4 V8's and 6.8 V10's wind up over 300,000 hard miles in livery service. Saw a V10 with over 400,000 miles in a 2000 F-550 4x4 that sees the brutal life of a repo truck. Heck, plenty of Chevy 350's and 454's and Ford 351's and 460's have wound up over 250,000 miles. Maintain a V10 and I would not be even slightly surprised to see it turn over 500,000 miles.
__________________
Jarlaxle
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimism is a mental disorder.
Jarlaxle 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1985 Chev Bluebird Micro Bird Bus skybluefreeway Short-Bus Conversion Projects 7 05-24-2012 12:30 PM
Who has a 2000 BB Micro Bird or something close? crazycal Mechanical and Drivetrains 0 02-12-2012 12:19 AM
1984 Blue Bird All American Rear Engine Tango Skoolie Conversion Projects 13 11-28-2011 02:02 PM
1985 Blue Bird 'Micro Bird' Griff Short-Bus Conversion Projects 34 07-21-2009 02:35 AM
'85 GMC Micro-Bird - Wiring issue, HELP! kthelen Short-Bus Conversion Projects 7 05-18-2009 10:48 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×