Prevost questions

[Charles in SC]

I am thinking kind of down the road here but I have been studying Prevosts for a year or so in the mid 1980's to mid 1990's and wondered if they are all pretty good or if some are better than others. I am asking about the Prevost part, not the conversion stuff. I know everyone has their own opinion about the conversion work.
Thanks!

[robertglines1]

I like the body style . as you can see I have two. I will not say better than others because most of the components are the same. I like them and have had good luck with them. very few of them were ever Hounds. most were charter coaches. So let the beating begin..I'm runnin for cover now.   Bob

[prevosman]

I'm a long time Prevost owner (21 years) and have had two, an 87 with the 8V92 and a 97 with the Series 60. I have zero experience with any other bus.

But I do 100% of all my own work on the buses and find them robust, easy to work on and the best part is Prevost has the shop manuals, pneumatics, electrical schematics and parts lists for all coaches on line, accessible to anyone, with detail information down to the serial number.

Additionally, they provide links to the same level of technical information to components they install on the coach from brake calipers to differentials to air system components making them easy to work on without guessing. Not many other coach types can offer that level of documentation.

[Hi yo silver]

My only experience is with MCIs, both in charter service and with my conversion. If I was in the market for a bus or conversion and a "P model" came along, I would jump on it in a heartbeat. These buses are built like tanks, and I love mine.
Dennis

[luvrbus]

Charles, Prevost is a good bus but they have problems just like any bus the only piece of junk I think Prevost ever made was a 1996  with IFS front end (independent front suspension) mine was a nightmare and so were others I knew of.

There is a lot of mild steel in one and if not taken care of they will rust they are not all stainless steel like some tell you and always check your year model for recalls and be sure they were done Prevost has had the most safety recalls of any bus ever built.

Now you Prevost guys can fire away lol Prevost are a little over engineered and complex but still a good bus I like the ones with frame less windows I believe they came out in 98 or 99 huge improvement IMO

good luck

[robertglines1]

I like all buses!!! I have build MCI's and Prevost. I selected prevost for slides because it has a frame and the structure lends its self to building slides. The 98 I have has antilock brakes.  Disc on tags and steer. 4 luggage bays. 45XLE and has a raised roof from factory also a 20,000 lb towing capacity. factory leveling system  When parked.  All things I consider a advantage.    Bob

[Charles in SC]

The way I worded my original post here may have caused some misunderstanding. I was wondering about one year model or chassis model Prevost compared with other year or chassis model Prevosts. Not compared to other brands.

[robertglines1]

$$$ has allot to do with that. If possible The newer model with the 60 series will give you better fuel mileage. The XLE series has a taller inside height from factory and a extra bay.  Seated coaches have a lower rear gear  than shells or XLE   Suspension changes in the early 90's in the tag configuration allowed the installation of the 60 series in them. Before then it was a major deal to change over.

[prevosman]

The way I worded my original post here may have caused some misunderstanding. I was wondering about one year model or chassis model Prevost compared with other year or chassis model Prevosts. Not compared to other brands.

In that context I can recite numerous reasons to focus on specific model years. Keep in mind my frame of reference is a motorhome chassis. Prevost makes the XL in seated, entertainer and motorhome configurations. They also make the H3 which is more like the current MCI.

First I would stay with the riveted exterior. There are issues with the XLII which has bonded skins. They are delaminating on some coaches and the repairs are extensive and expensive. Further, I would stick with the solid front axle instead of the IFS. The IFS has had some unanticipated maintenance issues although for the most part it is robust. I believe coaches after serial number T5873 (late 1997) had the IFS. Models with the riveted skins may be available with long range fuel. Standard is 208 gallons, and mine has an additional 90 making a total of 298 which allows for shoping for cheap fuel prices and tankering fuel.

The riveted coaches have easily replaced glass and if you can you can often buy glass when specials are offered for as little as $130 and all it takes is about 30 minutes to replace a windshield. The later XLII models have glass costing hundreds more and more labor to install. The skins on riveted coaches are easily replaced if you can drill out rivets and use a pop rivet gun. I have not seen evidence of rust on my 97 which was a New Jersey coach with the exception of some hose fittings.

The sweet spot for fuel economy is in the Series 60 coaches from 95 up to about 99. Later models are heavier and have different EPA standards and fuel consumption reflects this. I can get 7.5 all day long towing my H2 Hummer and running my over the road air. If I tow a lighter vehicle and don't run the OTR continuously 8.0 is possible.

With the price of coaches in that range it would be hard for me to justify building my own (not that I want to anyway because I lack time and skills) because some excellent conversions are available fairly cheap with features that make the coach extremely livable.

I think entertainer coaches are even less expensive, but they have many many more miles which in and of themselves are not an issue, but bring with them more problems, but they are not enough cheaper usually to justify the needed effort to bring them up to snuff.

[edroelle]

I reinforce Jon's comments.   I have an 98 IFS coach with 130,000 miles and just replaced $1000 (parts only) in front end steering and suspension components.

Ed Roelle
Flint, MI

[luvrbus]

My 1996 Vogue was IFS suspension the very first one Prevost worked on ours from day one till they bought it back.

One bill I saw was over 13,000 bucks Prevost did a complete redesign on the the IFS in 2000 my good friend Dick Kaiser in Eugene said it was a improvement but still had a way to go he did front end work for Marathon, CC and others on the Prevost 

I will give Prevost credit they would fly a driver into Phoenix to pick it up work on it bring it back never cost me a dime they just could never fix it      

good luck

[prevosman]

I erroneously mistyped the model year IFS was introduced. Luvrbus posted the correct year. The IFS was introduced in the Prevost 96 model year around the serial number I posted.

[Lin]

This is interesting and a little confusing.  To avoid the IFS, it seems that one should get a Prevost from 95 or earlier, and to get a Series 60, it would have to be 95 or later.  Hence, 95 would be the year to go with.  However, I am sure that I have seen some 95's for sale that stated that they had 8v92's.  Did they use both engines in 95?

[Joe Camper]

They did not correct the problems with the premature failure with the upper a-arm bushings till 03 or 04 when they started putting the larger bushings in the upper arms that untill then were only used on the lowers.

[prevosman]

All 45 foot XL coaches had Series 60 and they were run parallel with the 40 footers which had the 8V92. I believe the 1994 model year was the start. So solid axle coaches were produced until late 1996 model year. 40 foot shells got the Series 60 only after the world transmission, the six speed, became available. Those coaches were very good and perfomed very well. The 45 footer with about 5000 pounds more weight was good but in a drag race would never match a 40 footer.

IFS was for the most part relatively trouble free. HOWEVER, a lot of folks were changing A arms and bushings needlessly because mechanics were looking at the bushings and because they looked bad claiming they were no good. As long as the pin was still secure  the bushings were good despite appearances with life in commercial service in excess of 500,000 miles.

But as has been posted, IFS does need service and it is more expensive than the solid axle which is as simple as an anvil.