“The Flxible Flxettes……..they’re coming for you……..watch out…….they’re ready to cause mayhem with their lithe, lissome lethality…….”

No, no, no, this is not a review of a Russ Meyer movie…….

The Flxible Flxette was a light duty bus built from 1964 to 1976 by the Flxible Corporation, makers of the larger Clipper, Twin Coach, New Look, and StarLiner series of coaches. The Flxette was designed for small city and rural regional transit cooperatives, livery services, and other transport operators that didn’t need or couldn’t afford a typical size motor coach.

Flxible New Look 30 ft coach

As readers of CC know, dimensions for transit coaches in the US have been fairly constant over the past 60 years, mostly due to federal and state regulation. Widths are 96 and 102 inches, with lengths in the 30, 35 and 40 foot range. The smallest of these coaches, the 30 foot model, will typically seat 29 passengers.

In the early sixties, Flxible received inquiries on a coach smaller than their 30 foot New Look model; one with a shorter wheelbase able to navigate narrower, curvy roads, handle a smaller load of approximately 20 passengers, and perhaps most importantly, be significantly cheaper in price.

Evaluating all these factors, Flxible determined the best design would utilize an existing truck frame with a forward control (FC)/cab-over-engine body, maximizing interior space while limiting overall length.

Coach under construction at SCM Evergreen factory prior to Flxible purchase

Fortunately, Flxible had acquired the Southern Coach Manufacturing (SCM) Co. of Evergreen Alabama, a maker of buses and motor homes, in the early ‘60s– and its production facilities provided a perfect fit to build this new coach.  The first Flxette came down the Evergreen factory line in 1964.  These coaches were approximately 96 inches wide, 20 feet in length and seated 19-23 passengers.  Gross max vehicle weight was around 15,000 lbs.

Screen capture from 1970 movie “Airport”

Flxettes were a familiar sight across the US in the ’60s and ’70s – not only in small towns and rural areas, but in larger cities serving as a shuttle or in other types of livery service.  Before the ubiquitous “cutaway” mini-buses seen at every airport today, Flxettes routinely ferried passengers between terminals, to their hotels and to their rental cars.

Flxible was known for meeting customer’s specialized build-to-order requirements, and the Flxette continued that trend……

                                              Ford 300 cu in Six                                                   

Chassis were sourced from existing manufacturers, mostly Ford, but Chevy and Dodge were used in later versions. The Ford 300 cubic inch six cylinder was the typical engine.

Federal safety regulations and the cutaway (which was cheaper) eventually spelled the end of the Flxette.

Toyota Coaster 21 passenger minibus

Due to its cost advantages, the cutaway still reigns supreme in the US light duty bus market, however, overseas, where size and maneuverability are more important, small FC coaches are still popular.

Flxette’s certainly couldn’t be considered good looking or of high quality, but they had a likable, workman-like, utilitarian charm……..the more I think about it, maybe they do have something in common with a Russ Meyer movie………..

Though divided by 50 years and two continents, these cars actually have quite a bit in common…

As a follow-up to the great article written by Nigel Tate on the Sears Allstate a few weeks back, let’s compare this vehicle with a more recent entry from Toyota.  Let’s get the obvious comparison out of the way first – both these cars are “aesthetically challenged”, not the most attractive of designs.  But it turns out they also had one other major similarity: they were both innovative efforts by their respective manufacturers to market a vehicle outside the normal dealer network.

First, let’s take a look at WiLL (“Guest Writer” previously did a nice post here). In the late 1990s, Toyota was looking for creative ways to expand their sales in the ultra-competitive home market.  One idea was to create a new brand, and partner with other retailers to have a variety of products under that brand (not just cars).  Toyota named this new brand WiLL, and set up separate “Vista” branches which were much more like a regular retail store than a dealership.  Toyota then entered into agreements with other companies to sell a variety of  WiLL badged products: cosmetics (Kao); alcoholic beverages (Asahi); electronics (Panasonic); and candy (Glico). The broad family of WiLL products were geared mainly toward a younger clientele, mostly female.

Vi                                                        Cypha                                                 VS 

As to the cars (there were three separate models), they were “different”, at least on the outside – basic chassis were carry-over from other Toyota models.  While Japanese styling was becoming somewhat mainstream by the 80s and 90s, Toyota went in a different direction, at least for the Vi and Cypha – for these vehicles Toyota tried for a retro-French, urban-chic motif. Or, maybe the discussion between the stylists went something like this:

“Hey, I was watching Godzilla Versus Megalon last night and it gave me an idea. What if we took one car and made it look like Godzilla picked it up and bent it right in the middle.  The second one will look like he gave it a dose of atomic bad-breath and melted it around the edges.  For the last one, we’ll just make it look like he stepped on its back-end and squished it a little…”

Unfortunately, this venture proved even Toyota was not infallible.  After five years of lackluster sales, the company pulled the plug on WiLL in 2004, renaming all its Vista stores “Netz” and returning to a typical dealership format.

Perhaps if the Toyota executives had read the case study of the Sears Allstate they would have paused for a little more reflection…

Due to Nate’s very thorough article, I’m sure readers here know the history of the Allstate – badge-engineered from the Kaiser Corporation Henry J coupe (another nice post by Tom Klockau here).

