BusTalk Forum Index BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
 
 BusTalk MainBusTalk Main FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups BusTalk GalleriesBusTalk Galleries   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The new pantograph luggage bay doors
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Bus Forum - All Bus Topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:09 pm    Post subject: The new pantograph luggage bay doors Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is an example


Blue White Red.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  120.78 KB
 Viewed:  31598 Time(s)

Blue White Red.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is a scenicruiser


126 baby blue.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  76.97 KB
 Viewed:  31596 Time(s)

126 baby blue.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



an old MCI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote




This is an old GM with the old style doors that was typical of all buses before the Buffalo bus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JimmiB



Age: 81
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 516
Location: Lebanon, PA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 2452
Location: South Florida

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
JimmiB



Age: 81
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 516
Location: Lebanon, PA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks traildriver. You are correct. I must have hit the wrong key.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 2452
Location: South Florida

PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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... Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheDriver




Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Posts: 233
Location: America

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 2452
Location: South Florida

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
JimmiB



Age: 81
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 516
Location: Lebanon, PA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 2452
Location: South Florida

PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tripstop80




Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:40 am    Post subject: PD 4903 Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
traildriver




Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 2452
Location: South Florida

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm....I think you're right about that (it's been a looong time Wink ).
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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    BusTalk Forum Index -> General Bus Forum - All Bus Topics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group