Greyhound seats and fleet questions

[railiner]

I agree....Eagle's "rode like a Pullman"......

 

[railiner]

I too prefer the MC-7 and MC-8 over the MC-9, but I'm not sure why.

What about the 7 and 8 did you prefer? Perhaps the 9 looked too boxy to you?

The 7 and 8 did have a little more 'style' to them, especially the rise in the roof near the front. But they also had that terrible 'blind spot' seat in the middle of the bus with 'no window'....you know....like an Amfleet coach.

The last year MC-8 (1978) did correct that problem....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Um, like I said, I don't know. I guess it was the "style" of the MC-7 and MC-8. Yeah, they had a blind spot, but I never sat there anyway. The MC-9 seemed, to me, like a boring version of the MC-8. I think GMCs had blind spots too. Not the Eagles, though. Those must have been really awesome to ride. I remember, from looking at pictures, that the Eagles had a dashboard like no other.

How come bus manufacturers no longer use Torsilastic suspensions?

 

[Caesar La Rock]

The MC-9s were really rugged and to this day, you can still see one around and an occasional MC-8, just not in Greyhound colors. Those days are long gone. Up until about 10 years ago it was possible to see MC-7s still operating for charter companies around here.

Oh and Eagles, man I wish I was able to ride one. I never got the chance and the funny thing is, I saw them every time. They usually did local runs between Orlando and Miami back then.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

GMCs and Eagles were rugged too, weren't they? M4 Shermans were rugged - until you were getting shot at by Tigers and Panthers. With all due respect, I'd like to see some actual figures on how the MC-9s ruggedness matches up to some bus models. As in MDBF and mileage. In terms of specifications, the MC-9 doesn't seem that impressive. According to CoachInfo (http://www.coachinfo.com/All_About_Buses/MCI_Info.html), the MC-9 had a 51' turning circle, while the MC-7/8 only have 46', and the Eagles only had 45'.

Robert on GTE has a MC-7 with 4,500,000 miles on it. I'm guessing the MC-9 could do similar mileage? Greyhound's DL3s currently have about 2,500,000 each. They were selling White DL3s with over 2,000,000.

Again, not saying it's a bad bus. M4 Sherman wasn't a bad tank.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

While not taking anything away from the GMC highway coaches and Eagle coaches, how many of them are you likely to run into compared to an MC-9, or an MC-8, or to even turn it up a notch, an MC-8 or MC-9 rebuilt with A-D caps on them?

I have yet to see an Eagle and I've cruised the highways for the last six years (via car, not yet through bus, but I may try Megabus one day). The only GMC highway coach I've seen was an old GM PD-4104 converted to a RV, a few years ago.

I've either seen MC-8s, MC-9s, and A-D Series buses, and of course various newer coaches. Now as for getting MDBF and mileage information, that will be difficult to come by. Bus auctions happen everyday and who I'm not fully aware of who is selling what bus in this state. Although, elsewhere, you could ask that information to the user of this video of an Ex-Greyhound MC-9.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

You see MC-9s a lot because they were produced in much larger numbers than Eagles. You don't see GMCs as much because they're older. GMCs fell out of favour after the 1960s. The MC-9s were mostly bult in the 1980s. And they were built in larger numbers than GMCs. Just over 1,000 PD-4501s were built. Over 9,000 MC-9s were built. And I barely see any MC-9s in the West. I did see a single ex-NJT MC-9 on my last trip, but I also saw an Eagle. I also saw a 102A3.

IMHO, how much you see today does not prove superiority. I have not seen any proof that the MC-9 is superior to its counterparts. In fact, while the M4 Sherman helped the US win World War II, the MC-9 did not help Greyhound win any "wars". Greyhound went bankrupt in 1990, when the MC-9 was its standard bus. I'm not saying the MC-9 resulted in Greyhound's bankruptcy, but I'm just making the analogy. The US could have won that war with other tank designs, just like how Greyhound would have gone bankrupt regardless of the bus models used, considering their mismanagement at the time.

Twenty years after World War II ended, would you see more M4 Shermans or Panthers?

On a different note, I was quite angered by a Greyhound driver on Facebook today who told me to "get used to the D4505". I will not "get used" to an ugly, fuel-guzzling contraption that smells like excrement and rides like a medieval dungeon!