Introduced in 1950, the Henry J was a pet project of industry titan Henry J. Kaiser to market a low-priced, small car.  But to keep the price as low as possible (which was still high given Kaiser’s high production costs), the car lacked some very basic features – like a trunk lid, a glove box, a passenger’s side sun visor, etc. While attempts were made to add these features later, the public never warmed to the car and its production numbers decreased each year. In 1952, with a large backlog of 51 models, Kaiser was able to convince the executives at Sears Corp to market and sell slightly modified Henry J’s in their stores calling it the “Allstate”.

However, the public wasn’t quite ready to purchase a car (or at least this car) at a Dept store, and as with the similar venture 50 years later, it did not end with success – after two years of dismal sales, the plug was pulled in 1954.

It’s interesting today to see dealerships broaden into other retail areas, such as restaurants, other merchandise, etc., in an effort to generate more floor traffic. Maybe Kaiser and Toyota were just the victims of poor timing – perhaps we’ll see dealerships evolve into larger retail activities in the future (or evolve in the other direction with internet sales).

What do you think?

Show a picture of the above bus to anyone from Japan in their sixties or older and you’ll get an immediate reaction: a smile and a recollection of a less frenetic “Nippon”, more tranquil, peaceful and serene…

While almost every bus (and truck) in Japan today utilizes a cab-over-engine layout to maximize space and maneuverability on Japan’s tight roadways, it wasn’t always that way.  In the post-war era, up until the early 1970s, Japan’s transportation companies, both public and private, used the ubiquitous “bonnet bus.”

Why bonnet?  The Japanese use “bonnet” in the same sense that our friends in the UK do – to designate the hood or engine cover of a vehicle.  These conventional layout buses used an existing truck chassis that exposed their engine “bonnet”, in comparison to a forward control or a rear engine bus that concealed the engine within its bodywork.

And ubiquitous they were as Japan’s economic miracle was just beginning and car ownership was still mostly for the wealthy.  Buses and trains were the main mode of transportation and these coaches were an everyday sight on Japan’s streets.

Let’s look at some representative examples from Japan’s major manufacturers:

In comparison to today where Hino has the largest share of the Japanese bus market, Izusu was by far the largest producer of buses and trucks in the post-war period through the 1970s.  This is a 1948 BX 91 model, one of the first buses produced after the war.

This was followed by the BX 141 in the mid-1950s – here in 21 pax form.

Next came Isuzu’s most popular coach, the BXD 30 – the “GM Old Look” of Japan – it was made from 1963 to 1970.

Toyota also made bonnet buses…

…as did Mitsubishi-Fuso – this one a 4WD version used in Northern Japan.

…and Nissan…

Bonnet buses were noted for their colorful livery…

Most used an inline 6 cylinder diesel engine in the 4.0 Litre range.  Interiors used both forward facing and side seating.

But as they say, progress marches forward. The space efficiency of under-floor or rear engine buses made them much more profitable for operators… here is a late-50’s Hino rear engine model – by the early 1970s, most bonnet buses had been retired.

However, as they evoke such pleasant memories for most Japanese, many bonnet buses have been refurbished and are being used as shuttles near tourist areas and for excursions.  This 1968 4WD model Isuzu runs between a train station and a hot springs resort in Iwate Prefecture…

…and this BXD 30 takes tourists around scenic areas in Shikoku.

As mentioned before, the sight of one is guaranteed to bring a smile.

The GM Old Look Coach – a true classic in every sense. Most readers of this site know that the Old Look was produced largely from 1940 until the introduction of GM’s New Look or “Fishbowl” model in 1959.  But what is less known is that a smaller model of the Old Look would remain in production in tandem with the New Look for another 10 years.

The New Look was a significant improvement over the Old Look bus – and as the decade of the ’60s began, quickly established itself as the dominant coach in the US transit bus market.  Still, as with all new products, some prefer to “stay with what works” – and in the early 60s, a number of smaller transit operators asked GM for an updated “second generation” Old Look – in 30 ft or less length and with a price substantially lower than the New Look.  Price was a significant factor as this was before passage of the Urban Mass Transit Act which would bring large-scale government funding  – many smaller operators were borderline profitable and had little money for new equipment.

Given the success of the Old Look, the tooling had been amortized many years earlier, and as the basic platform was well proven, GM saw little downside risk in continuing production, even at a much lower rate.

The first “second generation” Old Look was the TDH 3501 – for new readers to CC, this designation meant T (Transit) D (Diesel or G for Gas) H (Hydraulic auto transmission or M for manual) 35 (typical max passenger load) series 01.

There were a few updates from the previous Old Looks – most noticeable being the incorporation of quad headlights.  Orders came in from small operators in both the US and Canada – approximately 1,200 of these 01 series coaches were produced over seven years.

In 1968 GM introduced the 3502 – 200 of these were built until production ended in Nov 1969, with introduction of the smaller wheelbase New Looks.

Diesel                                                                                         Gas 

Almost all 01 and 02 series coaches used the GM Toroflow V6 diesel engine – only 180 of the over 1400 produced used gasoline power – the gas version of the Toroflow or in earlier models a GMC inline six.  Transmissions were mostly Allison truck-based 6 speed automatics.  Engine installation was in the “T” manner – straight in, versus the transverse/angle drive of the Old Look.  These updated models also used a light duty chassis, which did not have the air-suspension of the previous models.

