Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
December 21, 2014, 02:13:58 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an Online Subscription: It will not turn yellow, get musty, dusty, and mildewed or fade.
   Home   Help Forum Rules Search Calendar Login Register BCM Home Page Contact BCM  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Single rear axle MCI  (Read 5409 times)
brando4905
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227



WWW

Ignore
« on: January 12, 2011, 09:43:05 AM »

Seems like someone on this board was looking for one of these awhile back?

http://greenville.craigslist.org/rvs/2114655939.html
Logged

1980 GMC H8H-649  8V71/V730 Marion,NC

"The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense" -Dylan
JackConrad
Orange Blossom Special II
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4447


73' MC-8 8V71/HT740 Southwest Florida


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2011, 01:10:13 PM »

Loosing the tags reduces your GVW by 6000#.  Jack
Logged

Growing Older Is Mandatory, Growing Up Is Optional
Arcadia, Florida, When we are home
http://s682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/OBS-JC/
Busted Knuckle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6447


6 Setras, 2 MCIs, and 1 Dina. Just buses ;D


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2011, 01:35:50 PM »

Loosing the tags reduces your GVW by 6000#.  Jack

Jack that is true, but it also reduces your empty weight a fair amount too. I don't know exactly how much, but would guess several thousand #. (gotta be close to 1000 lbs per side with tires, wheels, drums, brakes, hub, spindle & axle/mounting assembly I'd think)  FWIW
Grin  BK  Grin
Logged

Busted Knuckle aka Bryce Gaston
KY Lakeside Travel's Busted Knuckle Garage
Huntingdon, TN 12 minutes N of I-40 @ exit 108
www.kylakesidetravel.net

Grin Keep SMILING it makes people wonder what yer up to! Grin (at least thats what momma always told me! Grin)
JackConrad
Orange Blossom Special II
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4447


73' MC-8 8V71/HT740 Southwest Florida


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2011, 03:13:40 PM »

Yeah, with a tag weight of 2500#, you would only loose 3500# GVW.  Jack
Logged

Growing Older Is Mandatory, Growing Up Is Optional
Arcadia, Florida, When we are home
http://s682.photobucket.com/albums/vv186/OBS-JC/
Ed Hackenbruch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2478




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2011, 06:12:23 PM »

And a single rear axle coach is better looking too! Grin
Logged

1968 MCI 5A with 8V71 and Allison MT644 transmission.  Western USA
lostagain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1622


MC5C




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2011, 08:04:38 PM »

Having driven lots of miles on both single rear axle buses and buses with drive axles and tags, lots of MCIs and some Prevosts, I can offer these comments:

Single rear axle buses, (generally 35 footers) feel lighter and bouncier, with more of a porpoise motion. They are more agile and sportyer to drive. Handy in tight spots like around a city, or state/provincial campground. Tighter turning radius. The MC5 is a great example.

Tag axle buses, (behind the drive axle, I have no experience with Eagles), are heavier. They have a great feeling of being planted on the road. They don't bounce as much or have that porpoise motion. They absorb the bumps and pot holes nice and smoothly. And in the case of a 102", the side to side stability has that planted, stable feel too. The tags offer added braking too and straight ahead stability. For example if you're spinning out in snow, the tags keep the rear end in a straight line rather than slipping sideways. Tag axle buses are usually 40 or 45 footers with a much bigger turning radius than 35 footers. And of course there is more maintenance to keep up to with tags: tires, brakes, bearings, etc.

There are two different buses.

JC
Logged

JC
Invermere, BC
1977 MC5C, 6V92/HT740
Dave5Cs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722


1979 MCI MC5Cs 6V-71 644MT Allison, Roseville, CA




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2011, 10:09:20 PM »

Lost;
While we know that is correct!!!
You didn't address what Ed said, because my wife and I agree they are much better looking and cute as she says,LOL

Dave
Logged

My personal skills are fine.. itís my tolerance to idiots that needs work!....

http://s1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj493/fltmr2000/
lostagain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1622


MC5C




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2011, 06:40:20 AM »

The MC5 is the best looking bus ever built! Never mind how it rides. That settles it, LOL.

