Bus Conversions dot Com Bulletin Board
September 21, 2014, 11:19:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you had an E-Mag 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 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Alternator Questions  (Read 2876 times)
captain ron
Guest

« on: November 29, 2006, 03:00:27 PM »

I was wondering if I replaced my big honkin gear driven alternator with a belt driven one would I possibly increase my fuel mileage?
I 've been told the gear driven ones take 30 to 40 horse power to turn when charging.

Also I want to put a 12 volt alternator on my bus to keep house batteries charged. Whats the best and least expencive route to go for that one?
I have removed my commpressor for my air conditioning so I can have a place to put the two alternators.
For those of you not familliar with my bus it is MCI 8 with 8v92 DDEC and Allison 740A ATEC. I am currently getting 5.8 MPG and am desperate to increase it.

Captain Ron
Logged
gumpy
Some Assembly Required
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3249


Slightly modified 1982 MC9


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2006, 03:25:13 PM »

Here's an idea.... take your foot out of the throttle a bit!

Seriously, I think you're looking to save pennies here.   The power coming out of the alternator has to come from someplace. Don't matter whether you use a tiny 50 amp alternator or that big DN50. It'll take the same amount of power to charge the batteries and once they're full, it don't take any more power to drive the unloaded alternator. So going to a smaller alternator will only take longer to charge, but it'll still take the same amount of power, and therefore, fuel.

My opinion only.

By the way, didn't you present some other odd ideas recently about increasing fuel mileage?  Something to do with tag axles? Where'd that end up?

« Last Edit: November 29, 2006, 03:28:25 PM by gumpy » Logged

Craig Shepard
Located in Minnesquito

http://bus.gumpydog.com - "Some Assembly Required"
captain ron
Guest

« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2006, 03:41:20 PM »

Since I actualy drive my bus  Grin Any little amount of fuel mileage increase would be of help. lets say if not using the tag saved me a1/2 mile mpg and the alternator did the same that would be a significant savings. I didn't say it was a smaller alternator just belt driven. I have it from the old bus and it was a reman. unit from detroit city busses. I don't really think any Idea is crazy if it saves me fuel. Just asking before I do it so I don't do any thing crazy. No need to beat me up Cry for trying to better my fuel consumption.
Logged
captain ron
Guest

« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2006, 04:33:20 PM »

My cruise is not working at this time but when it did I tried setting it at 60 MPH and 55 MPH and got no better results. So it's time for other options.
Logged
Abajaba
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2006, 04:34:27 PM »

I don't think you would see any difference between the two drive methods for an alternator.  If they are both putting out the same amount of energy then they are both going to require the same amount of energy into the alternator. 

Now you want a 12 volt alternator for house batteries.  If you leave the gear drive in place for the main batteries, that would allow you to use the belt grooves that were for the air conditioning to drive a 12 volt alternator.  Now you don't have to come up with brackets for a new 24 volt alternator and all the design headaches that would entail.  The only brackets that you need to come up with are the brackets for the 12 volt alternator. 

Abajaba
Logged
Len Silva
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4085


Angle Parked in a Parallel Universe


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2006, 04:35:34 PM »

If you have all the parts, I would change to the belt driven alternator just because the gear driven units scare me. I've heard a lot of horror stories of gear failure taking out the whole engine.

Len
Logged


Hand Made Gifts

Ignorance is only bliss to the ignorant.
tekebird
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2263





Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2006, 04:55:23 PM »

Very little if any differnece in HP loss through the belt vs gear drive...if any at all it you would be talking two decimal places.

as for the 12v.....mount it between the rad blowers.

Logged
Jeremy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1879


1987 Bedford Plaxton


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2006, 05:33:21 PM »

The efficiency of energy transmission through a gear train is very high - in theory not far off 100%, although in practice you have losses through friction between shafts and bearings etc. A chain is less efficient, and a belt less efficient still, due to the energy required to 'bend' the belt material. But, as has been said, the actual differences will be negligible. As has also been said, to get a certain amount of power out of an alternator you need to put a certain amount of power into it, so again in theory it doesn't matter how big the alternator is. More modern alternators are probably slightly more efficient due to advances in design and technology, but I doubt whether the saving would be worth the purchase cost.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't temporarily disconnect your existing big alternator and record your fuel economy on a trip to see what difference it makes. If you do it during the daytime and avoid any unnecessary electrical use you will be able to go much further than you expect without battery charging.

