| Author | Message | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 34 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 66.249.37.60  Rating: N/A |
what is the differance between c60 and a n60 injector? | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 1000 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.32.86.38 Rating: N/A |
C injectors are smog control injectors good luck | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 280 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 72.172.32.121  Rating: N/A |
A different number of holes in the injector tip. Also the tolerance of the rack and the injector mechanism itself is much tighter, IIRC. | ||
| marvin pack (Gomer)
Registered Member Username: Gomer Post Number: 1170 Registered: 3-2007 Posted From: 71.55.1.12  Rating: N/A |
Just put N100 in it and tell the enviromentalist you are on your way to the shop to change them to N125. They will never know the difference LOL I had a 8V with N100 in it and sometimes there was a little fire coming out of the stacks, on both sides. Pulling about 80 bushel[tons] up the mountains in Va and Wv. They would almost light up the sky LOL What fun!! gomer | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 1412 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 66.82.162.20  Rating: |
Just put N100 in it and tell the enviromentalist you are on your way to the shop to change them to N125 And enjoy purchasing a new 400ft yacht for the Saudis. FF | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 36 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 166.137.138.7 Rating: N/A |
Ok guys I just ordered the n100's thanks for all the great advice. I will keep you posted on how it works out. (Message edited by Chart1 on January 11, 2011) | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 283 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: |
Your really gonna love the 'skeeter killing capabilities of those N100's! | ||
| ned sanders (Uncle_ned)
Registered Member Username: Uncle_ned Post Number: 97 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 74.235.104.57 Rating: N/A |
Dallas I am looking for a set of the n125's for huggy. Want to make Kyle happy. uncle ned | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 284 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
Ned, talk to Buck Williams, He knows some guys that build the really big injectors. N240's N280's N360's for tractor pulls and drags. | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 166.137.138.7 Rating: N/A |
You guys didn't say I would kill the skeeters. What would the bats eat. I cannot upset the Eco system so I have decided to change my order to the N60 injector. Also I dont want to ruin the bus converting experiences I had converting my bus with those lovely little skeeters buzzing around. Just looking out for your guys future. | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 285 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
Cory, You could always change to N65's and set your timing to advanced. That will lower your torque and performance curve, but will give you more HP at lower RPM. The problem is that you may lose performance, fuel mileage and torque on the high end. But then again, these are Detroits, not your father's Oldsmobile! I may be able to find the HP/Torque curves and fuel burn with a given engine and injector if anyone was interested. | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 38 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 166.137.138.233 Rating: N/A |
Wouldn't torque be better for climbing hills and horsepower for top end | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 234 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213  Rating: N/A |
Cory When we rebuilt our 8V71 we changed to the 65s from 60 and advanced the cam timing. We had better power by far and fuel economy went up. This may have been from going from a tired to a rebuilt engine. I drove another 5 that was still tuned to the 60 injectors. It was a dog in comparison. I was told that the N60 injectors and retarded cam timing gives you about 292 hp and the 65 injectors / advanced cam timing came in at 318 hp. Our 1966 MC5A got between 8 and 9 mpg consistently 4 speed manual transmission. No idea on rear end gear ratio. I seldom had to gear down on hills unless it was long and steep or if I hit the bottom below the power range. Only time we ever had an over heating problem was climbing out of the Cypress hills valley in 105 degree weather I hope that helps | ||
| joe padberg (Joemc7ab)
Registered Member Username: Joemc7ab Post Number: 460 Registered: 6-2004 Posted From: 66.38.159.33 Rating: N/A |
Les Are you using imperial or U.S. measurement? It might give someone a good or bad reading depending on what side of the 49th they are comparing. Yes coffee in the next few days sounds great. | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 287 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
