View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dieseljim Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Perry, NY
|
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Why GM Refused to Put Washrooms in Suburbans |
|
|
I have been wondering why General Motors refused to install washrooms in suburbans ordered by operators who wanted this feature so they could use the buses on long distance charters or schedules? Grand Island Transit's bus No.104 seems to have been an oddball as far as suburbans go as I saw this bus numerous times with one, which was later removed. Could this have been a company shop job? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay Jim, I will try to answer this one.
I feel I know the answer as I have always felt that GM and I were very like minded in many ways up until the 80's. It may have even been before that but GM and I shared the same likes and dislikes.
In my opinion, a lavatory would change the look of the bus from inside and out and having to black out a window is ugly so you would have to black out every window just to hide it from the outside.
Then you would have this huge box intruding into the passenger area.
Now I have also found that there were many forces working against GM that would have hurt the profitable divisions like Chevrolet and such so GM began to minimize the Coach division's progress and innovations.
Don't get me wrong but GM was still innovating even then. Unlike nissan or datsun. The Buffalo bus made from the rear of the fishbowl gave them another option to offer the customer without having to create new parts. That bus was the first I believe to use the pantograph hinge that allowed the luggage bay doors to open in very tight places. MCI, Prevost nor any others had this until the year after.. .
They continued to improve on the Fishbowls and Detroit Diesel and Allison. They were starting the new trend towards smaller rear windows with the EIP and finally did away with the rear window by putting all of the HVAC in the rear when they created the RTS. The Classic is another start towards the future.
But the reason for GM's resistance to have lavatories in their buses was mostly because they did make the buses uglier as they had those forward slanting side windows.
The RTS and Classic didn't and would have more easily housed a lavatory but GM finally got out of the bus business with the environmentalist attack on the transportation industry.
Honestly , while we loved the Detroit Diesel on the buses, they were not the best. A V8 Cummins would have done the job better. GM did not own Cummins and GM spent decades on Detroit Diesel and all of their energy promoting this dinosaur. It was good in it's day but was destined to become obsolete.
A new engine half it's size can outperform this Detroit Diesel on way less fuel today. Yes Detroit was a fuel hog.
An inline 6 Cummins engine rated at almost the same HP as the Detroit may not take off as fast but under a heavy load and a grade it would beat the Detroit. GM staked it's reputation on that engine and only improved on it slightly with the Silver 92.
So now we have a new 4 cylinder engine to move these new buses . The engine does not need as much room as a V8 but that is no longer important since everything is now moved to the back of the bus with the engine. This is great for the big Charter buses with the huge luggage bays.
The old GM V-drive set up is not efficient so the new buses use a T-drive.
As I was saying GM and I shared a similar view of how a vehicle should look and although it was a necessity it was ugly to have that lavatory. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankie
Age: 77 Joined: 01 Feb 2011 Posts: 748 Location: St. Peters, Mo.
|
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think one of the few exceptions where Cummins Diesels were used for GM transits were in the 1957 7000 series and the 1958 9000 series of the old look TDH-5105 in the NYCTA fleet.
My dad worked on them as a mechanic for the NYCTA in East New York where he was based. I got to see the engines myself at their open house. You can't miss their distinctive throaty sound when accelerating!
I'm pretty sure that the current bus in their historic fleet has been re-engined with a more current Detroit Diesel.
Frankie |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MaBSTOA 15
Age: 70 Joined: 27 Feb 2013 Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The NYCTA never operated any GM TDH-5105 models. They had a very large fleet of GM TDH-5106.
And I don't think they had or that GM would allow their buses to be powered by Cummins engines. None of my records regarding GM buses operated by New York City indicate Cummins engines. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankie
Age: 77 Joined: 01 Feb 2011 Posts: 748 Location: St. Peters, Mo.
|
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MaBSTOA 15 wrote: | The NYCTA never operated any GM TDH-5105 models. They had a very large fleet of GM TDH-5106.
And I don't think they had or that GM would allow their buses to be powered by Cummins engines. None of my records regarding GM buses operated by New York City indicate Cummins engines. |
I stand corrected. I meant to say TDH-5106. But I do stand by the fact that the engines were Cummins. GM made no off the shelf model changes either unless they were big orders and this may have been the exception regarding the engine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that GM stayed on the Detroit Diesel bandwagon no matter what it's flaws were. I myself prefer the Cummins especially on a truck but I loved the sound of a Detroit Diesel on a bus.
My question is this: " on the bus with the Cummins engine, was it also on a cradle or did the cradle only come with the Fishbowl bus?" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frankie
Age: 77 Joined: 01 Feb 2011 Posts: 748 Location: St. Peters, Mo.
|
Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TheDriver wrote: | It seems that GM stayed on the Detroit Diesel bandwagon no matter what it's flaws were. I myself prefer the Cummins especially on a truck but I loved the sound of a Detroit Diesel on a bus.
My question is this: " on the bus with the Cummins engine, was it also on a cradle or did the cradle only come with the Fishbowl bus?" |
I wish my Dad was still alive for me to ask him since he worked on them. I do know that the engine units on the new looks had its own subframe, but I would have to guess that this wasn't true with the old looks.
Frankie |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wished There were people I could talk to about this |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimmiB
Age: 81 Joined: 19 Apr 2011 Posts: 516 Location: Lebanon, PA
|
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't say for sure, but I would think that the Cummins would almost have to be mounted on a sub-frame also. The bus was built to accommodate the engine on a cradle and had no provision for any other type of install. Otherwise it would require modification to the engine compartment.
BTW, what goes rumble, rumble, crash? A Detroit on a cradle on wheels rolling along the shop floor and through a plate glass window. Laughed my ass off ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe you could make the cradle for the Cummins or make the cradle off a Detroit Diesel work for a Cummins assuming that the dimensions are about the same. That is what I am not informed on. I also believe that the Cummins V-8 would be too heavy so if I were to retrofit a different engine into a fishbowl it may be a 4 cylinder 4 stroke electronic engine that is standard for the new buses. A 4 cylinder would easily fit in the same space and give you room for things that would not normally be in the engine compartment. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|