6V92 vs. 60 series

[JT4SC]

Hi all!
Thanks to everyone who has been helping this newbie learn the ropes, I really appreciate it.  Today's question is about engines.  The bus I am looking currently has a 6v92 engine.  I just got off the phone with a guy who advised me to look into the 60 series Detroits.  He said the 60 series is quiter, more fuel efficient, and is an overall higher quality engine than the 92 series. 

My question is does the 60 series really outperform the 6v92 as much as this guy was saying?  Also, can you even put a 60 series in a 1993 MCI 102C3??  If you can, approximately how much would that replacement cost??

Thanks again for all your help!!
Jimmy

[Beatenbo]

6V92TA 330-350 HP          60 series 475-500HP
6-8 MPG                          7-10 MPG
300-400K engine              750-1million engine

Cost of change over about 15- 20 K   60 series 4 stroke far superior to 6V92 2 stroke. I wouldn't spend the money for a re-power for a motor home driven minimal miles. If 40-60 K a year worth the cost. Buy a bus with a 60 series already installed would be my take. Good day

[belfert]

The Series 60 is too tall for most buses that came with the 6V92.  The Series 60 can be accomodated by raising the floor in the rear usually under the bed.  A Cummins ISM, M11, or even an L10 are more easily accomodated due to less height.  Brian Diehl is installing a Cummins M11 or ISM in a 96A3 right now.

I agree with the other poster that a bus with the right engine is going to be easier than a conversion.

[rv_safetyman]

Jimmy.  There is another thread down the list a bit on the same subject (http://www.busconversions.com/bbs/index.php?topic=4301.0).  You might want to take a look at that thread. 

Beatnbo says that an engine conversion is $15-20k.  That is a bit more than the parts needed to do a conversion (depending on what the engine costs).  So, that is the cost if you do it yourself.  You can double that for a professional job.  Some shops might quote you less, but I would bet the final bill will be in the $40K range.

Different buses have different challenges for engine conversions.  Not all are easily updated.

You can go to my project pages (link listed in signature) and see what is involved in an engine conversion.  Definitely not for the faint of heart

Your best advice is to get a bus with the engine you want.  The Series 60 is a much better option in my opinion, but buses with that engine have a pretty steep premium. 

Some folks have mentioned RTS buses with the Series 50 as being a good value.  That would give you all of the good characteristics of the Series 60 but at an affordable price.

[TomC]

On a per power basis, the Series 50 4 cylinder is the same power as the 6V-92TA and will almost assure you of a 10mpg bus (with correct engine mounts, the engine doesn't vibrate much at idle).  Recently saw some 102C3's with Series 50's-would be my choice for a conversion!  Good Luck, TomC

[bus05eagle]

Tom, thanks for your post everyone is always  comparing the 60s to a 6v92 a 9L engine to a 11.1,12.7 or a14L s60 thats a big difference

[TomC]

If I wasn't using the Series 50 to change out the 8V-71 (S50 is still a very tall engine), I would use a modern day Cummins ISC or Caterpillar C9-both of which can be turned up to 400hp and 1200lb/ft of torque-which is the rating of the standard 8V-92TA bus engine.  Either are shorter, about the same length, and weigh close to 1000lb less than the Series 60.  Granted they are considered to be a 400,000 mile engine, but that's still more than the 8V-71's 300,000 mile average life expectancy.  Series 60 is an excellent engine, but in my opinion, way to big for a bus (along with the Cummins NTC/N14, Caterpillar 3406/C15/C16).  Some of the engines for converting are the Cummins ISM (good choice considering the vast amount of trash trucks with Allison autos being used), Cummins ISC, Caterpillar C12, C13, Mercedes/Benz 4000 12.8 liter, etc.  Personally I chose to turbo my 8V-71 to 375hp and 1125lb/ft torque and call it a day.  Really wakes it up and performs well.  Granted the fuel economy is about the same, but with better performance and no more high altitude smoking, I can live with that.  Good Luck, TomC