| Author |
Message |
Jim Wilke (205.188.116.135)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Does anybody have experience with an intercity coach powered by the 11 liter (350-375hp) 60 Series Detroit engine? If so, how was the performance compared to a 6 or 8V92TA? |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.122.163)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Depends upon who put the Series 60 in there.
If it is a factory instal and therefore the gearing is correct for the lower revving 60, it should be a great coach. If it is an instal in place of an 8v71 or similar and nothing else has been changed, such as no overdrive added, then it is probably not very fast on the highways as the 60 likes to cruise at between 1450 and 1650 rpms.
That particular 60 is the baby of the range, but saying that, it can pull 80K lbs as a semi-truck and has around 1350 ft lbs of torque, far more than most 71 or 92 motors can ever dream of.
Keep the weight down and the rpms low and you can get quite good mpg, I have been told.
This is the motor I have in my Freightliner conversion. Very nice unit.
Peter. |
Derek (24.85.245.203)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
The 11.1 gets much lower fuel milage than the 12.7 in intercity revenue service out here. |
niles (4.4.112.82)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 11:35 pm: | |
don't know for sure , but i believe my 8v ddec has more torque/hp than ll ltr ser 60 , should be much more
niles |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.122.163)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:54 am: | |
Derek,
Are you saying the 11.1 gets less miles per gallon than the 12.7?
Niles,
I have only read of 8v92 having more hp, but only around 950 or 1000 torque.
Peter. |
Derek (24.85.245.203)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 2:15 am: | |
Peter,
In the revenue service running routinly 400 miles per day on the west coast (read: Mountain driving), the 11.1 can be expected to get a maximum of 2.0km/l (7.56 miles per US gallon) in a MCI 102D3. A 12.7 in the same bus has shown to get 2.8km/l (10.54 miles per gallon).
I do not know the exact horsepower settings, but the 12.7 will fly up steep hills while the 11.1 will walk or crawl up the hill, so it's not a case of the 12.7 being detuned and the 11.1 being overtuned.
All the busses are running Allison B500R World Transmission. |
niles (4.4.112.82)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 3:41 am: | |
Peter,
Of course hp/torque outputs can vary depending on how the mill is set up , but i have never heard of a 8v92t in a bus application with less than about 1200 ft.lbs. of torque. Saw one on sale at www.sellabus.com/engines.html that had 483hp w/ 1650 ft.lbs. torque (which is about the maximum i've heard for torque in a bus application)
derek ,
i wish my 12.7 got that kind of mileage - mines not even close - even on the flat lands
niles |
FAST FRED (4.245.218.193)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Many of the coach repowers use scrap truck engines and trannies.
A great combo for 80,000 lbs , but with truck tranny with no OD (as in the bus trannies) they scream at speed.
GREAT at passing everyone on a steep hill, not so great at passing fuel stops.
The Bus trannies are big bucks,
FAST FRED |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.122.163)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
Fred,
If you use the stick with an overdrive from the donor truck or change the rear end gears all should be okay.
I understand it is a problem finding a ratio tall enough to fit in a bus axle.
Peter. |
L Clinton (4.233.161.2)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
I went all the way around the block trying to find gears for a Scenicruiser that would drop the rpm down on a 12.7 liter. I am convinced that you can't find one. Installing a Allison 4060 with a .64 6th gear. Should be in the 1500 rpm range at 70. Top out somewhere around 120-
Larry |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.125.130)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
Larry,
A while back, someone was talking about having a different third member flange welded to their axle so newer style third members would fit. I wasn't too sure on this, but changing the whole center of the axle could be done and joined to the original axle tubes.
Maybe just changing the whole axle would be easier too.
Peter. |
Lorin David McCleary (Wacoastmci) (148.78.247.10)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Larry, we have a Series 60 12.7 liter with Allison HD4060R transmission (six forward speeds & retarder) in our 102D. We usually cruise at 65 mph, cruise control on, which as memory serves is ~1600rpm in 6th gear.
