Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: U280 vs U300 (Read 2650 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #20 –
My problem was NOT an engine related problem. It was a fuel supply problem that had apparently built up over time, compounded by age of the coach, and yet, after calling around and going around to almost every single diesel shop in the northern half of Wisconsin I finally got a lead on someone that was familiar with and did repairs on the old DD engines/those without computer controls.
The man was familiar with these DD engines up here because they are used in school buses, fire trucks, and stationary irrigation systems.
If there was a computer diagnostics system on board then the problem would most likely have been called up and repaired without a lot of part swapping and head scratching guesswork.

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #21 –
For between $100 and $200, several members have been able to pick up a Pro-Link 9000, a diagnostic testing tool for our 92 series. I keep one in the coach and another in the garage. All the 2-cycles installed in Foretravels are electronic engines. Almost 50 readings and settings are available with the tool. While some items can have their settings changed, the horsepower cannot be upgraded. A Detroit dealer has to do that and 350hp is the EPA max unless you have a fire truck or marine engine serial number to use.

The 6V-92TA installation was not thought out that well for our coaches with a terrible air intake location (along with the Cummins air intake in the U280). This was finally fixed in the mid 1993 models with the intake move from the ground to about 3 feet up on the side of the coach.  My ex-Greyhound had a military type installation with zero belts. Everything was gear driven including the radiator fan, the AC PTO and the 300 amp sealed oil cooled brushless alternator. No overheating problems, no loosing belts, etc.

Until 1995, the engine access in both U300/U280 was poor. Even then, engine removal is still difficult. The rear bumper and frame cross members could have been made removable so the engine could slide straight out easily.. This is a big reason our coaches cost so much to work on. With modular connections, any of our engines could be removed in an hour or so. If GM could do it back in the 1950's, we could today.

Pierce



Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #22 –
Wow, thanks everybody for the input!  I learned a bunch.  It seems like either model would work for me and I should probably just look more at condition of the coach. 

That said, anybody know of any good U280s or U300s for sale?  I'd be looking for a 36' and probably wide-body (so, 92 or later), but I wouldn't rule out something pre-1992 either.  I checked the classifieds section, but didn't see anything there that was a match.

Thanks again,
Joe

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #23 –
When we were looking for our coach (took a year!), we found it on: www.rvtrader.com

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #24 –
Took us a year plus also but we found EXACTLY what we wanted on this forum.
The important stuff for us was length (36), bathroom layout (walk through),engine size/access ( 8.3,side radiator) and color (DW).....  hopefully it's the "last coach first " thing. 

          Big thanks to Bob Hall for passing on a well maintained coach.

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #25 –
Bob & Sue, I hope I can find one like that.  Still looking.
 

Re: U280 vs U300

Reply #26 –
Jimmy..  it's out there, u just gotta find it,, it's comin your way.