Newer Used fleet bus shell vs. Older conversion bus shell with (much) less miles

[plyonsMC9]

Good morning fellow bus folk!

Hope all are staying cool and away from fires.      Haven 't been able to post lately, too much time working to enjoy the forum. 

Thinking about possibly starting another conversion and looking at MCI shells.  Guess I'm just an MCI guy. 

I was looking at the fleet shells that were "somewhat" newer  / MCDL4500 or DL4000 year 2000-2006.  Most all of those I noticed, and expected, would have 400K - 800K miles.  I believe that MCI had some newer technology in 2007, but those are getting costly.  Not sure about swinging that much for a 2007 shell. 

Then I saw some older MCI conversions 1994/1995 but they only had around 100K miles.  My thought was then maybe I could get an older shell, but with far fewer miles, and just gut it and start over.  Maybe keep the generator & inverters, tanks, etc.  e.g., the stuff in the underbays.

So - assuming there are service records and all checks out for the private coaches - were the technology gains material enough to make it worth getting the newer shell (1994/1995 vs. 2004-2006/7)?  I imagine I'd also save some $$ by keeping some of the components in the bay as well.  Either bus option would be checked out by a local mechanic.

What says the wisdom of the bus board?!  What other factors would go into this choice?  What am I missing!

Thanks as always, Phil

[Scott & Heather]

Phil, you're a pretty experienced bus guy, you've been in it longer than I have, so take my words with a grain of salt:

We lived in our self converted 9 for almost 6 years but then sold it and planned to upgrade to the new J4500 body style...but then a really cheap 1992 102C3 shell fell into our laps in Dallas. A solid DDEC II 8v92TA rebuilt in 2002 with an Allison 748, all new air bags, bearings, brakes, and a ton of work done on the mechanical and underbits. Previous owner had already professionally raised the roof 8" and closed it all in. He rebuilt the cooling blower box completely, fresh radiators, and installed newer renaissance caps front and back. He even had half the rims upgraded to 24.5" alcoas. All that just sweetened the deal at $10,000 so we couldn't pass it up. So now, we have an older coach that looks kinda like a newer one and honestly we are happy. She's fast, rides nice, and is just better in every way than our 9. I think your decision depends a lot on what you find in your price range. That being said, if I were to buy a bus again, without any doubt, I'm going to skip right over anything two stroke and go straight to a 4 stroke for just a ton of reasons you are probably already aware of. Here's how my "older" coach with stainless removed and updated caps looks:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[brmax]

Your putting a very interesting question up and im curious. It maybe you know already but i dont, the years body control modules/computers were introduced in these mci buses. Im sure Clifford and others can put some good knowledge towards the ? . The newer wiring as multiplex style communications is surely available in the late 90's and 2k years and so i will be listening drinking a bit of coffee.

Good day
Floyd

[AdamWalkup]

I own somewhere between 25 and 30 MCI coaches total, between of operating fleet of 18, 2 personal motor homes (parents 89, and my 94) and about 7 in our scrap yard.  We have made an active effort to stay AWAY from anything after 02 due to the multiplex system.  We finally gave up, and have recently purchased our first 07 D4505, and are doing a rebuild to put it in the fleet.  I have a friend with 2 06 models, and so far they have not been nearly as reliable as his older coaches from the 90s.

I don't really see any advantage of going to a newer coach for conversion.  I would however make sure you stick with a Series 60, as cheap as they are now.

[plyonsMC9]

Sweeeet looking rig Scott & Heather.      

Thanks for the pic and the insights Scott.  I'm studying all the items & responses you have listed. It sounds like the jump from a MC9 to the newer 102C3 was already a huge benefit to you, along with all the amenities the previous owner included in the sale.  Good point.  I'm fully expecting to have some engine work that will be required - all my shell candidates needless to say, will not be coming straight off the showroom floor.    

For sure the new shell will have a 4 stroke.  

Kind Regards, Phil

[sledhead]

when I was looking to upgrade from my 1990 M C I 102c3 I wanted the years from 1999 - 2002 with a 4 stroke and with out egr or the rest of the crap that has been added for emissions . I was looking for a already converted coach that I could redo to the way we wanted it . then I came across the featherlite we have now with low mileage in need of upgrades and at a very low low price . I was looking for a M C I but I could  not be happier then I am now . lots of interior rework and some mechanical work plus 8 tires but all in not very much money spent . oh ya LOTS MORE POWER !!! so good luck with your search and they are out there , you just need to find it

dave     

[chessie4905]

Since you are going to get it, why not gut all the multiplex stuff and change it to old tech? They don't do compliance inspections on these vehicles do they?