Les, it's kind of apples and oranges on the comparison. 60's with standard timing bring your torque up into the 1800s band. 65's with advanced timing lower your torque into the 1600's area. What this means is that your speed will drop off faster when you climb a hill, but when you hit the torque range, you'll be able to stay in the gear selected for a longer time. Yes, you get more horses from the N65's but at the cost of a lower torque/rpm setting. Most likely, the rebuild you had done made more difference than anything else. If your engine was running up to par, you wouldn't have rebuilt it in the first place. Then again, there is a difference between 60's and 65's, most of that is in how you drive it. The vaunted "318" is actually about 304. The 292 was actually about 260 - 270. A strange little story. We have a 1952 PD4103. 6L71, two valve head, V-drive 4 speed Spicer, Mostly N60's. I have a stray HV7 in there I want to change out, but I'm not in a hurry. A few years ago we were headed up Jellico grade on I-75 from Knoxville to Cincinnati. On the way up we were passing a whole pile of MCI D's and E's and a couple of J's. hmmmm. These were running 12.7L DD's, Cat's and I distinctly heard a Cummins. When we got where we were going, (A Charter bus company to work on a real junker of a bus), about 6 of those buses pulled in after we did. Our top speed is 65 mph, Theirs is over 70. We were getting 11.5 mpg... they were averaging 6 mpg. I can hold 45 mph up Jellico, and about 38 up Monteagle. They can't. My weight? Just under 26,000 lbs. Their weight? darndifino. probably close to 40,000. My rated HP if I had all N60's? about 160 HP. Their HP, considering the company they came from? It would be a stock 400 - 475 HP. I seriously contemplate turboing my engine. Will it make me go faster? Nope. I'm limited by the differential. Will it get me more power? Yes, up to my maximum speed. Will I get better fuel mileage? Probably not. Why change what really works? | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 235 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
Well Dallas. I have this habit of keeping a fuel and mileage log in all my vehicles from the 102 to our little smart car. I figure that the proof is in the pudding and fuel economy differs greatly from driver to driver as much as vehicle to vehicle. A friend of mine has a MC5B that gets about 6.5 to 7.5 mpg (imp) It has the n60 injectors it has, I think, the same transmission and rear end as my old 5A and won't hold a candle to it on the flats or in the hills. I agree that the engine rebuild made a big difference to the performance of the engine and that is what I would have originally attributed the increase in economy and power to except that I had the other similar coach to compare it to. My idea is that the engine tuned to the higher horse power was not working as hard to push that old brick down the road and so got better fuel economy. I can't say that I lost much as far as torque goes because of the way she pulls hills. On two trips, Las vegas to Edmonton. Edmonton/ Vegas and back our MCI102D3 got a solid 10 MPG and would have run away from my old 5 the 102 is a 60 series with a B500 transmission | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 288 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
Well, here's a silly question, You say it won't hold a candle to your Turbo "In the Flats" That should really make no difference if both are running efficiently. the boost on your turbo engine will be almost zero on the flats. No matter what your coach weighs, once you get it to cruising speed, it takes no more horsepower to to keep it there for a NA as for a turbo. As for the friends MC5B getting 6.5 to 7.5 (imp), I think I would look at the condition of the engine before comparing the two. I'm not good at comparisons, but wouldn't that make the mileage around 5.45 to 6.5 (us)? I know MC9's, MC102A3's and Setra's that do much better than that with automatic transmissions. Rebuild the friends tired engine and then compare it to yours. Also, I just have a difficult time understanding how a 102D3 is going to get a 'solid' 10 mpg (imp or US), those things weight upwards of 40,000 pounds in revenue trim. An engine and it's associated horse power and torque don't change from engine to engine very much, as long as identical criteria are the same. a 40,000 pound truck with a B500 and a 12.7 rated at the same HP will get the same mileage as a bus at the same gross weight, (within limits). If you are getting those kinds of mileage, I would really like to know how you are driving it and to see the documentation. I really am not doubting you, I have been after friends of mine that holler about poor mileage in their MC9's, but they can't understand that they aren't a car and cannot keep up with the acceleration of a car from a stop light. So They floor it and leave it floored until they reach cruise. I can drive the same bus and add 2 mpg (US) by just driving it according to what it's capable of. | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 166.137.142.19 Rating: N/A |
Dal your so right thats why I get 2-3 mpg I'm my 8 .. | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 237 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
I left Edmonton with a full tank. it is 1755 miles to where I went in Las vegas I filled at the truck stop on the west side of I15 right in Las vegas. 207 gallons U.S. = 172 imp 1755 miles divided by 172 gallons = 10.2 mpg Same trip back took 655 liters to fill the tank in Edmonton. I drive at or just slightly above the speed limit so figure about 75 to 77 mph on the interstate 100 to 110 km in Canada. Pudding | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 1003 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.33.43.204 Rating: N/A |
Might need to get a reader on that bus Les if that is the same bus Gary had in his shop doing a roof raise.I been on that bus with a Pro/Link before good luck | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 238 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
