MCI 9 questions

[artvonne]

  Its really not what I think I want, they're kinda big, but these things are everywhere you look, and location and parts availability do mean something. Anyway, a local guy has one, its a 5 speed manual with 6V92T, he claims it has a broken crank.

  As always, any advice or knowledge is appreciated. I been looking around at other MCI-9's on the web, actual runners are much more than I could get this one for, so the money saved could go directly back into a fresh'ish motor and a chassis service, etc., and I could keep the S&S in the meantime until the Bus is converted. But im not real excited about the 92's from everything ive read. What about a 671T with that 7 speed trans???

[CrabbyMilton]

Well, The MCI MC9 is rabidly popular as a conversion and a tough workhorse as a seated coach back in the 1980's. I can almost say with positive resolve that the 6-71 was never offered in the MC9. The 8v-71, 6v-92, and 8v-92 were offered with manual or automatic transmissions. All three of those engines and ALLISON 740 are well proven and had been around forever.

[bevans6]

I think MC-9's are a good choice.  There are more of them than any other bus in that age bracket, which says something for popularity when new.  I have it's little sister, MC-5C.  Lots of stainless steel in the lower chassis but not above, so rust can still be an issue.  Known problems with air beams, etc, but overall it's a solid fairly modern bus and I still see them in service down in the Maritimes.

The thing about the 6V92, or any 92 series at this point, is it's either rebuilt or needs to be, and the work has or is being done by people at the end of the bus' useful life so no money being spent on factory fresh rebuilds.  Things are being skimped on, done on the cheap.  I think the 92 series, with wet liners, is more susceptible to a bad rebuild than a 71 series.  Add to that the possibility of having to run an early DDEC version and  I think they can be harder and more expensive to run.  If you are doing a repower an 8V71T can be a good choice (it's what I am installing in my bus so I obviously think it's a good idea...)

For me, a non-running MC-9 of uncertain maintenance, a broken crank, and still seated, or not converted in any way, is worth basically nothing more than scrap value.  Sorry to say that, but I wouldn't have one if it was free.  A sweet running (as in starts, runs, and uses less than a gallon of oil every 1500 miles), decently maintained (as in the suspension stays up overnight, and the brakes have linings and don't lock up randomly due to fluctuating air pressure) one would be a good start to something.

Brian

[robertglines1]

would not pay more than scrap value  with bad motor in today's market: Scrap value as unit around 2500$:unless it is already converted.All kind of other variables like age of tires and pristine body would effect price.Broken crank puts a big question if it still has many usable parts for rebuilding economically.  Bob

[Jriddle]

I would not want to have a motor hanging over my head from the start. You will have enough to do just getting it converted and who knows what else is wrong. I would think this bus should be free to you or maybe the owner should pay you to take it. With out a working motor you don't know what else is wrong.

Just my opinion

John

[Busted Knuckle]

Brian, & Bob,
I agree with both of you on a non-running MC9. (to a certain degree)
The MC9 was/is the longest running work horse in the industry bar none! But it is old, and if it has a bad crank, not work a lot.
I'd say not more than $1000. I have a 102A3 (has broken frame, not worth fixing) that I got quoted twice in the past week that as scrap they'd give me $700 and they'd come get it or they'd give me $1000 for it if I brought it to them!
FWIW  BK  

[artvonne]

  Thanks guys, thats the kind of knowledge I was looking for. Ive been reading and researching, and the 92's really dont have a good track record lately, just seem way to many coming unglued out on the road and guys facing $10K plus to get back on the road.  If I have to spend $10K, I would rather spend it on parts here in my driveway rather than padding someones pocket for labor out in the middle of nowhere. Not saying I wouldnt consider a 92, I just would want it fresh. The reason I mentioned the 6V71T, was I believe its a simpler, more reliable engine starting out, and probably cheaper to aquire.

  I do understand the horrors I could face buying a non runner, but if I can get it cheap enough it wouldnt really matter in the bigger scheme of things, or it could be a parts bus. I do have 40 acres, its not like it would be in my way.

  If the engine is out, I have transmission choices. Using what the Bus already has, set up as a manual, what would be the simplest transmissions to hook up? Am I wrong believing the 7 speed would "just hook up"??
 

[luvrbus]

Can you tell us what is problem with a 6v92 Greyhound ran the socks of those engines for years,not uncommon to see 6v92 with 300,000 + miles still going strong fwiw I have a friend in Mesa that ran the 6v92 in his Eagles (14) and used 15/40 and the 1st one to fail had over 400,000 the guys at WW WIlliams laughed and told him the 15/40 did it in


good luck

[bevans6]

I think it's perception, not reality that the V92 has more of a reliability issue than a V71.  I do agree that the V71's are perhaps a little simpler, but probably the reason people notice the V92's having problems is that more people are running them these days, and so they get talked about a little more.

I'm not sure a 6V71T would be getting enough horsepower to make a person with an MC-9 happy.  I think that bus would be happiest with around 350 hp. or more.

Brian

[lostagain]

I have been driving the 7 speed Eaton-Fuller for several years on the hockey team's bus. (MCI 102D3, DD S60, 12.7L). In many ways it is a great transmission. Low gear is really low and gets the bus going up a cliff at idle. Then you can keep the engine in its sweet spot (1200 to 1800 rpm) at any speed. 65 mph at about 1500 rpm IIRC. It is built tough. I change the oil in it every 30000 miles or so.