These buses served admirably in these smaller markets – with many continuing to operate into the 1980s – adding to the already legendary reputation of the Old Look.

Interestingly, this same situation would repeat itself twenty years later in the late ‘70s as GM introduced the RTS II to replace the New Look – we’ll look at the New Look “Classic” in our next post.

In a previous post, we looked at the GM RTS II bus – introduced in the late 1970s.  The RTS II was a significant upgrade to (and major departure from) the GM “New Look” or “Fishbowl”, which dominated the North American transit coach market from its introduction in 1959.  Given how well-regarded the New Look was, many operators expressed more than a little skepticism at the RTS II with its modular construction, acrylic exterior panels, and new HVAC systems.  They wanted something new, but not “too new.”  Most of these operators were “up north” in our good neighbor Canada.  The Canadians have long understood that “newer” doesn’t always equal “better” – and in this instance they were once again proven correct.

Quality and design problems with early models of the RTS II were discussed previously – but basically the new HVAC system was not powerful enough to cool the buses in the summer, causing the system to fail and also overheating the engines.  Issues with the doors and premature transmission failure were also noted.  These, and other problems, were so prevalent that many operators quickly looked for other alternatives.

While the GM Truck and Coach factory in Pontiac MI would switch over to production of the RTS II in 1977, GM’s Canadian subsidiary, GM Diesel Division (GMDD) located in Saint-Eustache (Montreal), Quebec, would continue New Look production through the mid-‘80s.  GMDD introduced an updated New Look in 1983, with new windows above the beltline. a new front cap, and a “squared-up” rear  – and called this model the New Look “Classic.”

The Classic quickly won orders from large transport operators in Canada and quite a few in the US who had grown frustrated with their RTS II’s  constant problems, and were wary of the Flxible 870 given its “A Frame” debacle.

The Classic’s new larger side windows made for a much brighter interior.  Unfortunately, as vandalism was on the increase in the ‘70s/80s, interior seating was mostly hard fiberglass and plastic.

Classic                                                                                     RTS 06

The rear of the bus bore a passing resemblance to the RTS II series 04/06 coach.

Naming convention was simple, above is a TC40-102 N; T (Transit) C (Coach or A Articulated) 40 (feet in length) 102 (inches wide) N (no A/C, A with A/C)

GM 6V 92 Engine

Engines were typical GM – 6/8V 71 and later 6V 92 diesels, though a few had Cummins power and fewer still the GM 50 series 4 cylinder.  Allison, Voith, and ZF were transmission options.

In 1992, 16 articulated versions were built for Halifax, Nova Scotia and Quebec City, Quebec.  Max seating on these “artics” was 55 passengers.

Along with the RTS II, the Classic and its tooling went to Motor Coach Industries (MCI) in 1987 when GM sold its coach operations.  Production continued at the Quebec plant, and in 1993, the model again changed hands as MCI sold the design to Novabus.

Novabus kept the Classic in production until 1997 – by then customer preference had mostly shifted to the new LFS low floor model.

Classics couldn’t be considered particularly good-looking, however, their operators always seemed to dress them in an attractive livery.

Interesting fact:  In 1986, Detroit Metro grew so frustrated with its RTS II buses, that it purchased 100 new Classic models with its own money – as the Canadian-built models did not qualify for government Urban Mass Transit Assistance Act matching funds under Congressional “Buy American” restrictions.

Former Detroit #1960 (left) became Cornwall Ontario coach #8761 (right)

These coaches lived up to their New Look “tough” reputation and provided sterling service to Detroit for over 18 years.  In 2002, quite a few were sold to various Canadian cities and refurbished – several of these remain in service today.

The Classic managed to restore some of the luster to the revered GM bus and coach legacy diminished by the RTS II series.

“If you find something you like, you tend to stay with it”…that old adage certainly has applicability to motor vehicles.  If you’ve developed a fondness for a certain make/model, you’ll likely buy another…and another…and another.  So, today’s QOTD is; have you purchased the same make and model vehicle multiple times over the years?  If so, how many in total have you owned?

Couple rules of engagement; 1) it should be the same brand/make and model (i.e., a Ford Escort, not just a Ford), 2) different trim or grades within specific models are allowed, and 3) it should be personally owned – not a fleet or business vehicle.

I know this question tends to favor older drivers who have had longer driving careers, but we’d like to hear from everyone – so, if you’re in your early twenties and have had two Civics, we’d like to hear about it.  More importantly, tell us why you decided to buy another one…

To help illustrate and as an example, here’s mine;

Though I’d like to tell you I’ve owned six Corvettes, or five 911s, our family is currently on our fourth Toyota Previa/Estima van.  All have been used (not new) – a 1990 US model, and three JDM versions; a 1992, a 1999, and our current 2007.

Why’d we keep buying them?  Reliability – each one we’ve owned has been absolutely trouble-free – the 1999 model we owned for 10 years.  I also have to admit I find the design attractive – especially the 2006 and up model.

So, what have been your multiple-owned curbside classics and why’d you keep buying them?

