Free 7 Day Trial RV GPS App RV Trip Planner Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Free 7 Day Trial ×


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-24-2015, 10:26 PM   #21
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 23,405
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
One thing Nat and I will always be in full agreement on.


EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:30 PM   #22
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
Dude, are you trying to be funny?

Every engine you listed as bad is at the top for dependability, performance, and cost efficiency.
Apparently you are. It would seem that not only did you not read my first post, but you clearly failed to read the post for which you are responding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
A fully mechanical Cummins or International inline engine is simply the best their is. If a Cat or a old Detroit can do the job for $10, the Cummins and international will do it for $2.
Should I assume that this is out of experience? I do not think that it is, as I have had my fair share of experience, and every engine has it's flaws, perks, gains, and drawbacks. Your 5 to 1 does not fool me by the least bit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
The Cat or old Detroit will be in the shop 7 days out of every month, the Cummins and International won't see the shop unless needing a oil or filter change.
I assume from your experience? You make it sound as if a Cummins never had a problem? Are we talking about the same brand here? Are we comparing a Cummins B series, T444, DT466, and Cat 3126/3116/etc?

I could do a highlight of each engine, but I might as well start a thread about the pros and cons of each engine. If I'm at that, I might as well do the full work and compile a chart of all the 90's bus engines that came out, including the gassers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
Many of the military 5 tons had 8.3 mechanical Cummins engines.
That is correct, though I prefer those that still have the series 60 Detroit, though I had few problems with the 8.3 Cummins. But that is a whole step up from the engines that we are talking about, an entirely different class.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
Now that we are passed that, what specifically happened to what engine, that convinced you that Cummins are bad?
Which Cummins should I start with? Have you never heard of problems with a Cummins? You could find a lot more than I could type out here on Google.

[QUOTE=nat_ster;129698]I look at it this way. Our shop that maintains over 400 buses have removed any and all buses that are not Cummins or inline Internationals off their fleet. The lack of reliability, and cost of the Cat engine, and any gas engines was just not financially feasible.[/qoute]
Who's shop is this? And before I get into this, what age of buses? Are you talking about brand new buses? 2016 Blue birds, Thomas, or IC with this 6.7 Cummins? Last I saw, some were even going with the 8l Cummins Propane, or the 6.7 Compressed Natural Gas engines. Could it be that if "your" yard has 400 buses, it is getting newer buses, which currently only offer the Cummins? I'm sorry if I am being rude, but seriously? Come on.


It always goes to some conversation about how a Cummins is best, no matter where you go, it gets old. It's like all the squirts driving around souped up Cummins trucks, belching out smoke who call my 6.5L Detroit a piece of junk, but sooner or later, they are the ones rebuilding or replacing their blown engines.

It is all about preference and experience. When you have money invested deep into engines, and they come around on you and leave you scrapping up what you have left, you will likely dislike that particular brand.
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:34 PM   #23
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
My internationals have always been very powerful and economical.
From the 345 in the Scout Terra II that I drove a couple years at the end of high school, to the 466 in my bus, I've never found them to be wimpy or expensive to run. That scout was a stump puller compared to Broncos and Blazers. The 195hp unit in my bus gets darn near 10mpg as far as I can figure and pulled my 40' bus up and over Monteagle ok.
When I refer to the International, I assume that most people still corrolate it to the T444. A Detroit DT466 is started as an International. I have no issue with the brand as a whole, as I have some International engines still running, that are likely older than most of the people on this board. I care not for the 7.3 (444).

I apologize for not being more specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
One thing Nat and I will always be in full agreement on.
And that is?
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:41 PM   #24
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 23,405
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
That the Cummins and Internationals are the best of the readily available school bus engines that are out there in the buses most of us use for conversion.

I'd love to have a Crown with the "big cam" Cummins 855 though!
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:44 PM   #25
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
That the Cummins and Internationals are the best of the readily available school bus engines that are out there in the buses most of us use for conversion.

I'd love to have a Crown with the "big cam" Cummins 855 though!
Gotcha. I take it that your experience with your Cummins has been at least fair so far then? How many miles and which models do you have if you don't mind my asking?
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:53 PM   #26
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 23,405
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
I don't have any direct personal ownership experience with Cummins, but know enough about them to prefer Internationals. My dad does LOTS of serious pulling with his company truck- a late model Dodge with the Cummins. A few mods and such and the thing is ridiculously powerful. Pulls a 40 foot trailer full of plants and trees like its nothing.

