Single rear axle MCI

[brando4905]

Seems like someone on this board was looking for one of these awhile back?

http://greenville.craigslist.org/rvs/2114655939.html

[JackConrad]

Loosing the tags reduces your GVW by 6000#.  Jack

[Busted Knuckle]

Loosing the tags reduces your GVW by 6000#.  Jack

Jack that is true, but it also reduces your empty weight a fair amount too. I don't know exactly how much, but would guess several thousand #. (gotta be close to 1000 lbs per side with tires, wheels, drums, brakes, hub, spindle & axle/mounting assembly I'd think)  FWIW
  BK 

[JackConrad]

Yeah, with a tag weight of 2500#, you would only loose 3500# GVW.  Jack

[Ed Hackenbruch]

And a single rear axle coach is better looking too!

[lostagain]

Having driven lots of miles on both single rear axle buses and buses with drive axles and tags, lots of MCIs and some Prevosts, I can offer these comments:

Single rear axle buses, (generally 35 footers) feel lighter and bouncier, with more of a porpoise motion. They are more agile and sportyer to drive. Handy in tight spots like around a city, or state/provincial campground. Tighter turning radius. The MC5 is a great example.

Tag axle buses, (behind the drive axle, I have no experience with Eagles), are heavier. They have a great feeling of being planted on the road. They don't bounce as much or have that porpoise motion. They absorb the bumps and pot holes nice and smoothly. And in the case of a 102", the side to side stability has that planted, stable feel too. The tags offer added braking too and straight ahead stability. For example if you're spinning out in snow, the tags keep the rear end in a straight line rather than slipping sideways. Tag axle buses are usually 40 or 45 footers with a much bigger turning radius than 35 footers. And of course there is more maintenance to keep up to with tags: tires, brakes, bearings, etc.

There are two different buses.

JC

[Dave5Cs]

Lost;
While we know that is correct!!!
You didn't address what Ed said, because my wife and I agree they are much better looking and cute as she says,LOL

Dave

[lostagain]

The MC5 is the best looking bus ever built! Never mind how it rides. That settles it, LOL.

JC

[artvonne]

  I think most of the OTR coaches are pretty nice looking, though some of the later model MCI's look a bit too "commercial".

  I read stuff some months ago about removing the tag on the MCI -7,8, and 9, cant find anything now though. But it said removing the tag would make the nose bounce so much you could lose control, be thrown out of the driver seat, etc,. Secondary effects were structural failure of the frame over the axle.

[luvrbus]

You don't get the bounce with that bus the rear axle was moved 25 inches to the rear from the location of the rear axle on the regular 3 axle MCI just thought you may want to know the wheel base on it is 310 inches,turning radius is 48 ft on the 2 axle and the 3 axle A is 43 ft

good luck

[bevans6]

I was just about to post the same thing!  the wheelbase on the MC-5 and 6 is 261" and the turning radius is 46 feet.  The  wheelbase for  the MC-7, 8 and 9 and later buses as well is 285" (steer to drive, I would assume) and the turning radius is 46 feet, up to 51 feet for the MC-9.  Later three axle buses had a smaller turning radius.

So MCI two axle buses did not have a particularly better steering ability, but the 35' MCI did have a little less overhang at the rear.

Brian

[luvrbus]

That were the Eagle had MCI beat 45 ft on 40 ft bus the MCI 9 was 51 ft


good luck

[FloridaCliff]

And a single rear axle coach is better looking too!

Ed,  

What can I say!  (other than your right)

Cliff

[RJ]

JC -

I'll second that there's a difference between a two and three axle coach, but with some caveats:

A three-axle Prevost, with the tags raised, bounces just like you said.

A 40' Eagle with bad shocks will porpoise a driver right out of the seat, but with good shocks, has a fantastic ride.  (45' Eagles don't suffer this phenom.)

At 318", a 40-foot two-axle GMC Buffalo has a really sweet ride and a nimble feel, w/o any porposing.  Actually rides better than some of today's 45 footers.

The three-axle MCIs, like you say, feel heavy and planted.  Lumbering giants, so to speak.

Will also agree that the MC-5C is a good-looking coach, except for the funky transition between the MC-8 front end and the MC-5A/B roofline.  Softened a bit if you've got a Saudi double-roof. . .

Personally, I still think the 4106 was one of the best-looking 35' coaches ever built.  Sort of an "evolutionary" design between the rounded shapes of the post-WWII workhorses and the more modern 40'-footers with their shiny stainless and boxy sides.

And then there's the Scenicruiser. . .  Probably the best example of good industrial design ever built!

FWIW & HTH. . .

[luvrbus]

Cliff you and Ed are in love lol look at the Eagle on the cover of BCM and tell me that not a good looking bus huh Eric


good luck