A reader? I used a GPS for the distance and speed and filling the tank to where I could see the fuel. Not sure what you mean by a reader. | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 239 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
By the way. Yes it was in Garys shop for the roof raise and second door. When did you see it? | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 1004 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.33.43.204 Rating: N/A |
Les a Pro/Link hand held reader will tell you the truth about the mileage did Gary do work on that bus ? could be the wrong bus has 11.1 350 hp series 60 (Message edited by luvrbus on January 11, 2011) | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 240 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
sounds like the right bus. Gary told me it was the only 102 he had in his shop. see my profile picture! except that Williams had the horse power at 385 when they put the new head on | ||
| joe padberg (Joemc7ab)
Registered Member Username: Joemc7ab Post Number: 461 Registered: 6-2004 Posted From: 66.38.159.33 Rating: N/A |
Les I think you might have done better on the way back from Vegas. 655 liters to fill is 144.27 imp gallons so that makes1755 devided by 144.27 a milage of 12.1 imp or adjusted for our US friends right around 10 us mpg. I would say that is damn good for a heavy coach. I think Fast Fred might get to his 15 objective with his 50 series. BTW , how is his project coming along ?? Us here in the frozen and snowed in north need a topic for chinwagging when I meet Les for coffee next week. Joe. | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 1415 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 66.82.9.59 Rating: |
"I think Fast Fred might get to his 15 objective with his 50 series. BTW , how is his project coming along ??" The Engine is ready and the tranny has been to ZF for a dyno check , and wiring (from scratch) check. The engine is slid in to assess the fit and work out the cooling requirements and the heat exchanger fit. With a retarder lots of heat has to be dumped. As always the 90/90 rule RULES! however sometime in Feb the engine should at least start and some limited test runs begun. First will be too the CAT scales to see where we are with the steel added and the weight of the 50 and ZF . Hopefully in the 25,000 lb area , and this will not grow , as the coach is converted already. 15mpg is still the dream, but only if its at 60mph+. 75mph is our expected cruise , and sleek as she is there is no chance of 15mpg at SPEED! FF | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 1005 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.33.43.204 Rating: N/A |
Well fellows all I can say is Northwest Bus in Vegas had a fleet of buses like the one Les owns the best I could find on any those buses was 7.8 mpg and the highest hp setting I found was 365 with cruise and I have my doubts of Williams turning it up to 385 doesn't happen there goes in as 350 comes out as a 350 hp when they do the work but Les will need a reader to be sure on what he has it could be a exception to their rules (Message edited by luvrbus on January 12, 2011) | ||
| H3-40 (Ace)
Registered Member Username: Ace Post Number: 1162 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 184.228.45.148  Rating: |
Personally, I think all you guys claiming to get upwards of 7,8, 9 and even more are fooling yourselves. Like clifford said, get a true result by using a reader. I bet you will be surprised at what you see and then have a different story to tell us! In my opinion, the only way you can get that milage is on a hook... | ||
| Jim Wilke (Jim Bob) (Pd41044039)
Registered Member Username: Pd41044039 Post Number: 578 Registered: 2-2001 Posted From: 184.0.13.120  Rating: N/A |
I'm thinking that the pro link mileage figure is only as good as the Vehicle Speed Sensor accuracy. If the computer thinks you are going 1000 miles due to sender input but you only went 900 by GPS, "your mileage WILL vary". Gotta think GPS mileage plus actual visual tank fill on a loonng trip will give best accuracy. | ||
| H3-40 (Ace)
Registered Member Username: Ace Post Number: 1163 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 75.204.208.1 Rating: N/A |
If the vehicle speed AND the gps are exactly the same, how can the pro-link be wrong? The PL reads info off the ecm. It's not a visual inspection of how full the tank is or how much wind your into or out of. It relates to everything such as the engine, load and miles traveled according to THAT particular vehicle. It could be that some people are using their speedometer readings which might be in Km and using US gal rather than using US and US which would make for an obvious difference in THEIR favor. Saw it happen before so I know it happens! A guy thought he was getting 9-10 mpg but later found out that the hubometer he was using was metric. After finding this out, his REAL mpg was around 6-7 | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 289 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