Regarding the house batteries - have you considered either a dual output alternator regulator, or a battery-to-battery charger? Both options would avoid the need to fit a second alternator.

Jeremy
Logged

A shameless plug for my business - visit www.magazineexchange.co.uk for back issue magazines - thousands of titles covering cars, motorbikes, aircraft, railways, boats, modelling etc. You'll find lots of interest, although not much covering American buses sadly.
oldmansax
Tom & Phyllis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 994


'82 Bluebird Wanderlodge PT40




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2006, 05:47:11 PM »

Ron, the amount of energy need to propel the bus down the highway at a given speed is pretty much standard on unmodified buses. The things we can do are one, decrease the "load", which is what you and some of the rest of us are looking at and two, increase the efficiency of conversion of diesel fuel to energy.

Under item one, you can do things like make the bus more aerodynamic (a plane fuselage would be far more efficient that a flat nose bus, but who would want that?). You can drive without power steering or air conditioning. You can change the auto tranny to a manual with overdrive. I am looking at installing an air clutch on the fan drive to unload the fans when not needed. Each one of these options involves weighing the cost of the modifications and the inconvenience against the gain.

One thing I learned during my truck driving days was the use of synthetic oil. If you replace all the fluids EXCEPT THE ENGINE OIL  with synthetics, you will decrease the amount of energy needed to move the bus. I picked up almost 2 MPG  when I changed my '74 Diamond Reo to synthetics. Granted, I was carrying more weight and had two differentials,  but there will still be a difference. There is some disagreement as to wether synthetics meet DD’s engine specs. I used them in mine but they will find EVERY leak no matter how small. There is another thread on the board about wheel bearings. I started out with grease in all bearings but changed to oil bath after the axle and seal manufacturers produced parts to do it. I could then use synthetic oil in all bearings.

I am assuming you always keep the tires at the correct pressure and your speed is reasonable. My experience with cruise control was that it did not do as well MPG wise as I could. I think the reason is cruise cannot anticipate hills and I can.

Under item two, you can increase the efficiently of the engine (the part that converts fuel to energy to mechanical motion). This is usually done by turbo charging, after cooling, computer controls, and such like.  Again, you will have to do a cost/benefit analysis.

Keep trying! All of us will benefit. I think Thomas Edison said after his 100th failure at inventing the electric light, “ I have not failed, I just know 100 ways it will not work”.

Legal disclaimer: This is my opinion. It and one dollar will buy you a cup of coffee in some places.
Logged

'82 BlueBird WanderLodge PT40 being rebuilt
Delaware

DON'T STEAL! The government hates competition!
Hartley
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217





Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2006, 05:50:54 PM »

I was wondering if I replaced my big honkin gear driven alternator with a belt driven one would I possibly increase my fuel mileage?
I 've been told the gear driven ones take 30 to 40 horse power to turn when charging.

Also I want to put a 12 volt alternator on my bus to keep house batteries charged. Whats the best and least expencive route to go for that one?
I have removed my commpressor for my air conditioning so I can have a place to put the two alternators.
For those of you not familliar with my bus it is MCI 8 with 8v92 DDEC and Allison 740A ATEC. I am currently getting 5.8 MPG and am desperate to increase it.

Captain Ron

You wouldn't save anything on mileage by changing the alternator. Your particular engine/transmission combination is part of the problem, since the 740 doesn't have overdrive the engine is turning pretty fast at highway speeds. Save the money and aggravation and look for a usable overdrive transmission like a World or B500 and get the rpms down which will use less fuel.

My 6V92TA with the 740 gets 6 mpg and I have no horsepower to spare, Yours is a beast and can generate a lot of horsepower which costs in fuel usage. Even if you drive it with a feather-foot it won't get better like it sounds like you expect. It's just not possible
with the combination that you have. You may be able to get Detroit to turn down the power levels and torque curve but that probably wouldn't help all that much.

Maybe a repower to a series 50 or cummins might help but you would still need an overdrive tranny to do proper respect to the amount of economy that you want. But think about this, That $20,000 for a repower will buy lots of fuel and regular maintenance on that 8V92 for a long time.