Just from glancing at readers comments, I sense that many CC’ers here have some U.S. military background – still on active duty, or maybe a Vet or retiree.  Perhaps even a few of our non-U.S. readers have some foreign military service.  Well, for all you “old soldiers” out there, wherever you served, and for all the “civies” too, here’s a quick look at some curbside classics on the military base resale lot…

First, a little “intel” – almost all US military bases, certainly the large ones, have a location set-aside for military personnel to sell their cars – the Resale Area, or more commonly known in always cynical GI-speak as the “Lemon Lot”.   Military personnel are always moving – typically a tour of duty lasts three to four years at one location.  Some GIs look to sell their cars and trucks when they get orders – they may want to buy a new one at their next duty station or if going overseas, don’t want to place it in long-term storage.  At Lemon Lots in the U.S., you’ll see a fairly broad spectrum of typical US models; perhaps maybe a few more pick-up trucks than usual.

Overseas, however, it’s a different story.  Military overseas tours last anywhere from one to four years (some voluntarily extend longer) – then it’s back home to the U.S. or off to another continent.  So almost everyone is looking for a temporary set of cheap wheels – something that will get them and the family around with minimal problems for the duration of their tour.  Here are a few examples on the lot at a US military base here on the outskirts of Tokyo…

Just from my very unscientific “eyeball” assessment, this is the most popular vehicle on base – the Toyota Fun-Cargo.  Think of it as Toyota’s Honda Fit (or Jazz) equivalent.  It was built from 2000 to 2004 with 1.3 and 1.5 gas engines.  It has the under floor rear seat stowage system that makes for a completely flat floor – it’s strikingly large inside – even more interior room than the Fit.  Perfect for moving furniture between barracks – $1500.

No. 2 on the popularity scale is the Nissan Skyline sedan.  Engine is a 2.5 or 3.5L version of the normally aspirated VQ series.  GIs easily recognize these as a JDM version of the Infiniti G35, so they carry some cache.  Over 80% seem to be silver – so not a car for those preferring something unique – $2500.

Next in terms of frequency seen are these two vans; the Toyota Estima (Previa) and Honda Odyssey.  Just until a few years ago, the first-generation Estima was clearly the favorite – they were everywhere, but they are slowly being “retired”.  Currently, the on-base van market seems evenly split between these two second-gen models. Got a big family – just $3000 for the Estima or $2500 for the Odyssey.

These Subaru Legacies are very popular also, especially the B4 model.  The B4 is the sports model with the Turbo 2.0L flat 4 engine found in the WRX.  What’s nice is you can get one in a wagon version also.  But again you kind’a have to like silver – almost everyone I see is that hue.  All yours for $3000.

A great choice for a single GI who just wants cheap transportation is a kei-class minicar like this early 2000’s Daihatsu “Move”.  They are much less expensive to insure and pay significantly less in fees (road tax, weight tax, etc.).  And with a 660cc engine, they can go pretty far on a gallon of gas.  Only caution is one has to drive very, very defensively, as anything over a minor parking lot fender-bender will likely result in a trip to the hospital.  This one didn’t have a sign in the window but my bet would be around $1000.

Uh-oh – I’d bet a paycheck that some young GI bought this X-Type thinking he was getting a nice Jag, without checking the reliability ratings or how much it would cost to fix at an off-base garage.  An E-3’s salary can sustain only so many transmission replacements or new rear suspensions…so onto the lot it goes…yours for $4000.

Again, an eyeball assessment – the BMW 3 series is the most popular foreign car model in Japan; on or off-base.  The Japanese love them, so there are plenty on the used car market.  This is a 2000 328 model with the 2.8L six.  Unfortunately, as with the Jag, they’re a bit expensive to maintain – and require specialized service usually not available at the BX garage.  Think service is expensive at a BMW dealer in the states?  Now imagine Tokyo…  Just $3500.

Looking for a SUV – here’s a tough looking Mitsubishi Pajero with a 3.5L V6.  Pajeros are quite popular, both on and off-base, and have a reputation of being extremely capable off-road.  Mitsubishi’s fortunes in its home market have fared better than in the US, even given its current “mileage” scandal.  Just $3500.

Not a bad selection – but we should see more cars show up on the lot as the summer PCS (Permanent Change of Station) season gets closer.  All prices are OBO…cash preferred…

It’s still crystal-clear in David’s memory – May 22nd 1966 – 50 years ago to the day…  He had just finished work down at the local Timken plant in Little Rock – David worked second shift so it was around 11:30 PM when he got home.  David’s Dad, Charlie, had worked at the plant for over 20 years since returning home from “the War”, and had managed to get David a job there once he graduated high school the previous summer.  David worked in the “heavy bearing” section, machining bearings for heavy duty vehicles such as large trucks and buses.  Mom, as usual, had dinner ready – but something was different – Mom was moody, edgy, as if something was bothering her.  “Somethin’ wrong Mom?” he asked.  She pointed over to the table – there was a letter on it – it looked official – David glanced down and saw it was addressed to him, and the return address in the corner said “Selective Service System”…

