I would agree with you, if you were talking about say, the S550 (my 'dream' car....), but not when comparing buses....
Greyhound seats and fleet questions
- Thread starter Swadian Hardcore
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Well yeah.....but when was the last time an Eagle was built?
rickycourtney
Conductor
I really enjoyed my ride on the X3-45 better than several rides on the D4505. It has a very smooth, stable ride.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I was told by admins to just ignore people instead of getting into all those arguments. Well, GML can't prove Mercedes buses are better than MCI or Prevost buses. In fact, they got rejected by Greyhound after a one-year demonstration. So, no point for me to argue.
But anyway, bad news for the rebuilt G4500, Josh Harris, who rode on one, says:
"Still sh*tty. Just polished sh*t. Same crappy Thermo King AC/heat unit. I don't care for the seats at all. Leather burns in the summer. So I was sitting on my jacket to avoid that. The outlets and WiFi worked the entire duration of the schedule from Denver to Vegas. We ended up 4 hours down because we ran into a snow storm in Silver Plume, CO, and the tire chains didn't want to cooperate."
I guess it's just a J4500 now.
But anyway, bad news for the rebuilt G4500, Josh Harris, who rode on one, says:
"Still sh*tty. Just polished sh*t. Same crappy Thermo King AC/heat unit. I don't care for the seats at all. Leather burns in the summer. So I was sitting on my jacket to avoid that. The outlets and WiFi worked the entire duration of the schedule from Denver to Vegas. We ended up 4 hours down because we ran into a snow storm in Silver Plume, CO, and the tire chains didn't want to cooperate."
I guess it's just a J4500 now.
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the reasons, that it is the coach of choice for the very top end ('north of a million dollars) motorhome and entertainer coach conversions....Even the presidential Secret Service coach is a converted X3....
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
What? Thought it was a H3-45.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Found it, it is a black X3-45!
Caesar La Rock
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 716
That's good to hear that they ride good. Lynx is to acquire six motorcoaches and it's likely to be Prevost X3-45s. I'm just hoping it's worth the money we're spending on them, if we do get Prevosts. Now as for the C2045, they ride pretty good.
I got my chance to ride on one of Mears' C2045s a week after SunRail opened up on the Xpress 208. At the time, it was free of charge until the 16th and then fares for 208 and SunRail began on the 19th.
Very smooth ride and the only rattling heard was going through small dips on the Florida Turnpike. The classy jazz music playing in the background was very relaxing. I have a video of that ride if anyone wants to see it, I'll post it.
The bus (numbered 4209) uses a Cummins ISX from what I could determine with an Allison B500 and jake brake. It's likely a newer bus, since it has the ISX engine.
As for the durability of Eagles, that's up for debate right there. They were widely used by Trailways, which indicates they must of been good coaches for Trailways. Some Model 05s that were left by 1987 ran for Greyhound when Greyhound bought out Trailways.
Now coaches like the Volvo 9700 (also built by Prevost), Setra S 407 and S 417, and most Van Hool coaches are used mostly for charter/tour companies.
Though, Megabus does have a fleet of Van Hool TD925s as well as other Van Hools in it's fleet. I've even seen a few J4500s in their fleet. Not sure if they have any Prevosts, since all I've seen are Van Hools and MCIs. Heard they had Setras in their fleet too, but a very small number of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Caesar La Rock
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 716
Well the Prevost demo has arrived.
I will awake your opinion with great interest......
As for the Van Hool CO2045.....we have a pair of 2006, four 2009, and several 2012 and 2013 model's... I consider the ride on our 2006 and 2009 to be among the worst riding coaches since the before the air-ride's came out. Our 2012, and 2013 are vastly improved, but still not as good as the Prevost's....
As for the Van Hool CO2045.....we have a pair of 2006, four 2009, and several 2012 and 2013 model's... I consider the ride on our 2006 and 2009 to be among the worst riding coaches since the before the air-ride's came out. Our 2012, and 2013 are vastly improved, but still not as good as the Prevost's....
The biggest weakness of the Eagle's were their 12 volt electrical system...if you left the ceiling lights on a bit too long while loading the bus withour the engine running...well better keep some jumper cables ready.....
Another weakness was their engine cooling system....overheated very easily.