The next question would be whether the coach is worth the additional investment. You might just start shopping again to get something more modern with a modern 4-stroke package in it.

When my MC9 dies it goes to the scrap-yard directly after removal of the good stuff. Not worth the aggravation of repowering with the prices falling now on the more modern stuff.

Good Luck.....

Logged

Never take a knife to a gunfight!
captain ron
Guest

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2006, 06:39:19 PM »

How about taller gears in the differential? It was changed by the previous owner but was told I could go taller.
Logged
gumpy
Some Assembly Required
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3249


Slightly modified 1982 MC9


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2006, 07:14:39 PM »

Since I actualy drive my bus  Grin Any little amount of fuel mileage increase would be of help. lets say if not using the tag saved me a1/2 mile mpg and the alternator did the same that would be a significant savings. I didn't say it was a smaller alternator just belt driven. I have it from the old bus and it was a reman. unit from detroit city busses. I don't really think any Idea is crazy if it saves me fuel. Just asking before I do it so I don't do any thing crazy. No need to beat me up Cry for trying to better my fuel consumption.

Capt Ron,

Sorry if my tone seemed offensive. Wasn't my intent to beat you up. I just found it curioius that you are coming up with some "different" ideas to try to save fuel. Certainly not bad. Just interesting that you are "thinking out of the box", so to speak.

I really don't think you'll see a savings changing out the alternator, but I may be wrong. Haven't read the rest of the replies yet. I'm sure there are those who will disagree with me.

I know you use your bus to get to various gigs. Just out of curiosity, how many miles do you put on the bus in a year's time?

craig
Logged

Craig Shepard
Located in Minnesquito

http://bus.gumpydog.com - "Some Assembly Required"
bobofthenorth
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2082



WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2006, 07:29:50 PM »

My cruise is not working at this time but when it did I tried setting it at 60 MPH and 55 MPH and got no better results. So it's time for other options.

You can't run a couple hundred miles at a slightly lower speed and then say you didn't save anything.  I've kept track of every litre of fuel that went into our bus since we bought it three years ago.  Over 40,000 km we averaged 6.2 miles to the Canadian gallon, all in - generator, Pro Heat, towing, empty.  That mileage was running with the big dogs.  If the speed limit was 75 I ran 8 over.  I have no idea what our average speed was but we never ran slow.  In the third year I ran a couple of significant trips (3 or 4000 km per trip) at a maximum of 90 km (roughly 55 MPH).  That got me 9 MPG. I don't plan to run 55 all the time but now I know exactly what it costs me when I don't.

There is no doubt that slowing down will save you fuel.  And it will save you more fuel more easily than any other alternative or combination of alternatives.  It only stands to reason - you burn up fuel to do work.  It takes more work to get there faster.  Its no more complicated than that.

Logged

R.J.(Bob) Evans
1981 Prevost 8-92, 10 spd
My website
Our weblog
Simply growing older is not the same as living.
gumpy
Some Assembly Required
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3249


Slightly modified 1982 MC9


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2006, 07:46:23 PM »

I've noticed similar results on my trips. if I'm trying to run 70+, I get 5.5 to 6. If I'm relaxing and doing around 60-65, I get 6.5 to 7. Doesn't seem to matter if I'm climbing hills or running flat interstate at 60, I still get about the same 6.5 to 7.
Won't be getting anywhere near 9 cause like Sammy says, "I can't drive..... 55!!!!"  Cheesy
Logged

Craig Shepard
Located in Minnesquito

http://bus.gumpydog.com - "Some Assembly Required"
TomC
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6785





Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2006, 11:49:17 PM »

On the 8V-92TA DDEC, the ideal rpm to cruise at is 1,600rpm, with as high as 1,800rpm alright. To cruise at 65mph at 1,600rpm, you would need (I assume you run 12R-22.5 tires?) a 3.08 ratio.  With a starting gear of 3.692 and figuring 2.0 converter ratio and a heavy weight of 50,000lb, that works out to be a startability of 28% (anything over 20% is fine).  Also, in trucking the rule of thumb is for every mile per hour over 55mph, you loose .1 mpg up to 65mph.  Over 65mph you loose .15mpg for every mph up to 75mph.  So going from a base line of 55mph to 75mph, your mileage will be 2.5mpg less.  If you are going to keep the bus for awhile, regearing is a good way to go.  With DDEC, you could change to the World B500 with it set for a 5 spd (the 6th probably would be to much of an overdrive).  Either regearing or changing to the World transmission will cost $2-5000.00 minimum.  I was going to change my V730 from the 4.625 to 4.11 until I found out it would be around $2,000.00.  Also, I only have 3 speeds to play with and a 65mph cruise at 2100rpm is just fine (8V-71T w/ air to air intercooling).  Another fuel savings would be to remove the aftercooler in the valley of the block under the blower and change to the air to air intercooling.  Could mount it on the right side where the A/C was powered by electric fans.  Good Luck, TomC
Logged