JC
Logged

JC
Invermere, BC
1977 MC5C, 6V92/HT740
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2011, 07:13:07 AM »

  I think most of the OTR coaches are pretty nice looking, though some of the later model MCI's look a bit too "commercial".

  I read stuff some months ago about removing the tag on the MCI -7,8, and 9, cant find anything now though. But it said removing the tag would make the nose bounce so much you could lose control, be thrown out of the driver seat, etc,. Secondary effects were structural failure of the frame over the axle.

 
Logged
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13129




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2011, 07:29:37 AM »

You don't get the bounce with that bus the rear axle was moved 25 inches to the rear from the location of the rear axle on the regular 3 axle MCI just thought you may want to know the wheel base on it is 310 inches,turning radius is 48 ft on the 2 axle and the 3 axle A is 43 ft

good luck
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 07:34:51 AM by luvrbus » Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4882


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2011, 07:40:20 AM »

I was just about to post the same thing!  the wheelbase on the MC-5 and 6 is 261" and the turning radius is 46 feet.  The  wheelbase for  the MC-7, 8 and 9 and later buses as well is 285" (steer to drive, I would assume) and the turning radius is 46 feet, up to 51 feet for the MC-9.  Later three axle buses had a smaller turning radius.

So MCI two axle buses did not have a particularly better steering ability, but the 35' MCI did have a little less overhang at the rear.

Brian
Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Vintage race cars -
1978 Lola T440 Formula Ford
1972 NTM MK-4 B/SR
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13129




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2011, 08:16:35 AM »

That were the Eagle had MCI beat 45 ft on 40 ft bus the MCI 9 was 51 ft


good luck
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
FloridaCliff
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458


"The Mighty GMC"




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2011, 09:13:26 AM »

And a single rear axle coach is better looking too! Grin

Ed,  

What can I say!  (other than your right) Wink

Cliff
Logged

1975 GMC  P8M4905A-1160    North Central Florida

"There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded."
Mark Twain
RJ
Former Giant Greenbrier Owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881





Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2011, 09:17:24 AM »

JC -

I'll second that there's a difference between a two and three axle coach, but with some caveats:

A three-axle Prevost, with the tags raised, bounces just like you said.

A 40' Eagle with bad shocks will porpoise a driver right out of the seat, but with good shocks, has a fantastic ride.  (45' Eagles don't suffer this phenom.)

At 318", a 40-foot two-axle GMC Buffalo has a really sweet ride and a nimble feel, w/o any porposing.  Actually rides better than some of today's 45 footers.

The three-axle MCIs, like you say, feel heavy and planted.  Lumbering giants, so to speak.

Will also agree that the MC-5C is a good-looking coach, except for the funky transition between the MC-8 front end and the MC-5A/B roofline.  Softened a bit if you've got a Saudi double-roof. . .

Personally, I still think the 4106 was one of the best-looking 35' coaches ever built.  Sort of an "evolutionary" design between the rounded shapes of the post-WWII workhorses and the more modern 40'-footers with their shiny stainless and boxy sides.

And then there's the Scenicruiser. . .  Probably the best example of good industrial design ever built!

FWIW & HTH. . .

 Wink
Logged

RJ Long
PD4106-2784 No More
S13406 Now
Fresno CA
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13129




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2011, 09:24:54 AM »

Cliff you and Ed are in love lol look at the Eagle on the cover of BCM and tell me that not a good looking bus huh Eric


good luck
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2011, 11:23:28 AM »

Personally, I still think the 4106 was one of the best-looking 35' coaches ever built.  Sort of an "evolutionary" design between the rounded shapes of the post-WWII workhorses and the more modern 40'-footers with their shiny stainless and boxy sides.

  I agree with ya there, those are one of my favorites along with the 04. Too bad its so hard to upgrade the brakes to readily available (and affordable) parts and make it climb a hill. Or am I sticking my foot in my mouth again?
Logged
lostagain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1622


MC5C




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2011, 12:05:02 PM »

My comments about the larger turning radius of the tri-axle 40 footers was based from my experience 35 years ago with the MC7 and 8s.

When I think of it, the 102D3 of the hockey team's does turn really tight, due to the front wheels turning so sharp.

And about tag tires, they wear out fast from scuffing on those tight turns, unless you have a steering axle.

