Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Comparing coaches (Read 1944 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #25 –
Pierce the larger engines in trucks can get better mileage than smaller engines. My 1977 GMC General weighed 53,000 lbs. and the engine was a Cummins 855 cu. in. 350 HP and got 7 mpg always. My '71 International S2500 crane weighed 31,000 lbs. and the DT 466 with 466 cu. in. and 210 HP. never got over 5.5 mpg. Less throttle was needed to move the heavier truck at the same speeds. Used them both on the same routes. The International came over the 405 grade at 35 to 40 mph. the GMC did the same grade at the 55 mph. speed limit for the three axle truck.
1999 40 ft. U-320 wtfe build 5563 Chuck & Lynda's "Rollin' Inn"  2030 watts solar
prev. mh's 71 GMC 5 yrs. 73 Pace Setter 1 yr. 78 Vogue 5 yrs 81 FTX 40ft all electric 18 yrs. 1996 Monaco Signature 3 yrs.
2014 Grand Cherokee Overland
Dream as if you will live forever. Live as if you will die today.  James Dean

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #26 –
Quote from: craneman –
Pierce the larger engines in trucks can get better mileage than smaller engines. My 1977 GMC General weighed 53,000 lbs. and the engine was a Cummins 855 cu. in. 350 HP and got 7 mpg always. My '71 International S2500 crane weighed 31,000 lbs. and the DT 466 with 466 cu. in. and 210 HP. never got over 5.5 mpg. Less throttle was needed to move the heavier truck at the same speeds. Used them both on the same routes. The International came over the 405 grade at 35 to 40 mph. the GMC did the same grade at the 55 mph. speed limit for the three axle truck.
The big cam 855 was a great engine. For the majority of cars or coaches, the bigger engine gets less mileage. We have averaged 8.0 over the life of the coach. My 4107 Buffalo Greyhound had the conventional non turbo, no electronic 8V-71 Detroit but with less hp, the lowest mileage I got was 10.3 mpg in the Rockies with a VW Rabbit toad. Greyhound ordered the engine at 235 hp instead of the normal 318 hp. Did have a manual transmission with very tall final drive.

Yes, there are mountain conditions where the larger engine is loafing and the smaller is petal to the metal but for most conditions, the smaller engines will get overall better mileage. Look at the U225's with the 5.9 Cummins.

Electronic engines are about 5% more efficient than non-electronic engines. Add another 5% for common rail engines. Turbos boost mileage over non-turbos at the same speed over the same routes.

Pierce
Pierce and Gaylie Stewart
'93 U300/36 WTBI
Detroit 6V-92TA Jake
1140 watts on the roof
SBFD (ret)

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #27 –
One other reason for considering a newer coach is what Jo Ann and I did quite a few years ago. We had three young children, a low-paying job, and a car that wasn't big enough. The ideal car, we decided, was a used Mercury station wagon. A relative, who worked in a car dealership, said we were crazy. There weren't very many such cars around, and they were horribly expensive. One day we went car shopping at a Ford dealer, and there was the Mercury wagon. Better yet, it was right at the price we could afford. We bought it. Many years and 100,000 miles later we found ourselves taking it in to the local Ford dealer for repairs of $2-300 every month or so. After about six months we realized that we were making a car payment each month but driving an old car. We kept this up longer than we should have because we really liked that old Mercury.

At some point all coaches will get to where they will need extensive (expensive) maintenance to keep running. Yes, we've had an in-frame engine overhaul, replaced the air bags and shocks. replaced both rooftop air conditioners, and done a lot of other work. We really like our current Foretravel, and all of the research I've done tells me that Foretravel is the best brand to own, which is why we're looking at newer ones.

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #28 –
#2 is my favorite. If I hadn't just bought my Nimbus I may would have snatched that one up.
06 Nimbus 34'
Build #6362

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #29 –
Last week my client was a Cummins factory mechanic, so we go talking about older diesels  pre Blue.
His comment was that the new diesels with Blue have a lot of issues and loose about 50hp off their rated HP compared to our old Cummins.
So comparing our old HP against a new coach we may have more usable HP than we think.
David & Emma Roche
Dino (Golden Doodle)
1999 U270 WTFE 36' Build # 5534
Xtreme "Lights, Stripes & Roof"
Motorcade# 18321
Dayton, Ohio
Towd: Jeep Grand Cherokee
Two Townie Electra Bikes

Life is made to enjoy, the Foretravel helps!

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #30 –
Quote from: "Irish" –
Last week my client was a Cummins factory mechanic, so we go talking about older diesels  pre Blue.
His comment was that the new diesels with Blue have a lot of issues and loose about 50hp off their rated HP compared to our old Cummins.
So comparing our old HP against a new coach we may have more usable HP than we think.

While I am not a fan of the much more complex control and emission systems on the newer diesels I would question the "loose about 50 HP off their ratings".  Never heard that one before.  Or, is the loss IF there is an issue and there is a "partial de-rate"???
Brett Wolfe
EX: 1993 U240
Moderator, ForeForum 2001-
Moderator Diesel RV Club 2002-
Moderator, FMCA Forum 2009-2020
Chairman FMCA Technical Advisory Committee 2011-2020

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #31 –
We 'camped' next to #2 in the original post last week in NAC. Two bays on the passenger side have damage, including the handles. It you zoom in on the bay pictures it looks like those bays flooded. Other than that it was a beautiful coach.
1993 U300 40ft GV SE
Build # 4344
 

Re: Comparing coaches

Reply #32 –
I've been watching these coaches for some time and I've wondered why that 320 hasn't yet sold. This may explain it. I suspect that it may be somewhat overpriced.