 

[Caesar La Rock]

You may want to ask about reliability from the users who uploaded those videos there. While the MC-9 did not help any wars, it served millions of passengers for many years.

As for what a driver said about getting use to the D4505s, well if someone complains that a bus is crappy after so many times, it gets annoying to everyone on the Facebook group. There are other D4505s out there that most likely don't have the same issues.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

CJ, your right about the mc9. Its got to be reliable for so many of them to still be around. There have been other bus manufacturers that have made buses that didn't last long even tho they built a lot of a model.

Swadian, as for the D4505, they probably are a crappy bus but it may be that we don't have much choice any more with so many companies buying them. We just have to get uses to dealing with bad buses. Its also possible that driver may like that model too.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

CJ, sir, I don't need to ask anyone whether the MC-9 is reliable. I know the MC-9 is reliable. I never said it wasn't reliable. I said it was nothing special. I know it served millions of passengers. That doesn't make it special. All that proves is that it's the bus equivalent of the M4 Sherman. A mediocre, unimpressive, boring bus. Reliability helps you get the job done. I never said the MC-9 wouldn't get the job done. Reliability alone doesn't help you keep/gain passengers or defeat competitors. By "war" in the context of the MC-9, I did not mean an actual war, but the war between transportation companies. Greyhound lost that "war", while using the MC-9.

Joe, I don't disagree with you. But, you see, is the MC-9 anything more than reliable? Let's look at some other buses that actually brought some flavor to the table. The MC-6 was a revolutionary 102-inch-wide motorcoach. The MC-8 was one the first motorcoaches to use a standard automatic transmission. The 102A3 was the first successful 102-incher and introduced rear sway bars. The 102DL3 was the first successful 45-footer and the first with a four-stroke engine. The H3-45 brought in a super-tough tubular stainless steel frame that is the strongest ever constructed in a bus. The MC-9? No innovation.

So, the MC-9, to me, is like plain white rice. You can eat it. It'll give you calories and some nutrients. It'll keep you alive, but it's no flavorful or "good-tasting". You have to have an appetite to have a good meal. The MC-9 does not give me an appetite.

Drivers may like the D4505 because they sit in a cloth velour USSC LX Series seat and they have a window that can be opened to eject the foul odors. They're also right by the front door. I might as well be harsh and say that drivers who like the D4505 are drivers who don't care about their passengers. Lots of bus industry people also fail to notice that the D4505 is a fuel guzzler. They also failed to notice that MCI took out most of the rivets that was the foundation of previous MCIs' durability.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

To each.his own when it comes to buses. I always liked the look of the mc9. Sometimes it just takes being reliable to win someone over.

Your right about some drivers. They may not care about their passengers. Tho it is possible for the driver not to smell anything up front. and I know from experience that some driver a r just plain weird with likes and dislikes in equipment. Lol. I've been accused of it myself.

Talking about older buses, most of you seem to like the eagles. Personally I hated them. Thought they had a really horrible ride. I didn't like how when they hit a hump it seek a like they are nice diving for several minutes till the suspension settles. I'd rather honest to God air tide rather then the crap eagle had.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

You don't like Eagles?! Well, I'd still love to buy one. People say they have better cooling systems than the early MCIs.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the MC-9. It's not that great from a purely passenger perspective, lacked innovation, and probably wasn't particularly profitable to operate. I don't like unreliable stuff either, but I like innovation.

As for the D4505, I find it quite disrespectful for a driver to say "get used to the D4505". Now I'm really fed up.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Sorry about the bad spelling in my last post. I must've been typing fast and not catching my mistakes.

As for the eagles, the suspension was the only thing I didn't like. That and the last one I was on had a flush toilet the was clogged.

Unfortunately I don't have as much experience with different bus manufacturers and models as you guys do. Most companies around here pretty much ran the.same types of buses. We had one company running an mc7 up until two year ago when he closed.

I don't blame you about the D4505. That was rude for that driver. I'd comment on that model but haven't had the pleasure or may be displeasure of riding one yet. Lol. That may be a while.

You guys are always bashing the vanhools. What's the problem with them from a passenger point of view?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Van Hools? I'd say it's the bad ride quality and the low-quality interior. The headroom is poor and the parcel racks are tiny. Also, they don't have air vents along the window sill, they only have thin, single-layer sidewalls that give the bus a "rickety" feel. Their air vents are apparently down along the ground. Obviously, dust would get in there quite easily. The Van Hools seem to be quite unstable and just poor quality. Lots of them are in poor condition after a few years of use.