JC
Logged

JC
Invermere, BC
1977 MC5C, 6V92/HT740
DMoedave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327





Ignore
« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2011, 07:08:29 PM »

Well we have one of the older GM's, a stepchild to the Silversides which i think is one of the best looking, i think the same designer as the Scenicruiser. The MCI 6 is an awesome looking bus. The 4104 are my favorite, the 06 close behind then the MCI 5 series. But i have always loved  the look of the Eagles. My wife hates the "bug eyed look" of the Eagle. And as for brakes, we now have MCI drums and brakes on the rear axle and holy $#!% do they stop the bus. As in right away. Like whoa! Might upgrade to a shoulder belt.
Logged

we love our buses!!! NE Pa or LI NY, or somewhere in between!
RJ
Former Giant Greenbrier Owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: January 13, 2011, 07:11:13 PM »

Art -

Or am I sticking my foot in my mouth again?


Yes!   Grin


A 4106 with good stock linings and drums, adjusted properly and with no moisture in the system, will throw the front seat passengers thru the windshield if you stand on the brakes hard.  Driver better have his seat belt on, too!  They won't quite match the phenomenal brakes on a 10-wheel Crown, but they'll come close.  BTDT.  However, if you insist on upgrading, you can use the axles out of a 96" RTS, providing you can find one of the rare 4.10:1 gear sets.

As for hill-climbing, we've been over this before, several times.  There isn't a bus out there with a normal stock powertrain that will climb 6% grades at 65 - 70 mph, especially at altitude.  They're just too plain heavy.  Some of those new Prevost conversions with all the glitz, glamor and granite, pushed along by a 500 hp Series-60, will still only climb a 6% grade at about 40 mph since they weigh close to 50K.  Power to weight ratio is what we're dealing with here.

Bob Sheaves, an automotive engineer who used to post on the old MAK board (back in the days when it crashed a lot), has a program on his laptop that can instantly tell you how much HP you'll need to climb whatever percent grade you want to plug in, at what road speed, based on the weight of your rig.  And since his expertise is cooling systems, he'll also be able to tell you how big a radiator you're gonna need to keep that beast of a motor cool.  Sorry, he doesn't post on the boards anymore, nor will he share his program.  But it sure was fun playing will all the numbers a couple of years ago at BusinUSA in Rickreall, OR.

Now, some simple math for you.  Take an MC-9 with a 350 hp 6V92TA bolted to an HT-740 automatic, loaded to it's GVW, which is 36,600.  Compare that to a 4106 loaded to it's GVW of 32,000 with the same 350 hp 6V92TA and a V-730.  Guess which one's gonna go up the mountain faster?  Duh

In reality, buses are slow in the mountains (at least going uphill).  It's hard for non-professionals to wrap their heads around that fact, but it's true.  I've seen it time and time again.  If you think your bus is going to be a BMW on the Grapevine, you're going to be sadly disappointed.  Deal with it, sit back and enjoy the scenery and let everyone else figure out how to get around you.

FWIW & HTH. . .

 Wink
Logged

RJ Long
PD4106-2784 No More
S13406 Now
Fresno CA
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: January 13, 2011, 08:36:23 PM »

  Now now, its not little 6% hills I'm worried about, its my billy goat driveway I need to climb. And for that I need a granny low 1st gear. If I thought a GM could get up here with a manual, or if there was an economical way to make it work, I would keep looking. But I gave up as I slowly realised the difficulty. "Maybe it will" or "it might" arent good enough answers to make a decision about which Bus to buy. The 5 speed with 7:1 in first, even in a -9, will make it up here without any question.
Logged
Dave5Cs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722


1979 MCI MC5Cs 6V-71 644MT Allison, Roseville, CA




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2011, 09:00:19 PM »

Yep RJ;

 Even though I own a 5C Saudi I think the roof cap is a little weird from the 8 transition should have been a bump up as in the Buffalo would have looked better but I do like the newer looking front. Also think it would look better with the SS siding all the way to bottom of windows like the 5 A & B.
Logged

My personal skills are fine.. itís my tolerance to idiots that needs work!....

http://s1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj493/fltmr2000/
tomhamrick
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 385




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2011, 05:41:30 AM »