Our company wags liked to say that new Eagle's came equipped with an empty sodapop can. You know.....so you could prop open the bottom of the engine door while driving down the road for improved cooling....
Our company purchased Eagle's up until 1987. (We also purchased MCI's concurrently). We had several model 10 and model 15's in service until the late 90's.... Greyhound still had some ex Trailways Eagle's in their fleet including some model 15's also around that time. They spent their last years I believe on their Miami-Key West line....Occasionally on holiday's some would end up in NYC....
Caesar La Rock
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 716
I guess it's maintenance thing. MEARS had trouble with it's first Van Hools in the early 2000s. They were the 1998 T2145s that were bought new, with several being used on the Disney Cruise Line service. They seem to like the C2045s, since those are the only type of new Van Hools I've seen so far. They do have some Volvo 9700s that they acquired recently, though.
Caesar La Rock
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 716
Thanks for the information on Eagles. I recalled seeing some of those Eagles back in the 90s, but I never rode on them from what I know of.
The Eagle's, as Swadian has mentioned, did have a wonderful ride...they employed the B F Goodrich "Torsilastic" suspension. Here's a link http://www.giantrvonline.com/chassis/velvet_ride.htm with a description of it. This suspension had a huge amount of travel, and you could roll over a pothole and barely be aware of it. The shock absorber's did have to be replaced when worn, or the coach would bounce excessively. the Eagle could take curves almost like a sports car.. Prior to the Eagle, Flxible highway coaches also employed this suspension. Continental Trailways had a large fleet of Flxible VistaLiner's and HiLevel's, and they liked the suspension so much, that they specified it when their engineers designed the Eagle's built at first by Kassbohrer-Setra in Germany.
Another nice feature of the suspension, was unlike an air-ride, the coach, as it aged, did not develop air leaks and consequently bottom-out when shut down overnight and take several minutes of running to rise back to running height...
Another nice feature of the suspension, was unlike an air-ride, the coach, as it aged, did not develop air leaks and consequently bottom-out when shut down overnight and take several minutes of running to rise back to running height...
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Railiner, the older Van Hools probably ride worse cause they are older. When the 2013 and 2014 Van Hools get eight years old, I'm guessing they wouldn't be much better. Then again, the T2145 is even worse, I talked to an ex-Kerrville driver, Tom Langford, says they fell apart after two years. People at Kerrville want to dump Coach USA and switch back to Greyhound's alliance. Plenty of anger against Stagecoach right now.
I'm comparing them, from when our 2006 and 2009 were brand-new......they did something to improve the ride on the latest model's, but I do not know just what that is....the earlier model's had a rather harsh ride. The latest model's aren't bad at all, just not as good as the Prevost's.
rickycourtney
Conductor
Took a trip down to Southern California this weekend... saw plenty of D4505 coaches out on the road. I also spotted a couple of 102DL3 coaches and a X3-45 that was running from Long Beach to San Diego.
I had never seen a Greyhound Prevost in Southern California before so that was interesting. Glad to see that these great buses are getting out of the Northeast occasionally.
I had never seen a Greyhound Prevost in Southern California before so that was interesting. Glad to see that these great buses are getting out of the Northeast occasionally.
Last edited by a moderator:
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Guess the Van Hool isn't that bad for short routes. Still wouldn't want it for a thousand-mile run though.
Very rare to see 102DL3's in California. I'm surprised you saw any at all. Perhaps they're gearing up for the transcon runs. The X3-45 isn't that great of a bus, low luggage capacity and the wheelbase is too long to climb hills well (lose traction). Also not the most durable, it's durable, but less than the DL3. So I think the 102DL3 is best, followed by X3-45, followed by D4505, followed by G4500. I thought the X3-45 would've gotten much better MPG than the DL3 but it's actually about the same. Of course the 102DL3 seats just knock X3-45 and D4505 seats down the drain.
The X3-45 does get out of the Northeast a lot now, some are based in Dallas, I heard. Every major Greyhound model goes through Dallas now. I'm guessing that X3-45 you saw ran the Dallas-Los Angeles route then got dispatched down for quick return to San Diego before heading back to Dallas. You will notice that Greyhound almost never uses the X3-45 for mountainous routes, just a few hilly routes, but mountainous, no.