That said, it is not easy to shift. I can do it nice and sweet when I am fresh and rested. You can hear more grinding on the way home from a game in the middle of the night when I am tired and sleepy, and the movie is on loud and I have ear plugs in.

The clutch would be a concern if your leg/knee went bad.

The clutch brake is great. You can take it out of gear at a red light, and put it into 1st when it turns green without any grinding.

I love the Allison HT740 in my 5C conversion SOOO much....

The 92 series is a great engine if it is in good shape  and maintained.

JC  

[CrabbyMilton]

The 6V-72 may have been good in transits years agao but in an over the road coach nowadays, it would be slower than on old man on a tricycle riding up hill on ice. We had many GM "Fishbowls" here in Milwaukee at one time and they were very underpowered to say the least.

[Highway Yacht]

I had the opportunity a few months ago to buy a nice looking 102C3 seated coach for just the towing and storage fees which were only about $3500 but turned it down. The 8V92 had been overheated and torn apart and the tires were all slick. I knew by the time I spent all the $$ on having the engine rebuilt and tires replaced that it would not have been worth it to me. I would much more prefer to buy a runner..

Jimmy

[Busted Knuckle]

Brian I agree that 92's are getting a bad rap "lately" but not necessarily because more people are running them. But more likely more people are RUINING them! It takes a driver with knowledge & patience to drive & maintain these old work horses and many just don't have it!

With the 4 strokes having been out and around for so long many people don't understand the importance of not lugging / overheating the 2 strokes because many haven't been around the 2 strokes enough. They think that you just mash the gas and go (which is what they see modern drivers do with modern engines!)

I have had drivers who never had been around 2 strokes before working for me and just couldn't get the hang of a 2 stroke because they'd only driven 60 series or similar and the harder they mashed it the better it went. Our oldest bus has a 6V92 in it and you have to feather the pedal just right to "hit the sweet spot" and she will hum right on down the road all day long @ 70-80 mph with the other buses. But if you try to drive it like a 60 series yer gonna get mad "because it just sucks and has no power & won't go!" (as I've heard driver after driver tell me, then after they find that spot they say "wow this ol' bus is SWEET, it'll out run those other buses as long as there ain't no big hills!")

So it ain't the engines, it's more likely the driver skills or lack of that kill these engines.

I agree totally with Clifford these ol' engines been many a mile for hound and others!
FWIW   BK 

[artvonne]

  Heres the deal guys. I have been on here since august, and lurking long before that, and been reading various forums long before that. I have read the stuff many of you have written.

  But just focusing on only the last 6 months, I cant recall the number of owners who have had their 92 blow on them out on the road, but there have been a few and they were not cheap. Yet I cant recall a single 71 series. Not one. By many of these members own testimony, the 92 cannot handle an overheat. IIRC, several here claimed anything over 210F is fatal to that engine.

  OTOH, everyone for years has sang the virtues and praises of the 71's indestructability, with the inline 671 being honored with probably the greatest longevity and reliability, although underpowered. In addition, many have claimed to be able to keep chugging down the road with a 71 after an issue developed, a blown head gasket or a cracked head, just keep topping it off with coolant, but most all of you agreed that would burn up a 92 immediately.

  That all said, I do realise the 92 is more than capable of several hundred thousands of miles after a "quality" overhaul with "quality" parts and proper maintenence. How many of those are out there? I dont know, but I have seen a lot of 92 series powered buses for sale that dont run. I admit there are a lot around, and you see a lot more problems the more of something that exists, but this is simply my observation. 

  However, if I am dumb enough to consider this Bus, and I probably am if the price is right, I would consider repairing the current engine "if" its salvageable. But if its not, I would most likely look for a 6V71T, and sacrifice a little power for a bit more percieved reliability. I think a few missed the "T" part, I doubt myself if a NA 6-71 could move a -9 around very spritely. A good aftercooler could bring a 6-71T up to where it may not even have a noticeable power loss over the 6-92T.

  Is that a fair description of these engines, or am I still missing something somewhere?

  Also, I have not changed my attitude about fuel economy, its important to me. Almost more than reliability. When I first came on here, I argued that fuel costs were likely going to rise in the not so near future, and that $5 gallon would not be out of the question. Now we have actual testimony off the news claiming we could see fuel "over" $5 by late 2012. Y'all can argue how unimportant it is, but at $5 gallon there are going to be a lot of Busses parked, many simply will no longer be able to justify driving them. There just is no sense in building a hot rod bus today. If I

  My main interest is making a few trips per year of about 1500 miles round trip length. If I can hit "around" 8 mpg, that isnt going to hurt to bad. Especially if I can slip in an auxilliary tank to carry enough capacity so I wont have to stop. I could top it off at my liesure when its parked and not have to fork out for fuel away from home. The biggest problem with the -9 is its big and heavy. But its not "that" heavy, looks to be about 24K pounds stripped. The challenge would be to keep the weight down to a bare minimum, having as efficient an engine and gearbox as I can reasonably afford, and keeping my foot out of it.   

[Jriddle]

I am not saying you won't get 8 mpg but my 6 v92 won't out here.

John