View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:09 pm Post subject: The new pantograph luggage bay doors |
|
|
Okay, I need to know if I am right in assuming that GM once again innovated the now commonly used pantograph style luggage bay doors.
These doors are different from the old bay doors used in the older buses that swung upward and hung on a hinge at the top.
These doors instead swings upward without moving far from the body of the coach and can open without needing a lot of room.
From what I can see there are 4 arms, 2 on each end.
The 2 at the bottom look straight and the upper ones are bent.
I have not seen clear pictures of this and I have no way of finding one here close to home.
Some say that there is a rubber connection to the doors. I don't see how.
Another issue is that from what I have seen on these bus sites, I have concluded that GM was the innovator of the modern luggage bay doors when they created the Buffalo bus in 1966. I have looked at many pictures online at MCI and Prevost before my mind got numb and found that they did not have the doors before GM. MCI came out with these doors in 1967. I am not able to find what refinements the other buses offered for every year they were in operation.
I am having trouble trying to verify or disprove this notion that GM was the first.
The internet is a good tool but is also hard to find trivial things like this.
I have learned what I know from the good folks here and others online and would appreciate any help I can get.
Thanks
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an example
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
120.78 KB |
Viewed: |
32346 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here is a scenicruiser
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
76.97 KB |
Viewed: |
32344 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
an old MCI
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an old GM with the old style doors that was typical of all buses before the Buffalo bus
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimmiB
Age: 81 Joined: 19 Apr 2011 Posts: 516 Location: Lebanon, PA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
GM started using rubber hinges in 1951 with the introduction of the PD-4104. They were used on the baggage doors of the 4104 and 4106. They also used rubber hinges on the fuel tank door and the battery compartment door.
The first buffalo was the PD-4107 in 1961. These were built in the same Pontiac, Michigan plant as the fishbowls, and used a lot of the same body and mechanical parts as the fishbowl.
The 4107 was the first GM coach to have telescoping baggage doors. Biggest complaint on the 4107s was they were difficult to shift. Completely different feel than everything else. You had to shift and double clutch as fast as you could move! I ground a lot of gears till I got it right.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
traildriver
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2462 Location: South Florida
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JimmiB wrote: | .
The first buffalo was the PD-4107 in 1961.. |
Slight correction....should be 1966. The PD-4106 was in production from 1961-1965, when the 4107 replaced it in 1966.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimmiB
Age: 81 Joined: 19 Apr 2011 Posts: 516 Location: Lebanon, PA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks traildriver. You are correct. I must have hit the wrong key.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
traildriver
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2462 Location: South Florida
|
Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're welcome...
I completely agree...the 4107's were a bear to shift...it seemed as if the engines had no flywheel....the rpm's dropped very fast when you lifted off the throttle. I too did my share of "gear-jamming" them...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
TheDriver
Joined: 18 Dec 2015 Posts: 233 Location: America
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that they were hard to shift but very few ever explained the reason for it.
I am able to drive 18 wheelers and my old Chevy's without using the clutch and have driven trucks that shifted so hard with the clutch that it was easier to shift without it.
About the Buffalo buses now, I am happy to hear your experiences.
The quick and rapid deceleration of the engine would make the shift hard to do especially if the shifter linkage is stiff.
I would like to know if the engine is slow to accelerate.
I wonder if you could keep the revs up knowing that the engine speed would drop so quickly?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
traildriver
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2462 Location: South Florida
|
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't know the reason other than the way I described it....
The last time I drove a 4107 was in 1974....too far back to recall that much about them, other than if I had a choice, I would always select a 4106 over one of them. The 4106, IMHO, was a much better bus...its body was a true highway coach, not a 'hybrid' half highway--half transit like the 'buffalo' models. The only advantage of the later models was the extra cargo capacity as a result of their height....
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimmiB
Age: 81 Joined: 19 Apr 2011 Posts: 516 Location: Lebanon, PA
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Traildriver described the same feeling I had shifting a 4107. You had to drive one to know what we're talking about. He's also right about the 4106. They were a much better coach than the Buffalo models. Not just the 07's. I drove a 4905 that, when coming to a stop, you had to ram it into 1st gear just before it stopped. If you didn't, you had to shut it down and re-start after putting it in 1st.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
traildriver
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2462 Location: South Florida
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
That reminds me...I did occasionally drive a 4903 up until 1979...we had a pooled operation with Mid-Continent Coaches on our Denver-Garden City-Oklahoma City route. We contributed an Eagle to the pool.
The two types couldn't have been more different....
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tripstop80
Joined: 16 Apr 2007 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:40 am Post subject: PD 4903 |
|
|
The Eagles (and MCI's) shifted exactly opposite the GM's. Slow from first to second and very fast from third to fourth. The GM's were very fast from first to second and slow from third to fourth
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
traildriver
Joined: 26 Mar 2011 Posts: 2462 Location: South Florida
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm....I think you're right about that (it's been a looong time ).
I suppose the gear ratio's were different, to account for that difference, but the shifter and clutch linkages could have had their effect too...
Come to think about it, I did occasionally get to drive an SDM-5302 (I think that was the model--a 40 foot, 96" suburban with mechanical transmission...
IIRC, it shifted very similarly to the 'buffalo's'.....
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|