The 7.3 I'm not a huge fan of, either, but they are great in pickups and such. I just don't really like v8 diesels as much as good old straight sixes.
Most school buses with diesels seem to get somewhere in the 7-10 mpg range which isn't bad all things considered.

The stuff I avoid with school buses is late model electronic crap. I don't need it.
LOVE the mechanical DT466 and Allison 643 combo in my 92'.
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2015, 11:59 PM   #27
Site Team
 
crazycal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NUNYA
Posts: 4,236
Year: 1995
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: 3800
Engine: DT408, AT545
Rated Cap: 23 500 gvw
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
One thing Nat and I will always be in full agreement on.



OK, we have now moved mountains. If EC can agree with Nat, all the planets, moons and sun have lined up.


This thread will go downhill very fast. Noses will get tweaked, insults hurled and posts will get deleted. I don't want that happening. Each side has stated their case for their favorite engines and lets leave it at that.
__________________
I'm hungry!

You Gotta Let Me Fly
crazycal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 12:09 AM   #28
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
I don't have any direct personal ownership experience with Cummins, but know enough about them to prefer Internationals. My dad does LOTS of serious pulling with his company truck- a late model Dodge with the Cummins. A few mods and such and the thing is ridiculously powerful. Pulls a 40 foot trailer full of plants and trees like its nothing.

The 7.3 I'm not a huge fan of, either, but they are great in pickups and such. I just don't really like v8 diesels as much as good old straight sixes.
Most school buses with diesels seem to get somewhere in the 7-10 mpg range which isn't bad all things considered.

The stuff I avoid with school buses is late model electronic crap. I don't need it.
LOVE the mechanical DT466 and Allison 643 combo in my 92'.
That's where I am at. I just don't believe that the smaller 444 was meant for a full size bus, nor for the Cummins. Especially with the 24 valve, and then followed by the moronic Common Rail. Kinda sounds like Common Core to me.

I would not mind a Detroit Series 60 in a bus though. If that Series 40 in your bus does it for you, you'd ride off into the sunset with a 60, so long as somebody else was paying the fuel bill of course.
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 12:14 AM   #29
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazycal View Post
OK, we have now moved mountains. If EC can agree with Nat, all the planets, moons and sun have lined up.


This thread will go downhill very fast. Noses will get tweaked, insults hurled and posts will get deleted. I don't want that happening. Each side has stated their case for their favorite engines and lets leave it at that.
What about that guy who thinks that a gasser will out pull a diesel? We haven't heard everybody's case yet!
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 12:27 AM   #30
Bus Geek
 
EastCoastCB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Eustis FLORIDA
Posts: 23,405
Year: 1999
Coachwork: Thomas
Chassis: Freighliner FS65
Engine: Cat 3126
Rated Cap: 15
Heck I'd LOVE a 60 if someone else were paying for the fuel!

I'd not turn my nose up at a DT 360 either. I've heard they last forever!

One Detroit that really is best avoided is the 8.2, they just don't have many fans on here.
EastCoastCB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 12:53 AM   #31
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastCB View Post
Heck I'd LOVE a 60 if someone else were paying for the fuel!

I'd not turn my nose up at a DT 360 either. I've heard they last forever!

One Detroit that really is best avoided is the 8.2, they just don't have many fans on here.
The old 8.2? That non-turbo wasn't completely bad. Just like any other non turbo, it lacked in the power department, but exceeded in fuel economy. Aside from head gasket problems, always leaking oil, and other issues, I didn't think that it was too terrible. Throw a turbo on it, and you'll surely blow the head gaskets. Kind of like a N/A 6.2 Detroit.

I haven't seen one in anything in a while though, mostly 80's medium duty truck IIDRC.