The letter wasn’t unexpected – David watched the news – he knew the war in Vietnam was expanding, and saw several of his high school classmates get drafted and sent overseas.  He talked over the possibility of being drafted with his Dad – his father had seen war “close up” in the Pacific – and he didn’t want his son to go through that hell.  Together, they decided that David should enlist in the Air Force if his draft notice came – his enlistment would cancel the notice and David would have at least some control over his future.  So the next day down to the Federal Building he went – the Air Force recruiter sure was a nice guy; friendly, polite, welcoming.  The Air Force even let him pick his occupational specialty; he chose heavy vehicle maintenance or “Heavy Junk” as the recruiter called it.  The recruiter said he may even “luck out” and get a state-side assignment, maybe even one right there at Little Rock AFB, or one of the many air bases in Europe.  But first, David had to get to Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio by 15 Jun – to start Basic Training.  San Antonio wasn’t that far away, and David didn’t even consider flying – he made bearings for heavy duty vehicles – David was going by bus…

The next day he started looking at options, and it became quickly apparent that he only had three choices.  Greyhound had a daily bus that went directly from Little Rock to San Antonio – and the unit serving this route was a GM PD 4104.  The PD 4014 was a superb intercity coach, a true legend, and was produced in larger quantities than its more famous stable mate, the GM PD 4501 Scenicrusier.  It was powered by a GM 6-71 engine with a Spicer 4-speed manual transmission.  However, it had been superseded by the PD 4106; Greyhound’s last 4104s were built between 1957 and 1960, so almost all had at least six years of hard, over-the-road use on them – and the one used on this route sure looked it…

A second option was Continental Trailways – Continental didn’t have a daily run, but they did offer a bus on Tuesdays and Thursdays that went to Dallas and then on to San Antonio.  Trailways used an older model Flxible VL-100 Vista-Liner on this route.  The Vista-Liner was unique – Flxible built only 208 of these split-level coaches at their factory at Loudonville Ohio, from 1954 through 1958, and Trailways purchased 126 of them.  The buses seated 39 passengers and could be ordered with either a Cummins JT 6 or General Motors 6-71 diesel engine. In their prime, these were very nice coaches; they came with Flxible’s “torsilastic” springs, independent front suspension, air conditioning, comfortable seating and individual speakers.  But it was clear this Vista-Liner had seen better days – too bad this route didn’t have one of Trailways’ new Eagle 01 series coaches built by Bus and Car, NV, in Belgium.

David had one other option – the Air Force had a weekly shuttle that ran from Little Rock AFB down to San Antonio.  It was used mainly to ferry airmen and retirees to the Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio – one of the largest military hospitals in the US.  The USAF shuttle was a new government fleet purchased MCI 5A model, commonly called a “Challenger.”  It had recently come off the assembly line at MCI’s new Pembina, North Dakota assembly plant.  It had an air suspension similar to that used on GM models, came with a new GM 8V-71 diesel and had an Allison MT 644 auto transmission.  Smooth…

David decided to take the Air Force shuttle, besides being newer, Timken was a supplier to MCI – some of his bearings may be in the axles of this coach.  He could also get to San Antonio a few days early to see the Alamo and enjoy the River Walk area – all before getting his buzz cut and being issued his green fatigues…

May 22nd 1966…it seemed just like yesterday…

In previous articles, we’ve taken a somewhat convoluted trip through some of the “loosely identified” eras of transit coach operations in the US.  What were these eras?  Well, transit historians generally identify four…

First is the Pre-war period (prior to 1945), where motor coaches played mostly a secondary or complimentary role to trolleys and other rail systems.  A broad variety of manufacturers built buses during this period.

Next came the Post-war era (1945 – 1959) where rail was superseded by the diesel coach, primarily the legendary GM Old Look.

GM easily transitioned from the Old Look to the “New Look” period (1959 – 1977) and again dominated the market with a superior product.

Things became less clear with the Advanced Design Bus or “ADB” era (1977 – 1991),  which in contrast to earlier periods, lacked one overall dominant model, and with several of the more popular coaches suffering significant early “teething” problems.

So we have Pre-war, Post-war, New Look and ADB…what era comes next?

My non-expert opinion would say the next period begins in 1990-91 with passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the transition from high floor to low floor coaches.  ADA provided for a number of initiatives to give the disabled more mobility and easier access.  With regards to public transportation, it required operators to ensure all new equipment was fully accessible by the physically challenged, to include vehicle ramps or wheelchair lifts.

Since the early 1980s, transport operators had experimented with various systems (mainly wheelchair lifts), as proponents for the disabled lobbied operators and political officials for more access.  While operators desired to provide more transportation options for the disabled, the systems themselves proved troublesome; they would routinely break, and were very slow, significantly increasing dwell times.

The solution to this problem came from Europe, which since the 1970s had essentially forged ahead of the US in introducing public transportation innovations.  This solution was the Low Floor System (LFS) bus.  The Low Floor bus had no step upon entry, so wheel chair ramps, which were much less expensive, more reliable, and offered quicker loading/unloading, could be paired with wider doors to meet all ADA requirements.

The first LFS bus in North America was the New Flyer D40LF.  The D40LF was developed from the European model B85 series bus built by Den Oudsten Bussen BV, New Flyer’s then parent company based in the Netherlands.

Production began at the company’s new Grand Forks manufacturing and assembly plant in 1991 with the first models being delivered to the Port Authority of New York later that year.

GM 50 series inline 4 cylinder diesel

D40LF’s had typical North American coach dimensions; 40 ft long and 102 in wide.  Powertrains were a mixture of Cummins (C8.3, ISC, ISL, ISM) and Detroit Diesel (40, 50 and 6V92TA in early versions).  Transmission options were Allison, Voith and ZF.