Jim, GPS accuracy is only as good as the software and the firmware built in to the GPS, and/or the software on the computer you are using. For instance, I have 4 different GPS antennae. 1 Holux 213U, 1 old Rand McNally that uses a serial port, 1 MS Streets and trips unknown maker and my Smart phone HTC Aria w/GPS and an app that I forget the name of. On a trip to Hearne, about 11 miles from us, all three report the correct speed, however, due to the built in error of the various makes, the odometer on each is off by as much as 2 miles. I would think that the 1999 vintage Rand McNally unit would be the furthest off, since it shows me running through lakes and streams, down through swamps and as much as a half mile off the road, but it's right in the middle of the pack when it comes to odometer. The one that is the farthest off is the MS Streets and Trips unit, it didn't read the same mileage going and coming back. It was over a 1/4 mile different on each leg, even though we run the same route every time. The cell phone was the most accurate, but it's a real bugger to read as you go down the road with that 2X3 screen. | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 241 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
Oh my! What a can of worms we have opened. My Gps is accurate. certainly more accurate than the odometer or speedometer on the coach. True it can't account for wind or other road conditions but for distance and speed... Well I am going to go with it. U.S. gallon =3.78 liters Imperial gallon = 4.55 liters The mile in both countries is 5280 feet When you can see the diesel in the filler spout the tank is full in both countries. I may have got slightly better fuel economy coming back because the fuel here was formulated for winter and what I got in Vegas was still summer fuel. The coach got a new head in vegas because an injector cup had dropped and I was given the horsepower choice. I believe Williams is a reputable shop and told me the truth about what the horse power of the engine is. What can I say? The cell phone may not be GPS it maybe getting distance off of cell signal | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 42 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 12.97.138.130 Rating: |
I got a headache, Probably from being confused!!! | ||
| Luvrbus (Luvrbus)
Registered Member Username: Luvrbus Post Number: 1006 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 74.33.43.204 Rating: N/A |
Les, Williams is a good shop a very good friend of mine is the shop foreman,there are 2 setting on the engine hp and cruise you need to tell us where the cruise hp is set because if the hp rating is what you say the cruise is going to be more. Williams sets the engine at 350 hp 365 for cruise get out side that HP setting you change the turbo along with other items. Best for you to use a Pro/Link or the DD software then you know what you have takes all the guess work out of the conversation good luck | ||
| David Evans (Dmd)
Registered Member Username: Dmd Post Number: 543 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 24.46.196.121  Rating: N/A |
 Here is a visual on older vs newer areodynamics! | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 1418 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 66.82.9.99 Rating: |
I use the interstate mile posts to calibrate the odometer. Since its the employers of last resort and the employees of last resort it is a worry. But the results seem to match when 100-200 or more miles are traveled on the same interstate in the same state. FF | ||
| Cory hart (Chart1)
Registered Member Username: Chart1 Post Number: 43 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 12.97.138.130 Rating: N/A |
How do you know they put the mile markers exactly 1 mile apart??? | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 1421 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 66.82.162.16 Rating: N/A |
How do you know they put the mile markers exactly 1 mile apart??? Its the GOV , there probably not done well, but after 100 or 200 miles it gets close enough to measure your fuel mileage distance. A GPS is better at instant speed , and is easier. FF | ||
| Dal Farnworth (Dallas)
Registered Member Username: Dallas Post Number: 291 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 75.91.197.33 Rating: N/A |
"Oh my! What a can of worms we have opened. My Gps is accurate." -Les Actually it's not all that accurate. The trucking and transportation industry uses pretty accurate GPS tracking systems. My experience has been with Qualcom, among others, and we always considered that if the GPS mileage was within 3%, we were doing good. I doubt your store bought consumer unit is even close to that accurate. http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 242 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: N/A |
Dallas I am not sure about the 3%, I guess it could be out by some but at the end of the day the GPS will be by far the most accurate way that we have to measure speed and distance. | ||
| les marston (Les_marston)
Registered Member Username: Les_marston Post Number: 244 Registered: 1-2010 Posted From: 68.151.225.213 Rating: |
Canada used to use imperial gallons So call me old fashioned but I still use imperial gallons to work out fuel economy. It is an easy conversion from liters to imp gallons but I see the confusion it can cause. the fuel economy for our 102 from Edmonton to Las vegas works out to 8.478 mpg U.S. Much more in line with the number your reader would give you. Dallas Lets assume that there is a 3% discrepancy in the GPS and it is down. this would make the mpg 8.22 mpg So on a 3500 mile trip that could reduce the distance by a little over 100 miles. I like to be an optimist so if it goes the other way it adds another 100 miles to the distance and thus the mpg goes up. So our coach with the 3% increase gets 8.73... I am going with this for U.S. mpg :-) |