I have the 40 foot single axle eagle model 10S, and love it. Have an extra bay to stick stuff. But I am not a heavy conversion right at 30,000 pounds.
Tom Hamrick
Logged

Tom Hamrick
1991 Prevost H3-40 VIP
1981 Eagle 10
Forest City, NC
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2011, 07:42:34 AM »

  "if" a guy were to put an auto in a 4104 or 06, what kind of a mileage hit would it be? This HT740 y'all mention, is it mechanical, or computer controlled? I dont want any computers or electronics.
Logged
wildbob24
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 546





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2011, 08:29:34 AM »

Art,

The HT740 is a mechanical transmission, but it won't fit in a 4106 or 4104. The v-drive in the 4106 limits you to the v730, which is a 3 speed(won't fit in the 4104). The general consensus as to the MPG hit, is, I believe, 1-3 mpg. Depends, of course, on where and how you drive it.

I have heard that a few nuts have converted some GMs to a t-drive, but involves changing all of the running gear and extending the rear of the bus. Seems like a lot of work.

Bob
Logged

P8M4905A-1308, 8V71 w/V730
Custom Coach Conversion
Duluth, GA
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2011, 10:48:40 AM »

  It all makes you wonder what the perfect setup would be. On flat level ground at steady speed, weight shouldnt have much effect of fuel economy. It does add to rolling resistance, but when your comparing vehicles weighing between 20k and 30K pounds rolling on big slow turning tires, rolling resistance probably isnt changed much by weight.

  The biggest factor on level road then, is air resistance, how big a hole your punching through the air, and how hard your punching through it.

  The second biggest factor then, is engine and driveline efficiency. At steady speed on level road, engine HP makes little difference, the Bus takes a certain amount of power to run that speed, and no more. Whether you have a 250 HP engine, or a 1500 HP engine, makes no difference to the amount of energy required to push the bus down the road at steady speed. So in every case, the same amount of effort needs to be put to the wheels.

  HP takes fuel. I read somewhere that a 4104 uses about 125 HP to punch through the air at 65 mph. Dont quote me on that, besides, it really doesnt matter. The point is that you can start from that figure and move up or down. Slow down, and the Bus needs less power. Speed up and you need more. Raise the roof and you need more power. Drive a cooling fan with 30 HP, your burning extra fuel. Drive a large AC compressor and your burning extra fuel. have an automatic thats sucking 30 HP in pump and clutch drag losses and your burning extra fuel.

  Then you have the engine itself. Is it efficient? How wide is its power band? Does it have reserve power? Can it be kept in its sweet spot? I recall the Turbo Formula One cars, and how they rapidly became so so fast and powerful, with some developing as much as 1500 HP from tiny 1500 cc engines. Initial efforts to slow them down were to cut boost, which was reaching over 100 psi at the intake manifold. But it did not stop the increase. In a last ditch effort the FIA investigated cutting displacement to 1200 cc. But it was found that by dropping to a 3 cylinder engine, they would actually have gained even more power by reduction of pumping losses. So obviously, less cyclinders should be more efficient than more.

  So a lil 4-71 would do the job in almost any Bus on level road. But when you hit the hills or jack rabbit from a stop light in that 30K pound rig dragging your car along, all bets are off. Start cranking that fan, the auto trans pump, power steering pump, slipping clutches, and driving the AC compressor, and there's no power left to drive the Bus.

  So where do we go? I was trying to research turbo diesel vs non turbo diesel efficiency. Specifically, is a small diesel running at constant power on boost, lets say developing 100 HP, more efficient than a non turbo diesel producing the same power? Or in a Bus application, could a turbo aftercooled 4-71, have any hope of pushing a lightened Bus around and making better economy?
 

 
Logged
luvrbus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13129




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2011, 11:00:55 AM »

What do you think a 190 hp 4-71 with 525 lbs of torque would do at the first hill ? bike riders in their funny shorts and caps will pass you



good luck
Logged

Life is short drink the good wine first
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2011, 11:48:52 AM »

What do you think a 190 hp 4-71 with 525 lbs of torque would do at the first hill ? bike riders in their funny shorts and caps will pass you



good luck

  No doubt. I run out of poop on hills with the bounder with only 190 HP. But then it only has 4 gears. But what I was asking is if a turbo diesel operating with full boost, would burn more or less fuel per HP/hr, than a non turbo engine making the same amount of HP.
Logged
bevans6
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4882


1980 MCI MC-5C




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2011, 11:57:51 AM »

On the detroit diesel Yahoo forum there was a post the other day about a guy who had a 6V52T aluminium block/head engine built for the Military in 2002.  Apparently they wanted it back, which was kind of funny.  Anyway, it made 350 hp and could be programmed to 400.  Probably needed a lake to cool it and would last about a week, but that would be awesome in a pickup truck!