By the way, more recent events mean that I will be using the free ticket to Colorado instead. Los Angeles for later in the year, when I have to go to Phoenix. Yeah, I know.
Very rare to see 102DL3's in California. I'm surprised you saw any at all. Perhaps they're gearing up for the transcon runs. The X3-45 isn't that great of a bus, low luggage capacity and the wheelbase is too long to climb hills well (lose traction). Also not the most durable, it's durable, but less than the DL3. So I think the 102DL3 is best, followed by X3-45, followed by D4505, followed by G4500. I thought the X3-45 would've gotten much better MPG than the DL3 but it's actually about the same. Of course the 102DL3 seats just knock X3-45 and D4505 seats down the drain.
The X3-45 does get out of the Northeast a lot now, some are based in Dallas, I heard. Every major Greyhound model goes through Dallas now. I'm guessing that X3-45 you saw ran the Dallas-Los Angeles route then got dispatched down for quick return to San Diego before heading back to Dallas. You will notice that Greyhound almost never uses the X3-45 for mountainous routes, just a few hilly routes, but mountainous, no.
By the way, more recent events mean that I will be using the free ticket to Colorado instead. Los Angeles for later in the year, when I have to go to Phoenix. Yeah, I know.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I guess I shouldn't rank buses 1-4, every bus is different. This is probably a better breakdown:
102DL3-Very comfortable, highly reliable and durable long-haul bus. Reasonably good ride and efficiency.
D4505-Crappy "update" of the 102DL3, not great at all. Does climb and haul luggage better than the X3-45, otherwise worse. Rides worse than 102DL3.
X3-45-Very smooth and efficient bus, great for shorter routes, not so great for long routes, not good at climbing.
G4500-Cheap modern fiberglass junk. Most "modern" bus Greyhound has, yet bad at everything everywhere.
Drivers did confirm that the D4505 is a "fuel guzzler", so I guess the test results were correct, the D4505 indeed uses about 15% more fuel than the 102DL3. Appalling.
102DL3-Very comfortable, highly reliable and durable long-haul bus. Reasonably good ride and efficiency.
D4505-Crappy "update" of the 102DL3, not great at all. Does climb and haul luggage better than the X3-45, otherwise worse. Rides worse than 102DL3.
X3-45-Very smooth and efficient bus, great for shorter routes, not so great for long routes, not good at climbing.
G4500-Cheap modern fiberglass junk. Most "modern" bus Greyhound has, yet bad at everything everywhere.
Drivers did confirm that the D4505 is a "fuel guzzler", so I guess the test results were correct, the D4505 indeed uses about 15% more fuel than the 102DL3. Appalling.
Last edited by a moderator:
In comparing the baggage capacity of the D4505 and the X3-45, the D only has 4 more cubic feet total (517 vs 513) and that is including both underfloor and overhead in non-wheelchair equipped models.....the MCI website spec don't break it down between underfloor and overhead, as the Prevost site does, so hard to compare exactly...
I don't understand your statement that a longer wheelbase yields less traction climbing hills.....how is that?
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I heard that longer wheelbase was worse for climbing hills. Anyway, the X3-45 probably isn't good at climbing hills since no one uses it on a mountainous route more than the Adirondack Northway. For fuel efficiency, Greyhound would be ordering only X3-45's and no D4505's, but since the D4505's are mostly doing mountain routes it can be assumed they are better for climbing than the X3-45.
Edit: Basically, I look at it this way, if the D4505 is totally worse than the X3-45, Greyhound would not order it. But Greyhound did order D4505's, and put them on mountainous routes. Greyhound ordered even more X3-45's, but didn't put any of them on mountainous routes, instead using them everywhere without mountains. The reasonable assumption can be made, that the only reason why Greyhound is ordering D4505's is because they have better mountain performance than X3-45's.
Otherwise, the massive efficiency difference would mean that, no matter how good of a deal MCI gave to Greyhound, Greyhound would still not order D4505's.
Edit: Basically, I look at it this way, if the D4505 is totally worse than the X3-45, Greyhound would not order it. But Greyhound did order D4505's, and put them on mountainous routes. Greyhound ordered even more X3-45's, but didn't put any of them on mountainous routes, instead using them everywhere without mountains. The reasonable assumption can be made, that the only reason why Greyhound is ordering D4505's is because they have better mountain performance than X3-45's.