[plyonsMC9]

Wow! This is fascinating and I'm learning a LOT.  Adam, thanks for sharing your first-hand experience with your MCI fleet.  Very interesting indeed.   Never thought I'd be thinking that older buses would have the more dependable technology.   Thanks for the additional MCI information Dave, and the encouragement!  Floyd, I'll share a cup of coffee with you over this!         Thanks for the swap out idea Chessie4905. 


Kind Regards, Phil

[bevans6]

Technology didn't get more reliable with complexity, it got more sophisticated.  It drove economy and emissions more than anything else, with a healthy helping of fancy toys and geegaws.  I have a really nice little Mercedes in my shed, 8 years old.  Known issue with the transmission happened, resale/trade in value is virtually zero, it has scrap value.  Because a $20 RPM sensor in the control module failed.  Mercedes wants $12K to replace the transmission, a new module is $5K, and you can buy dodgy replacement boards from the European aftermarket for about $1K and hope.  Not impressed with technology these days.

[Jon]

How much of the technology that is in our vehicles today is because we as a society asked for it. Maybe not specifically but because we have chosen to not participate as drivers, so we want transmissions to shift themselves (so we can talk on the cell phone instead of shifting), we want lane change warnings, we want adaptive cruise control to stop us from hitting the car in front of us and we want to plug in a computer and have it tell us what just broke because that is easier and actually training to be a mechanic.

We demand clean air, but instead of limiting the use of the car so we pollute less, we want a car to exhaust air cleaner than what went into it so the soccer mom's can run all over doing errands. A lot of the engine complexity is no longer the engine, but the stuff hanging on it.

Now cars are rolling computers because we cannot read maps. plan ahead for where to eat or fuel, and we need cameras so we don't have to turn our head to look in a mirror.

How much of that stuff was shoved down our throats, and how much of the stuff is because of us and how lazy and dumb we got as a society?

[lostagain]

The bigger bus companies, and trucking firms, replace their equipment before the warranty runs out.

JC

[lostagain]

For a bus nut, a pre EGR (before 1995 ish) S60  with Allison B500 would be a very good choice.

JC

[Dreadnought]

We demand clean air, but instead of limiting the use of the car so we pollute less, we want a car to exhaust air cleaner than what went into it so the soccer mom's can run all over doing errands. A lot of the engine complexity is no longer the engine, but the stuff hanging on it.

Limiting the use of the car wouldn't necessarily tackle pollution. Consumerism promotes pollution and focusing on made up metrics like 'carbon footprints' when focus on the bigger picture is better. eg: electric cars- while totally ignoring the lithium and nickel mining and shipping impacts or the impact of hauling heavy batteries around rather than looking at lightweight vehicles. Self driving cars- are another example of a solution to a question that no one asked. One designed to take the focus away from the individual. the ultimate in commoditization.
 Keeping an older vehicle on the road and maintaining it - is BY FAR the most sustainable course-regardless of powertrain. Consumerism pedals meaningless gadgets that drive complexity up and dependability down. The gadgets are used to coax you into newer vehicles. Keeping older vehicles on the road will tend to support local small businesses also rather than support cronny capitalism and big union supporting multi layered corporate companies.

Vehicles designed from the outset to be rebuildable, and customizable make more sense to me. Older cars were like that. Buses are (were?) like that. Boeing air craft are like that

[lvmci]

Hi Phil, looking for a 102C3, I think one option is the best, the larger single radiator is better then the split system, better cooling. tom, lvmci...

[DoubleEagle]

I view the situation from practical cost terms. If there are lots of financial resources, then something newer might be more convenient, but problems will need to be corrected at great cost (or under warranty). The best value is a good 2 cycle or pre-EGR Series 60 provided you are mechanically inclined enough to do most of the maintenance. The problems start with older stuff when the parts become no longer available or rebuildable, or replaceable with an adapted part. Part of the joy of being involved with bus conversions is solving problems with creative solutions. (One thing I noticed when writing this is that when I used the word "rebuildable", the computer wanted me to hyphenate it as if it were an incorrect term).