Tom & Donna Christman. '77 AMGeneral 10240B; 8V-71TATAIC V730.
Buffalo SpaceShip
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591





Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2006, 12:14:34 AM »

What was the MPG of your old Buffalo, CR? Just tryin' to remember...   Now, we warned you "way back when" on BNO that 8v92 MC8 you'd been eyein' would burn more fuel. Wink

Other than slowin' down, check the brakes and make sure none are dragging. Maybe repack your wheel bearings, too. Decrease that rolling resistance.

The others posting here are right, the alt. load is nothing. And it's only pulling a load when it's charging, and it's not pulling a whole load unless it's charging a big load. These oil-cooled gear-driven alternators are awesome, so don't go parting with yours... or you might regret it. That thing can drive a 4000w Trace and a couple of rooftop A/Cs without blinking an eye. And won't pull neigh any HP when there's no load. Just a thought...

Yup... you can buy a LOT of fuel for the cost of a repower... or tranny swap... or diff. change... or...  Esp. at $2.50/gallon vs. last summer's near $3.50/gallon.

Just play another gig to pay for the extra fuel... enjoy Da Bus. Oh... And enjoy all of those "Show Me your T*ts" young-thangs in your audience.
bb
Logged

Brian Brown
4108-216 w/ V730
Longmont, CO
belfert
Guest

« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2006, 05:50:30 AM »

I have removed my commpressor for my air conditioning so I can have a place to put the two alternators.
For those of you not familliar with my bus it is MCI 8 with 8v92 DDEC and Allison 740A ATEC. I am currently getting 5.8 MPG and am desperate

I'm curious how you got an MC8 with a DDEC 8V92?  Wasn't the MC8 out of production before the 8V92 DDEC came out?  I've seen a MC9 on Ebay with a factory 8V92, but it was one of the last MC9s made.

Brian Elfert
Logged
captain ron
Guest

« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2006, 09:22:57 AM »

I have removed my commpressor for my air conditioning so I can have a place to put the two alternators.
For those of you not familliar with my bus it is MCI 8 with 8v92 DDEC and Allison 740A ATEC. I am currently getting 5.8 MPG and am desperate

I'm curious how you got an MC8 with a DDEC 8V92? Wasn't the MC8 out of production before the 8V92 DDEC came out? I've seen a MC9 on Ebay with a factory 8V92, but it was one of the last MC9s made.

Brian Elfert
I am "CAPTAIN RON" I have connections. Grin
Brian, I am some what suspect of brake drag as they are some times difficult to release from park brake. The buffalo got between 7.5 and 9.5 mpg acording to where I was at. Flat roads or hilly country. I just felt I needed to upgrade busses. this one is sooo much nicer than the other one. Fuel mileage and bay space is the only things I miss about the old one. When I get to Tennessee I am going to work on my cruise so I can set the speed and try that. Unfortanately my foot weighs too much to control the speed manualy
Logged
Buffalo SpaceShip
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591





Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2006, 12:29:26 PM »

CR, I hate to say it, but 6mpg is about as good as you can hope for... probably. The new bus likely has three tons over your old one, one extra axle (two more tires of resistance), a bigger front profile, and almost 200ci's more cylinder displacement. Not to mention the slushbox.

But, you're right... there's more to life than MPG. If you like the bus, and it suits you, just fill the tank... and try to smile.  Roll Eyes

Here's some math: if you drive 25k miles a year touring (do you???), and fuel is ~$2.50/gal, the diff. between an 8mpg coach and your 5.8mpg one is about $3k. ~$3/gal makes it more like $3500. Is your new bus worth that to you? Might be... and only you can decide.