DDEC calculated mileage, using cruise control, when not towing is ~8.5mpg range and when towing, ~8mpg on flat ground at 65mph. I'm skeptical of mileage claims of 10+ on Series 60. (Maybe if you cruise at 50mph?) Mileage goes down sharply on hills especially when towing.
Pullled the Grapevine into LA towing Jeep GC this winter using 4th gear at ~45 mph if memory serves. We were much faster than the semi's and other RV's towing. Seems to pull hills better & stays cooler at higher RPM (1900-2100). Drove about 12,000 miles in past year. BTW, 70mph is about ~1650 rpm in 6th gear and definitely not 1500rpm. I can't get the math to work out right right, but I'm pretty sure of this ~1650 for 70mph in 6th gear. |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.125.130)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Lorin,
Unfortunately in my situation I can't use a World tranny as having a DDEC 2, it is too expensive to convert everything to the DDEC3 or 4 systems needed for the World.
I am using an HT 740 and a rear end ratio change from 3.91 to either 2.80 (direct comparison to my original overdrive stick 0.72) or the more common 2.93 gears.
Thanks for confirming your speed/rpms working out for you as I will be in about the same situation.
Peter. |
Derek (Derek_L) (24.85.245.203)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Lorin,
I will get the milage numbers for you sometime later this week. 10.5 MPG is not unattainable.
I also forgot to mention that the numbers for the 11.1 and 12.7 were had with the same driver, on the same runs.
Cruise is always 70+MPH, with much idle time.
Derek |
Lorin David McCleary (Wacoastmci) (148.78.243.122)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Derek,
Something seems wrong with the mileage calculations you mention early in this thread. Doesn't 2km/liter = 1.24 miles per .264 gallon or 4.7 mpg? Doesn't 2.8 km/liter = 1.78 miles on .264 of a gallon or 6.7 mpg? Our Series 60 in a 102D3 does 8 to 8.5 mpg at 65mph so the 6.7 mpg number at 70mph seems more logical to me than 10.5 mpg. Suspect there may be some math troubles in the 10.5 mpg calculation for Series 60/102D.
Lorin |
niles (4.4.112.82)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:38 pm: | |
Lorin , sounds right to me , and more reasonable for the described use , ****STAR**** for you .
niles |
Derek (Derek_L) (24.85.245.203)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:42 pm: | |
Ahhhh, you're right, that would be 10.5 KILOMETERS per gallon, or 6.7 MILES per gallon.
My mistake. |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.125.130)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 11:33 pm: | |
Derek,
Is the earlier figure (7.56mpg) for the 11.1 correct? If so the 11.1 is more fuel efficient than the revised mpg for 12.7, correct?
Peter.
"In the revenue service running routinly 400 miles per day on the west coast (read: Mountain driving), the 11.1 can be expected to get a maximum of 2.0km/l (7.56 miles per US gallon) in a MCI 102D3. A 12.7 in the same bus has shown to get 2.8km/l (10.54 miles per gallon)." |
Derek (Derek_L) (24.85.245.203)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:12 am: | |
Peter,
Both figures were wrong. I forgot to account for the conversion to miles, and only converted the gallons.
In either case, the 11.1 is still less efficient than the 12.7, even if my converted figures were off.
This has shown to be true in many busses, not just the 102D3. |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.125.130)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:23 am: | |
Derek,
Then there must be something wrong with that 11.1 as everyone I speak to who drives one gets a bunch more than these figures. In fact most reckon the 11.1 in my Freightliner pulling under 40K lbs would do nearer to 8 at around 65-70mph on the Interstates. That is a whole bunch better than your 4.697. Why would any compnay use a bus with that sort of fuel consumption, it fact I doubt the manufacturer could even sell them.
Still we won't know until I actually get the old girl out on the road and under real time tests, but I am sure these figures are not typical.
Peter. |
Gary Carter (68.25.30.247)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
You gotta be careful about canadian calculations as first they us metric and then converting to gallons use the old canadian gallon which is 5 quarts. Also you need to measure mpg over multiple tanks and you can get a huge increase in mpg by not filling it up like you did the time before.
