RomaniGypsy
Senior Member
Perusing bus auction sites, I see that the vast majority of offered buses come with the AT545 transmission. I've seen a good bit of "negative press" about the AT545 on this site and hoped that maybe y'all could help me out here.
Online I can find nothing about the transmission itself. Wikipedia doesn't explain what it is, and every other site that comes up in a general search seems to be a parts site.
What I've gathered so far is that the AT545 is a 4-speed automatic transmission with no lockup torque converter. What I know about regular vehicle transmissions is that a lockup torque converter helps with fuel economy, but also complicates the transmission (making repair, replacement, or overhaul more expensive).
Can any of you explain, in full detail, the pros and cons of the AT545? (After all, if it's THAT popular, how could it be so awful? The way I see it, if I'd get 9.5 mpg with an AT545 and 10 mpg with something that has a lockup torque converter, but the AT545 is bulletproof and will last longer than pretty much anything else out there... well, I'll take the AT545! I keep thinking about how GM still makes the Turbo Hydramatic 400 3-speed non-lockup automatic transmission and installs it in military Humvees. Well, heck, if it's tough enough for the military...!!!)
I'd also like to know what y'all think IS the best automatic transmission to seek in buses from the late 1990s and early 2000s. (I've also seen some offering an AT543 - what is the difference between that and the AT545?)
People also talk about buses with emissions control items from more recent years being extremely undesirable. Okay, I can rock with that, but why? A recent poster said he'd sooner not buy a bus at all than to buy one with EGR, DPF, and DEF. To the best of my knowledge, those mean "Exhaust Gas Recirculation" (cars have had that for decades and a malfunction in that system doesn't typically impact driveability nor fuel economy), "Diesel Particulate Filter" (seems that the only problem with that would be the cost of replacing it as well as the replacement interval, about neither of which I know anything), and "Diesel Exhaust Fluid" (now THAT one I can see being a pain in the butt... all I know is that regular diesel cars and trucks only started requiring DEF in 2007). So, the extent of what I know about these things would lead me to believe that I should avoid anything from 2007 onward if I don't want to deal with emissions stuff. But would it turn out to be a wash on account of better engines, better fuel economy, better transmissions, etc? Really, for example, if the best 2003 bus I could get returns 10 mpg, and I could get a 2008 model that returns 11 mpg just as reliably but requires DEF, you'd think the cost factor would be a wash.
I hate to seem like I'm just begging for help all the time but if I can't find this information easily online, I'd have to question its accuracy if I were to find it at all.
Online I can find nothing about the transmission itself. Wikipedia doesn't explain what it is, and every other site that comes up in a general search seems to be a parts site.
What I've gathered so far is that the AT545 is a 4-speed automatic transmission with no lockup torque converter. What I know about regular vehicle transmissions is that a lockup torque converter helps with fuel economy, but also complicates the transmission (making repair, replacement, or overhaul more expensive).
Can any of you explain, in full detail, the pros and cons of the AT545? (After all, if it's THAT popular, how could it be so awful? The way I see it, if I'd get 9.5 mpg with an AT545 and 10 mpg with something that has a lockup torque converter, but the AT545 is bulletproof and will last longer than pretty much anything else out there... well, I'll take the AT545! I keep thinking about how GM still makes the Turbo Hydramatic 400 3-speed non-lockup automatic transmission and installs it in military Humvees. Well, heck, if it's tough enough for the military...!!!)
I'd also like to know what y'all think IS the best automatic transmission to seek in buses from the late 1990s and early 2000s. (I've also seen some offering an AT543 - what is the difference between that and the AT545?)
People also talk about buses with emissions control items from more recent years being extremely undesirable. Okay, I can rock with that, but why? A recent poster said he'd sooner not buy a bus at all than to buy one with EGR, DPF, and DEF. To the best of my knowledge, those mean "Exhaust Gas Recirculation" (cars have had that for decades and a malfunction in that system doesn't typically impact driveability nor fuel economy), "Diesel Particulate Filter" (seems that the only problem with that would be the cost of replacing it as well as the replacement interval, about neither of which I know anything), and "Diesel Exhaust Fluid" (now THAT one I can see being a pain in the butt... all I know is that regular diesel cars and trucks only started requiring DEF in 2007). So, the extent of what I know about these things would lead me to believe that I should avoid anything from 2007 onward if I don't want to deal with emissions stuff. But would it turn out to be a wash on account of better engines, better fuel economy, better transmissions, etc? Really, for example, if the best 2003 bus I could get returns 10 mpg, and I could get a 2008 model that returns 11 mpg just as reliably but requires DEF, you'd think the cost factor would be a wash.
I hate to seem like I'm just begging for help all the time but if I can't find this information easily online, I'd have to question its accuracy if I were to find it at all.