To be technically accurate, the D40LF was a “Low Entry” and not a true “Low Floor” bus.  In Europe, Low Floor buses have a continuous low floor from front to back.  A Low Entry bus, in contrast, has a low floor in the front three-fourths of the bus, with a raised section in the rear, over the engine and rear axle.  In North America, buses with any type of low floor are generally characterized as “Low Floor” models.

Spokane

King County (Seattle)

Portland

The D40LF enjoyed robust sales, being purchased by over 81 operators in the US and 39 in Canada.  Given many CC’ers (and our founder) are from the Pacific Northwest, above are a few pictures of D40LF’s from that area…

Production ceased in 2010 when it was superseded by the D40LFR model; “R” for Restyled.

I’ve never ridden in a D40LF but I imagine many of our CC readers here who have transportation background have – I’d be interested to know your opinion of the bus.

In our next post we’ll look at several other models that helped usher in the “Low Floor” era…

I really enjoyed Paul’s article last April on his “once in a lifetime” drive of a Subaru 360 minicar.  It spurred me to take a few snaps and scribe a few words on this lonely, little blue “kei jidosha” that sits in a parking lot in an industrial area on our regular Sunday walk-route here on the outskirts of western Tokyo – it’s a late 60’s or early 70’s Mazda Porter Van.

The Porter was Mazda’s entry in the popular minicar class in Japan.  It was built from 1968 to 1976.  For a great overview of kei cars from the 1970s, including some contemporaries of the Porter, see contributor GN’s superb post here.

Initial engine was a 358 cc four cylinder, four stroke unit that put out a mighty 20 horsepower.  Later, in 1973, a 359 cc two-stroke upped that figure to 35 hp.

The Porter came in two body styles; a small pickup and a station wagon (called a van).

The Porter name was also used for a small forward control pickup called a Porter Cab.

The interior of this one isn’t in too bad of shape – perhaps there are some spare parts in the box…

Like the Subaru 360, this is a very tiny car – on the right is a second-gen Prius, not a big car by any means but it looks like a Ford Excursion next to the Porter.

It’s sat in this same spot for at least the past ten years, so either it has a loyal owner who is just waiting for the right time to restore it or it’s been abandoned and is living on borrowed time.  It appears someone is at least regularly wiping down the exterior as it doesn’t have a build-up of dust and grime.  Can’t figure out why the owner just doesn’t throw a car cover on it – just take a bicycle cover and stretch it a little…

I’m still hoping the owner has plans to give it a little TLC and get it back on the road – perhaps some Sunday we’ll walk by and find it looking like this…

In our last Bus Stop Classics post we looked at how the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ushered transit coach operations into a new era – the “Low Floor System” or “LFS” era.  We also looked at the first low floor coach to be introduced to the North America market; the New Flyer D40LF.  New Flyer had a monopoly on the low floor bus market for several years in the early 1990’s, but one competitor was working hard to change that…

New Look                                        Classic                                           RTS II

That competitor was Montreal-based NovaBus.  NovaBus has an interesting history.  For the non-bus fans here, let me provide just a quick summary.  The company traces its heritage back to the General Motors Diesel Division (GMDD), GM’s Canadian-based heavy equipment subsidiary.  The success of the New Look coach in 1959 encouraged GM to start another production line in Canada, and in 1961, GMDD began assembling that bus.   It went on to build an update, the Classic, all over a 25 year period at its assembly plant in Saint-Eustache.  GM sold its bus operations to Motor Coach Industries (MCI) in 1987 and that company continued operating the facility until 1994, when they too elected to divest their transit bus models.  The employees at that point took the innovative step of incorporating the plant on their own, and naming their new company NovaBus.   In 1997, the company was purchased by Volvo Bus Corp, which continues to operate it as a subsidiary.  Volvo had previously purchased Prevost Car Inc., a long time Quebec-based maker of intercity and tour coaches, in 1995.

B96  Alliance                                                             LFS Demonstrator 

While still producing the New Look Classic model for the Canadian market, NovaBus realized there was no future growth in high floor buses – and focused on getting a new low floor model into production.  They looked to Europe for a potential partner and, interestingly, found the same company as New Flyer had several years earlier – the Dutch company Den Oudsten Bussen B.V.  Unfortunately, Den Oudsten was in somewhat dire financial straits by this time and couldn’t fulfill its portion of the joint venture.  NovaBus did acquire one B96 Alliance bus and obviously studied the design – one can see the similarity between it and the prototype demonstrator LFS model released in 1994.

By this point, buses were fairly standardized in terms of size (40 ft long, 102 in wide), powertrain (Detroit Diesel, Cummins, or Caterpillar), and transmission (Alison, Voith or ZF).  But the LFS had one unique feature – an asymmetrical engine placement – it used a T drive orientation with the engine offset to the left (facing the rear of the bus).  This offset allowed for a full low floor version, in addition to a “Low Entry” model.

To meet “Buy American” restrictions, the bus was built at an older assembly plant in upstate Schenectady New York beginning in 1995.  However, orders weren’t as large as forecasted and the plant closed in 2002 – the company withdrew from the US to concentrate on the Canadian market.  Prior to closure, one major customer was the Chicago Transit Authority who purchased 480 LFS models for their fleet.