I can't say that I recall playing with a DT360, is there another name that it went by?
__________________
He who is smart enough to stay out of politics, is burdened by being governed by those that are dumber then him. -"Me"
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 02:07 AM   #32
Bus Geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stony Plain Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,937
Year: 1992
Coachwork: Bluebird
Chassis: TC2000 FE
Engine: 190hp 5.9 Cummins
Rated Cap: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlies.Contingency View Post
I can't say that I recall playing with a DT360, is there another name that it went by?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navistar_DT_engine



Nat
__________________
"Don't argue with stupid people. They will just drag you down to their level, and beat you up with experience."

Patently waiting for the apocalypses to level the playing field in this physiological game of life commonly known as Civilization
nat_ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 02:30 AM   #33
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
That didn't explain much, but I did go to that page, and I scrolled farther down to "applications," and it showed the 360 in Am-Tran. So smaller city bus things... I forgot the name for them. I think they're called trollies if I'm not mistaken.

I just did some more research, seems they were put in some buses, but I guess it's just a fluke that I've never come across one.
__________________
He who is smart enough to stay out of politics, is burdened by being governed by those that are dumber then him. -"Me"
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 04:00 AM   #34
Bus Geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stony Plain Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,937
Year: 1992
Coachwork: Bluebird
Chassis: TC2000 FE
Engine: 190hp 5.9 Cummins
Rated Cap: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlies.Contingency View Post
I just did some more research, seems they were put in some buses, but I guess it's just a fluke that I've never come across one.
Glad you continued the search with the beginnings I provided.

Chances are you have driven or seen one. However you likely thought it was a DT466 because they look so similar.

I have seen them in all sorts of MD trucks. Everything from cube delivery trucks to tow trucks.

Full size dog nose buses also had them as a engine option. We still have around 30 of them still on route. All are geared low and used for the slow speed in town routes.

Nat
__________________
"Don't argue with stupid people. They will just drag you down to their level, and beat you up with experience."

Patently waiting for the apocalypses to level the playing field in this physiological game of life commonly known as Civilization
nat_ster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 09:24 AM   #35
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nat_ster View Post
Glad you continued the search with the beginnings I provided.

Chances are you have driven or seen one. However you likely thought it was a DT466 because they look so similar.

I have seen them in all sorts of MD trucks. Everything from cube delivery trucks to tow trucks.

Full size dog nose buses also had them as a engine option. We still have around 30 of them still on route. All are geared low and used for the slow speed in town routes.

Nat
It is possible I can imagine, but lets not forget that you're over 2,000 miles away, and an entire country away. Some of the buses you have over there, I've likely never seen before.
__________________
He who is smart enough to stay out of politics, is burdened by being governed by those that are dumber then him. -"Me"
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 03:14 PM   #36
Bus Geek
 
bansil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: MNT CITY TN
Posts: 5,158
The old truck would have 2500/3500 lbs on it at most, and the poor 366 just did not have the oompf to be comfortable on the highway, escpecially going up the little mnts here in the east, typical 3500' transitions in 6 or 8 miles of road average of 8% hills
__________________
Our build La Tortuga
Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
George S. Patton
bansil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 03:51 PM   #37
Skoolie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bansil View Post
The old truck would have 2500/3500 lbs on it at most, and the poor 366 just did not have the oompf to be comfortable on the highway, escpecially going up the little mnts here in the east, typical 3500' transitions in 6 or 8 miles of road average of 8% hills
Thankfully, I live along the Coastal Bend of Texas, and about the toughest hills I have to face are the overpasses. Easy cruising, it'll make a crappy motor seem like it's pulling okay. You guys up in the hills and such have to be very considerate when picking a motor compared to people like me down along the flat lands.
__________________
He who is smart enough to stay out of politics, is burdened by being governed by those that are dumber then him. -"Me"
Charlies.Contingency is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 05:37 PM   #38
Bus Geek
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Stony Plain Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,937
Year: 1992
Coachwork: Bluebird
Chassis: TC2000 FE
Engine: 190hp 5.9 Cummins
Rated Cap: 72
We have a 454 powered, 5 speed, 3 ton tree spade truck that has tons of torque and power right from idle to 80 mph.

However, it makes 2.5 miles to the gallon.

Nat
__________________
"Don't argue with stupid people. They will just drag you down to their level, and beat you up with experience."

Patently waiting for the apocalypses to level the playing field in this physiological game of life commonly known as Civilization
nat_ster 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 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.