If it was all about MPG, we'd all sell our (fill in the blank) and buy an old RTO Crown. 10-14mpg, I'm told. Amazing...  Shocked

Alternatively, the "toterhome" RVs are built over OTR truck chassis and can handily get 10mpg... and pull a 40,000# trailer, if desired. All shapes, sizes, and price ranges. Some even have slides! Big Dawgs, for sure. Could haul a few Hawgs, eh?

Meanwhile, Hang tough! Burn that petro while it's still relatively cheap!
bb
Logged

Brian Brown
4108-216 w/ V730
Longmont, CO
buswarrior
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3571


'75 MC8 8V71 HT740




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2006, 08:36:27 PM »

Hello Captain R.

There's some dollars in bb's post. If it pays, swap out for a tall differential to get the RPM down. Someone should give you some cash for your good take-out.

On another front, how much fuel is getting burned doing nothing?
How much idling?
Unneccesary generator use?
Ruthlessly get those engines shut off when they aren't doing real work.
Air up the bus using an electric compressor instead of the big diesel.

Moderate throttle use on take-off. Use a little more road to get up to speed. The huge losses in economy in an automatic are in launch from stop and up until the torque converter locks up in 2nd

I doubt you have a dragging brake. It would have shown itself by smoking or stinking. If you want to ensure a clean parking brake release, see if the coach will roll freely by itself after parking brake release. I'm assuming you are making a hard service brake application as you push in the button? To feel good, shoot the drums with an IR gun, looking for even heats side to side on each axle.

happy coaching!
buswarrior
Logged

Frozen North, Greater Toronto Area
Homegrowndiesel
Vegetable oil, Rudolf Diesel's original fuel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


73-05 Eagle




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2006, 08:51:19 PM »

Ok Ron
My Opinion.
Keep the big alternator, make your house battery bank 24 volt. 
 
Under item one, you can do things like make the bus more aerodynamic (a plane fuselage would be far more efficient that a flat nose bus, but who would want that?). 

Hey Oldman sax, I resemble that remark.  To each their own. Alot of good advise none the less.

An aerodynamic front works alot better than pushing a brick down the road. Without adding an overdrive & or trans, engine capable of dropping your rpm to take advantage of the changes you can only gain minimal mileage increases. (one of these days mine will need replacing) Wink Our Eagle Screams  @2350 doing 72 mph, should be able to save alot of fuel only cranking 14-1600rpm and doing 75+mph. ( Hey Santa I need a modern 4 stroke with eaton autoshift with that nifty double overdrive)

As was posted earlier, sometimes it's about the cool factor. Grin  
Go For the cheaper "Additives" best mileage per $ invested as well as previous mentioned "benefits".

Catch you later

Bill
Logged

Aerodynamic Eagle & MCI 102a3
captain ron
Guest

« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2006, 09:21:37 PM »

Cheaper to put another 12 volt alternator on as I have A 12 volt 5000 watt inverter that I don't intend on changing any time soon or ever.  Thanks for the advice and offer for help on the other thread also
Logged
niles500
Niles500
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1188


ROSIE




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2006, 10:39:17 PM »

Bill - No fair - us brick drivers haven't had the benefit of the NASA designed nose cone - You're like a 'Vette, look like your speeding ..... sitting at the stop light. You and Pat got the 'COOL' factor covered - Where is Pat?
Logged

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  

- Niles
oldmansax
Tom & Phyllis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 994


'82 Bluebird Wanderlodge PT40




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2006, 05:43:56 AM »

Ok Ron
My Opinion.

 
Under item one, you can do things like make the bus more aerodynamic (a plane fuselage would be far more efficient that a flat nose bus, but who would want that?). 

Hey Oldman sax, I resemble that remark.  To each their own. Alot of good advise none the less.

Catch you later

Bill


Hello Bill,

I have not ruffled any ones feathers on here for a while... Just thought I try to keep my reputation!

I was wondering how long it would take you to find my post. Grin Grin

Your bus is too cool for me..... I am too “stuck in the mud”

No  offense intended. Grin Grin Grin Grin

TOM
Logged

'82 BlueBird WanderLodge PT40 being rebuilt
Delaware

DON'T STEAL! The government hates competition!
Pages: 1 2 [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!