The company kept its eye on trends in the US market and saw an opportunity to re-enter in the later part of the decade.  In 2009, it built a new assembly plant in Plattsburgh New York, only sixty miles south of Montreal.  This plant was expanded in 2015.

This first generation was built from 1995 – 1999.

The second generation (1999 –2009) came only in a Low Entry model.

2nd Gen                                                                            3rd Gen

The third generation (2009 –2013) switched the engine location to the center-line of the bus.

The fourth generation (2013 – present) continues to be built at the Plattsburgh plant today.

A 62 seat articulated version is available for BRT routes.

This is another bus I have not had the opportunity to ride in, so I’d be interested in hearing reader’s comments.  I’ll admit I’m not a fan of  its looks – it strikes me as trying to be a little too “cute.”  I admire bus manufacturers like Flxible that try to put some style in their products, and also those that eschew styling for strict functionality, like the New Look Classic and New Flyer D40LF.  This NovaBus looks like it would be more at home in a Disney Parking Lot, rather than Main Street.

Our next post will look at the last of the US manufacturers currently offering a heavy duty low floor urban transit coach – Gillig…

There are currently three heavy duty urban transit coach manufacturers that have US-based operations; New Flyer, NovaBus and Gillig.  Of those three, Gillig is the only remaining company that has its origins in the US – it can be traced all the way back to Jacob Gillig’s carriage and wagon shop established in Hayward California in 1890.

Paul previously wrote an excellent post on Gillig that focused on the company from the 1950s to the late ’70s, when it was one of the premier manufacturers of school buses on the West Coast.

But the company had the forethought to understand declining enrollments in the 1970’s meant reduced future school bus sales, so it made the smart business decision to broaden its product line – and in 1980, introduced its first urban transit model – the Phantom.

The Phantom went on to great success, however, as a high-floor bus, it was out of step (no pun intended) with new access requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.  The company once again was in need of a new model.  Gillig also had another reason besides ADA requirements to pursue a low-floor coach – it, along with now defunct Orion, had successfully courted the shuttle market, and one of its primary clients was in need of a bus that allowed its customers easier loading and unloading…

So Gillig developed the H2000LF (low floor) coach for these shuttle operators.

Advantage 40 ft model

And building on this model, it introduced a low floor transit bus in 1996, and named it the “Advantage.”

29 ft                                                                                   35 ft

Here again, Gillig differed from its two other competitors – both New Flyer and NovaBus brought their new low floor designs to market in just one length – 40 ft (though smaller versions were available later).  Upon introduction, Gillig had 29, 35 and 40 ft models for customers to choose from.

Powertrain and transmission options were typical (Detroit Diesel and Cummins; ZF, Voith, and Allison), though the Cummins ISL or ISB seemed to be the preferred engine.

Hybrid and CNG versions were also offered.

The Gillig is in wide use; it’s in operation with over 200 transportation entities – and it’s currently the second most popular LFS model in terms of sales in North America.  Here are two examples from Waukesha Metro Transit in what I think is a very attractive livery…

Here’s a Gillig from what we Buckeyes (and Coach Woody Hayes) refer to as “that state up north.”  Being an Ohio State University alumnus, I wouldn’t recommend driving this bus south of Toledo…

This one’s more my style…I bet it’s faster than that Blue bus too…

The Gillig Advantage/LFS is another bus I have not had the opportunity to ride in – I’d be interested in hearing from readers how it compares to its New Flyer and NovaBus competitors.

I’m sure CC readers are familiar with Neoplan Bus GmbH– one of the largest manufacturers of motor coaches and other transport related vehicles in Europe.  What you may not know is that from 1981 to 2006 Neoplan also assembled coaches here in the US – and the primary model produced was the AN440 – nicknamed the “Transliner.”

RTS II                                                                               870/Metro

So how did Neoplan come to build buses in the US?  Well, picture the US transit coach market in the early 1980’s – the two primary models in use, the GM RTS II and Grumman/Flxible 870, had both developed very poor reputations – the RTS for its HVAC/engine/door woes and the 870 for its cracked A-frame.  Neoplan no doubt saw this and concluded timing was good to offer frustrated US transit operators another, more well-built option.

The company had tried once earlier – in 1977 it entered into a small-scale joint venture with Gillig Corp for that company to assemble a version of its mid-sized 30 ft European coach – and called this the Gillig-Neoplan Transit Bus.  It found few buyers, and the plug was pulled on the collaboration in only the third year of the five year contract.

The company had better luck in 1981, when it took the larger step of building its own assembly facility, and chose Lamar Colorado as the location for the plant.  This New York Times article from 1981 chronicled the excitement as this new facility opened.

The Lamar facility and subsequent follow-on plants in Honey Brook, Pennsylvania, and Brownsville, Texas built several different Neoplan models, but the primary coach assembled was the AN440 – a 40 ft, 102 in wide urban transit competitor to the aforementioned GM RTS II and Grumman/Flxible 870/Metro.  All the typical North American powertrain options were available; GM, Cummins, Caterpillar, Allison, ZF, and Voith.  Engines could be arranged in both “V” and “T” orientation.

In this clip you can hear a Transliner with the distinctive rumble of a Cummins L10G engine and an Allison B400R 6 speed auto transmission.