Brian
Logged

1980 MCI MC-5C, 8V-71T from a M-110 self propelled howitzer
Spicer 8844 4 speed Zen meditation device
Vintage race cars -
1978 Lola T440 Formula Ford
1972 NTM MK-4 B/SR
uncle ned
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 957



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2011, 01:10:16 PM »




     The v-drive in the 4106 limits you to the v730, which is a 3 speed(won't fit in the 4104).

        "never say never".

uncle ned
Logged

4104's forever
6v92 v730
Huggy Bear
Highway Yacht
*****Jimmy*****
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504


Locust, North Carolina


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2011, 01:25:47 PM »

  Now now, its not little 6% hills I'm worried about, its my billy goat driveway I need to climb. And for that I need a granny low 1st gear. If I thought a GM could get up here with a manual, or if there was an economical way to make it work, I would keep looking. But I gave up as I slowly realised the difficulty. "Maybe it will" or "it might" arent good enough answers to make a decision about which Bus to buy. The 5 speed with 7:1 in first, even in a -9, will make it up here without any question.

Art... I have one of those billy goat driveways.. Mine is so steep that I have to use 4wd in my truck climbing it so I won't spin out the gravel. I climb it on a regular basis with my MC9 with 8V71T and HT740. Granted that I do have enough room (aprox 100 ft) to get up some speed before hitting the hill. I just pull her down in low and floor it.. I've never not made it yet.

Jimmy
Logged

1979 MC-9  8V71-Turbo / HT740             * www.MciBusTalk.com *
Locust, North Carolina                           A Site Dedicated To MCI's
Len Silva
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4086


Angle Parked in a Parallel Universe


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2011, 01:26:10 PM »




     The v-drive in the 4106 limits you to the v730, which is a 3 speed(won't fit in the 4104).

        "never say never".

uncle ned

It just depends on the size of your hammer or checkbook.
Logged


Hand Made Gifts

Ignorance is only bliss to the ignorant.
wildbob24
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 546





Ignore
« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2011, 01:37:51 PM »

I agree. It's certainly possible, if you change the engine and rear axle, to make the v730 fit in your 4104.

Bob
Logged

P8M4905A-1308, 8V71 w/V730
Custom Coach Conversion
Duluth, GA
RJ
Former Giant Greenbrier Owner
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2881





Ignore
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2011, 08:06:21 PM »

WildBob -

Uncle Ned has a 6V92T bolted to a V-730 shoehorned into the engine compartment of his 4104 - a common swap, btw.

Don't remember if he said he used a 4106 or later rear axle, or if he flopped the 4104's and re-indexed the pumpkin.

But it works - sounds sweet, too!

FWIW & HTH. . .

 Wink
Logged

RJ Long
PD4106-2784 No More
S13406 Now
Fresno CA
wildbob24
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 546





Ignore
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2011, 08:12:35 PM »

RJ,

Yes, I remembered reading that somewhere, hence my reference to changing the engine and axle. When I worked for Ray Cox at Coach Services in Atlanta, we had a customer with that same conversion. It was done using a 4106 axle.

My earlier reply to Art was in reference to using a V730 in a 4104 with the original engine and axle. Won't fit.

Bob
Logged

P8M4905A-1308, 8V71 w/V730
Custom Coach Conversion
Duluth, GA
blank
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1929




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2011, 10:19:34 PM »


Uncle Ned has a 6V92T bolted to a V-730 shoehorned into the engine compartment of his 4104 - a common swap, btw.

Don't remember if he said he used a 4106 or later rear axle, or if he flopped the 4104's and re-indexed the pumpkin.

But it works - sounds sweet, too!



Hmmmmmmm. Sounds intersting
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!