They also have more crashes and fatalities than other bus models, probably due to their shabbiness. I doubt they are inherently dangerous, but Van Hools do lack window escape bars and only have the little red handles holding windows on.

I've never ridden an Eagle so don't take my word on it. But since it's regarded as an awesome, smooth-riding, high-tech bus, I'd buy one for private use if the price was right and I had the money to spare. Of course I'd test it and try it out first (if I were to buy one).

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Thanks. I've never been on a vanhool. After that I hope I never am on one.

I will say that other then eagles feeling like they are nose diving after hitting a bump, the ride great and are comfortable. The nose dive is the best I can describe it. The bus rocked front to back almost like a see saw. Definitely high tech. Last one I was on was one built not too long before the stopped building them. Everything was power or air operated and really up yo date. Just my former boss had idiots working on them. Tjry had the inside running lights on the roof instead of under the seats like mci has. Well, they were supposed to be soft blue but where normal white bulbs instead.

 

[railiner]

Lots of strong opinions here.......I love the lively debate.

My two cents.....

The Eagles did have a great ride, mostly because of the very long amount of 'travel' in their suspension, that could absorb the largest potholes with ease, along with independent front suspension.. That said, if the shock absorbers were not maintained or changed when necessary, they could rebound excessively, yielding a ride that could induce 'seasickness' in some. The Eagle's were great handling curvy roads with superior handling characteristics. Very little free play or slack in the wheel. The early models had Ross cam and lever steering, and despite not having power assist, were easy to steer as long as you were moving slightly. Later on they gained power assist. As for 'superior cooling system'....well around here, we used to joke that the Eagle's came with a soda can....you know....to prop open the engine door a few inches to prevent overheating. And the Eagle's had a twelve volt electrical system, versus the 24 volt system used in the MCI. If you left the florescent interior lights on a bit too long without the engine running, you had better have some booster cables nearby....

As for the Van Hools....our 2006 and 2009 models have a truly harsh ride. Our 2012 and newer have a much improved ride, but still inferior to both Prevost and MCI.

One thing I will say for the Van Hools....in certain aspects they seem much higher quality than our Prevosts...the baggage doors and other exterior doors feel and operate much more substantially than our Prevosts....the fit and finish, the panel gaps are superior. For example, to open the H3-45 lav service door, you must press your foot against the battery door, or the fiberglass edges will bind, preventing the opening. The rear engine door operates very nicely on the Van Hool. The one on the Prevost usually must be slammed hard in order to engage the latches on both sides.

By the way....the air conditioning on the Van Hool is delivered from the overhead vents, that are just ambient air fans on the Prevost and MCI's. The floor ducts on the Van Hool are strictly hot water for heating. the Van Hool has an advantage there, too.....the preheaters not only heat the radiator with the engine off (can be preset on a timer), but actually circulate the water and heat the entire coach. One more Van Hool advantage....the cabin goes all the way back to the rear of the bus, allowing the optional rear window. The MCI and Prevost have exhaust equipment taking up almost the equivalent of a row of seats. So with the same total rows, the seat pitch is better in the Van Hools.

Now to the D4505's....we only have three in our fleet, and I am not too familiar with them, as they normally don't run into The City. They are used on our Albany to Long Island trips, to comply with the State requirement to keep them within New York State. (trips to The City cut thru a corner of New Jersey). Today we had one, (62117) come in on a pooled Greyhound trip. I got to move it from one gate to another in The Port, and did not detect any foul odor from any source.....

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Was just on Facebook. If you guys check out either bus boys plc or Stan holster, he's got pics of his beautiful mc6 in the greyhound livery. He was just out in California with it.

 

[mightyjoe1201]

Sorry, auto correct did it to keep again, that's bus boys llc or Stan holter. I didn't catch bit in time

 

[railiner]

Thanks for that tip....I took a look and it was very nostalgic....I rode the very first MC-6X prototype (4599), when it was undergoing testing for three months on the New York City / Chicago Nonstop Turnpike Express in the fall of 1967. Back then it was powered by a DD 12v-71 and a four speed manual....