Otherwise, the massive efficiency difference would mean that, no matter how good of a deal MCI gave to Greyhound, Greyhound would still not order D4505's.
Last edited by a moderator:
rickycourtney
Conductor
Again we all know you love the 102DL3... but you've never been on a X3-45 and you're not really giving it a fair shake.
I also don't understand how a longer wheelbase could yield less traction climbing hills. Feel free to cite a reputable source that says a longer wheelbase reduces traction.
I wouldn't exactly say the X3-45 has a "low luggage capacity." Prevost says that the X3-45 has a total underfloor cargo volume of 406 cubic feet (although the wheelchair lift takes up 30 cubic feet) and an overhead storage capacity of 107 cubic feet. Add it all up for 513 cubic feet of total storage capacity. Compare that to the D4505 (and I assume the 102DL3) with 517 cubic feet. So
The X3-45 also has the "largest underfloor surface area in the industry" at 139 square feet and that having a larger surface area means that bags can be stored more efficiently "without the need to stack."
It's also worth mentioning the trade off for the 4 cubic foot reduction in storage capacity... it allows the X3-45 to have the "highest floor-to-ceiling interior height" at 6'8" compared to the D4505 (and I assume the 102DL3) at 6'6". Not a big difference... but it means a lot to a tall guy like me.
Also you've been ripping every new bus for having poor gas milage... saying that's evidence that the older 102DL3 is better. You're neglecting a VERY IMPORTANT reason for this. In 2004 (and in 2010) the EPA put new emissions requirements into effect. That means that while these buses are much cleaner... they consume more fuel.
I think the reason Greyhound ordering the X3-45 and the D4505 concurrently was that the company could get new buses faster than if they ordered with a single manufacturer (MCI and Prevost can only crank them out so fast) and that was important as the company worked meet the ADA deadline and improve their public image.
I also think the reason the X3-45 has been so rare on the West Coast is that Greyhound was focusing on improving its image on the more profitable Northeast US... so when the X3-45 buses were brand new they got assigned there... and once they were assigned there (and those maintenance crews became accustomed to them) it was just easier to keep them there.
I also don't understand how a longer wheelbase could yield less traction climbing hills. Feel free to cite a reputable source that says a longer wheelbase reduces traction.
I wouldn't exactly say the X3-45 has a "low luggage capacity." Prevost says that the X3-45 has a total underfloor cargo volume of 406 cubic feet (although the wheelchair lift takes up 30 cubic feet) and an overhead storage capacity of 107 cubic feet. Add it all up for 513 cubic feet of total storage capacity. Compare that to the D4505 (and I assume the 102DL3) with 517 cubic feet. So
The X3-45 also has the "largest underfloor surface area in the industry" at 139 square feet and that having a larger surface area means that bags can be stored more efficiently "without the need to stack."
It's also worth mentioning the trade off for the 4 cubic foot reduction in storage capacity... it allows the X3-45 to have the "highest floor-to-ceiling interior height" at 6'8" compared to the D4505 (and I assume the 102DL3) at 6'6". Not a big difference... but it means a lot to a tall guy like me.
Also you've been ripping every new bus for having poor gas milage... saying that's evidence that the older 102DL3 is better. You're neglecting a VERY IMPORTANT reason for this. In 2004 (and in 2010) the EPA put new emissions requirements into effect. That means that while these buses are much cleaner... they consume more fuel.
I think the reason Greyhound ordering the X3-45 and the D4505 concurrently was that the company could get new buses faster than if they ordered with a single manufacturer (MCI and Prevost can only crank them out so fast) and that was important as the company worked meet the ADA deadline and improve their public image.
I also think the reason the X3-45 has been so rare on the West Coast is that Greyhound was focusing on improving its image on the more profitable Northeast US... so when the X3-45 buses were brand new they got assigned there... and once they were assigned there (and those maintenance crews became accustomed to them) it was just easier to keep them there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
A long wheel base can effect performance in rough terrain, by bottoming out the bus and leaving it high and dry with its wheels off the ground... But if your characteristics are such that this can happen, you were a meshugana for bringing any 45' bus into the area to begin with.
rickycourtney
Conductor
Now that makes since... but I highly doubt that Greyhound has that problem when trying to climb mountain passes on interstate highways.
