Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Confused about the 450HP Cummins in 1997 (Read 8158 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Confused about the 450HP Cummins in 1997

Reply #20 –
Software only, and most of the time they didn't log the upgrade with Cummins. I had Cummins read mine out right after I bought it at our local Coach Care facility, and update the engine records. I discussed the 450 hp upgrade with them at the time and told them what my MPG had been. The guy looked at me and said to leave it the heck alone.

1995s are the lightest Unicoach made. With judicious driving and a light toad 9+ mpg is readily achievable as a routine. Towing my Tahoe I still manage 8 to 8.5.

Re: Confused about the 450HP Cummins in 1997

Reply #21 –
Pierce,
Was told the parts list "CPL" for my engine uses the same parts as the last ISM500, only difference is ECM & program, Turbo, lack of EGR and girdle.  I however had the girdle installed before I found the issue only showed up after about 1 million miles in class 8 trucks, so a waste of money for my babe.
Dave M

Re: Confused about the 450HP Cummins in 1997

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Dave Head –
Software only, and most of the time they didn't log the upgrade with Cummins. I had Cummins read mine out right after I bought it at our local Coach Care facility, and update the engine records. I discussed the 450 hp upgrade with them at the time and told them what my MPG had been. The guy looked at me and said to leave it the heck alone.

1995s are the lightest Unicoach made. With judicious driving and a light toad 9+ mpg is readily achievable as a routine. Towing my Tahoe I still manage 8 to 8.5.

I'm extremely pleased with my '95 U320. I'm inclined to think that (all things considered) it was the best year for Unicoaches. While there is always the allure of "more power," I can't find any good reason to change things. It currently has a really good balance of performance and economy. However, "450" does sound soooooo much better than "400"! (Just kidding . . . . )