The 4169 looks like the lettering was hand painted....a bit too small compared to original livery.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

It seems like doors are the main problem of Prevosts. Lots of door problems get reported with them. Van Hools are made of carbon steel, rather than fiberglass, like the H3-45. So I would still expect them to corrode easily, even though their frame is now stainless steel. I don't like the overhead air vents on the Van Hools. They blow in your face and make it hard to relax.

Didn't realize those floor vents were actually for heating. Still, I feel like they are placed in a poor position. I saw a video a ways back that showed roaches infesting the air vents. While the preheater is an advantage, the vents seem like a design flaw to me.

During a garage tour, it was explained to me that the MCI E/J models actually have a passenger cabin going all the way back. He was able to show me by pointing out the "pattern" from the outside and the inside. The older steel MCI models have the radiator/air intake there. The DL3s dual fans are the radiator on the left and the intercooler on the right. Prevosts do have the exhaust equipment there.

Adirondack probably maintains their D4505s well and don't allow the toilets to get clogged for long, causing the odor. Greyhound, OTOH, defers maintenance on toilets and theirs get clogged all the time. Most (or maybe all) states allow Greyhound to use state-owned D4505s on interstate service. Utah-owned D4505s often run the SLC-Reno. Today we actually got an Americanos X3-45 on the 8311 to San Francisco. But, otherwise, it was still a D4505 party.

NYC-Chicago nonstop with a 12-cylinder engine! WOW, that must have been great!

 

[Caesar La Rock]

While the MC-9s lacked innovation, it was "succeeded" by the 102A3, but even then, the MC-9 made available until 1990. NJT went back and bought 415 more in 1987 and even bought one 96A3.

Greyhound bought the MC-12s, which were 96 inches wide and IMO were just as good as the MC-9s. It was interesting to see all of those coaches at one time. Even today, depending on where you live, you can still see them.

I've been on Van Hools before. The T2145 model wasn't too bad of a ride, especially traveling from Orlando to St. Augustine. Now as for the Van Hool C2045 owned by Mears, that was really smooth ride. I think it was either a 2010-2011 model.

I wish the ride could of been longer, but I do have a chance to ride Megabus one day (though they use TD925s). Plus next year another express route is being planned and motorcoaches are on the topic, I'm hoping for Van Hool CX45s for the order.

Getting back to the subject, the legroom was really good on those and the seats were comfy, though the seats didn't recline. That was the downside of riding 4209, but at least it was an experience to ride on a C2045 for the first time ever. There was also a bathroom, which I never looked inside of, but looking at how clean the entire coach was, it wasn't too bad.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

The more you argue that the MC-9 is reliable and was produced in huge numbers, the more you agree with me that the MC-9 is akin to the M4 Sherman. We actually agree with each other that the MC-9 is the bus equivalent of the M4. I just don't like the MC-9 nor do I like the M4 Sherman. I'm sure you'd like the M4. It was reliable and mobile. Produced in large numbers and served for a long time. Just like the MC-9. However, I don't think it was a great tank and thus I don't think the MC-9 and MC-12 are great buses. Admittedly, it was fun to try out the manual roll sign and entrance door on a MC-12.

In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree about the "greatness" of the MC-9. I like buses with innovation, and the MC-9 lacks it, so I don't like it. Of course I don't hate it, either.

Anyway, attached are some photos of a MCI D4500CT demonstrator. Photos courtesy BusBoys LLC.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

No one is arguing about numbers, you misinterpreting the post I made. I added the NJT order of 1987 to show that despite the fact 102 inch wide buses were available, they went back again for more 96 inch wide buses, even though they did that again with their Flxible Metro order from 1989. Also, not a fan of tanks or anything that has to do with war.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

NJT wouldn't want 102-inch buses since those are harder to maneuver in urban areas. Besides, NJT also orders D4500CTs, and you know those aren't too great.

I'm a huge fan of military history, so you will not understand my analogy. I knew you wouldn't understand my analogy 'cause you like MC-9s. Swadians are too aggressive to like MC-9s.

 

[rickycourtney]

Wow. Love that interior on that D4500CT demonstrator!

The seats are stylish and they look comfortable (of course that's what I thought of the Patriot before I sat on one), the interior is bright (I assume it's all LED lighting) and those overhead bins look rather large. I also like the LED headlights on the outside.

About the only thing I don't like is that its equipped with three across seating in the back row. I wouldn't want to be jammed in a narrow middle seat between two strangers, nor would I want the aisle seat where the bathroom door is opening into my knees during the entire trip.