Case in point is my neighbor who kept saying he got up to 11mpg, but in a recent round trip of MN to NY he averaged 7.3mpg. Was telling me more until his wife who was keeping track gave him the facts. He drives an American Eagle (fleetwood) with a 300HP ISC Cummins (8.3)
My 8V92TA DDEC has averaged 6.6 over the past 10,000 miles. BTW it is 500hp and 1470 lb ft of torque. |
TWO DOGS (63.185.81.228)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 7:42 pm: | |
DEREK....
it's true in trucks too....I drove a 200 horse truck,with 80,000 pounds & a 400 horse truck with 80,ooo pounds...both got 7 mpg....but....the little one worked it's ass off |
Rayshound (205.188.116.135)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 11:27 pm: | |
Peter (Madbrit) that was me you were refering to in your Sunday post. I had given the banjo housing to a suspension shop in Houston along with a 2001 Volvo center carrier, including the mounting flange & the axles. They welded & machined the flange on my old housing and modified my hubs to accept my 8 hole flange axles. I now have the 2:56 ratio with the series 60 and the HT-740 with the stall speed changed by replacing the stator in the torque converter. also went to a digital modulator for my DDEC3 to talk to. Also went to side mount radiator with a hyd drive fan. All in mci-8. not complete yet but all there. Ray |
Peter Broadribb (Madbrit) (67.136.100.57)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 12:17 am: | |
Ray,
Thanks for reminding me it was your axle. Glad it's all working out for you. Let us know how the ratio is when you get on the road.
Peter. |
FAST FRED (4.245.230.172)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Seems the 04 series 60 with the CEGR wont provide their max torque till 1800 rpm.
So for a better coach engine , get an old one!
FAST FRED |
Jim-bob (12.46.52.74)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
OR, Fred, you could replace an OLD one with a new, computer controlled fuel efficient, non smoking, less oil burning Series 60!
Only T drive buses though.
Fred, did'ja ever think that you could take a 4104 or 4106, install a Series 60 with a V730R transmission and have an automatic that gets OVER 10 mpg & could climb real mountains faster than 20MPH? |
FAST FRED (4.245.212.85)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
Well the mountains here on the east coast are so small that my STOCK 06 climbs them in 4th , but does slow down to 45 or 50 on the steep ones.
To get a newer engine in any GM is simple ,
find a scrap transit donor and take it ALL.
Some come with series 60 some with L-10 , some with cummins , trannys range from the Voight , to, VR 731 some have have ZF.
Unfortunatly no sticks.
The rear axle has BIG brakes , and modern gearset.
The front axle has a sharp cut angle , and BIG breaks , PS too if need it.
Not bad for $300 to $3000 donor to move the Sportscar or most GM up about 50 years in mfg time.
And a great way to recycle !
FAST FRED |
Nelson Thomas (205.188.116.135)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
Fred: How much rengineering is involved and how much bolts up? Do you have to alter the rear bulk-head very much? What would you have to do to mount the new rearend, Is the transit rearend width close to the same as the orgional? Can you convert just the brakes? Thanks Nelson Thomas |
FAST FRED (4.245.230.93)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Haven't done the Swop , but I'm told the Flex is the better donor candidate.(But if I find a donor I will probably take it to FL and begin carving).
Up front my source swopped the spindles to get the turn angle and big brakes.
In the rear the cradle needs to be modified (unfortunatly TMC went out before I could purchase a couple of Cad Cam built cradle units)
And some Flexes were 102 wide , so a radiaor mount will probably have to be re-engineered.
I'm also told that the idle SUCKS when comparing the smoothness of an 8 cyl 2 stroke with a 6 cyl 4 stroke banger.Underway its not noticable.
You may also need to stick in an oil furnace , as the 4 strokes are so efficent , there isnt too much waste heat for radiators in severe cold.
FAST FRED |
Johnny (4.174.70.222)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 12, 2004 - 11:23 am: | |
Solution: a big piece of cardboard in front of the radiator. |