Later, 35 ft and 60 ft articulated versions were also sold.

A three axle version was produced, mainly for suburban routes.  The forward rear wheel is a “tag axle”.

A low floor version was introduced in the mid-1990s.

Neoplan’s main customers were South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA – Philadelphia) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (METRO – DC).  SEPTA had at one point over 1,000 AN440s in their fleet.

So, why didn’t we see more of these coaches and what became of the company?  Well, regarding the former question, when it began in 1981, Neoplan USA was a direct subsidiary of the main company in Stuttgart.  At some point, I couldn’t identify exactly when, Neoplan spun off Neoplan USA – and the company went from a subsidiary to merely an independent licensee.  It may have occurred around 2001 when Neoplan GmbH was incorporated into the MAN Group.  One could assume that as a separate entity, it received significantly less support and oversight from the home company.  Secondly and perhaps related to the first, the buses started to experience problems.  Both Washington and Pittsburgh reported cracks in the frames.  Then San Francisco also reported frame problems – and noisy cooling fans, faulty transmissions, and maintenance intensive brake systems.  Not helping, Neoplan refused to acknowledge or fix the issues plaguing the San Francisco buses.

As to the latter question, sales tapered off as orders were cancelled – Boston cancelled a significant order in 2005.  The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Aug 2006.  It stayed around as a parts provider and then ceased all operations in Oct 2007.

Almost all of these Neoplans have since been retired – some just in the past year.  If you see one, it is likely on its “last legs.”

In a previous post we looked at the Neoplan AN440 motor coach, an effort by the German manufacturer to provide US transport operators another alternative in the early 1980’s to the problem-plagued GM RTS II and Grumman/Flxible 870 buses.  But another company was also looking to “crash the party” and pick up some US market share – Ontario Canada-based Orion Bus Industries.

Orion emerged as a motor coach manufacturer in the mid-1970’s.  At the time, the company was known as Ontario Bus Industries (OBI) and was owned by the province of Ontario, with its main assembly plant in the city of Mississauga, near Toronto.  It produced its first transit coach in 1977 – the Orion I – which proved quite successful competing against the New Flyer D40 and GM New Look Classic in the Canadian market.  In turn, in 1982, the company decided to establish a US assembly plant in Oriskany, New York.  The US operation was named Bus Industries of America (BIA).

The Orion I, which initially was 30 ft long and 96 inches wide, was produced from 1977 – 79.

In 1979, a 35 ft model was introduced.

Finally, a 40 ft coach was available in 1984.  I always thought these Orion I’s were nicely styled – perhaps because they had a “throwback” look to them; a combination of both Old Look and New Look design themes…

GM 6V53 Diesel

Early 30 and 35 ft versions used a GM 6V53 diesel engine with an Allison automatic transmission.  Later 40 ft models had GM 6V71 and 6V92, or Cummins L10 engines.

Besides the Orion I, there were six other Orion models produced – the II, III and IV were built in small numbers.  The Orion II was an innovative, early attempt at a low floor medium-sized bus and was built for, and used primarily by, shuttle and para-transit operators.   The engine, typically a Cummins 4 or 6 cylinder, or a Navistar 7.3, was offset and located under the raised driver’s area.

The Orion III was a low-volume articulated bus built in conjunction with Ikarus Coach of Budapest Hungary – more on this bus in a future post.

The Orion IV “People Mover” was assembled for the Niagara Falls Parks Commission and showcased  unique, futuristic styling.   These models, both a tractor and trailer, shuttled visitors on the Canadian side of the Falls from 1985 to 2012.  They used Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) as fuel to reduce engine noise and emissions.  I had the opportunity to ride on these during a trip to the Falls in the early 2000’s – they were very attractive and modern looking.  Unfortunately, they’ve since been retired and replaced by regular buses.

The V thru VII were the more mass-produced models.  The Orion V was the company’s most successful coach – it was a high floor bus built from 1989 to 2008 in 32, 35 and 40 ft models.  It was one of the first coaches to use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) – and had the rather unique option of a John Deere CNG engine.

The Orion VI was a complete low floor model with an offset drive-train and inverted portal axles, similar to early versions of the NovaBus LFS.  It was built from 1996 to 2004, with most sales in the Canadian market.

Orion’s final bus was the VII – a “Low Step” model that included diesel, CNG and Hybrid powertrains.  As you can see from the pictures, New York Metro was a loyal Orion customer, perhaps due to the in-state Oriskany assembly plant.

New Flyer Models

The company had been acquired by Daimler in July 2000 but by 2012, Daimler decided to exit the North American transit bus market – and closed the Orion factory in Mississauga.  The New York assembly facility remained open as a parts supplier, and was subsequently purchased by New Flyer Industries in 2013 – New Flyer then bought the remaining portions of the company in 2015.  Orion/BIA’s old facilities are now being refurbished to assemble New Flyer models.

Our European readers are no doubt familiar with Ikarus, a manufacturer of motor coaches based in Budapest Hungary.

While Ikarus is still operating today, its heyday was in the period prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, where it was a major provider of buses to countries throughout Eastern Europe.  This is its 66 series bus – quite a feast for the eyes…

Ikarus-Crown 286 Articulated Coach in Portland

Ikarus was unique in that it was a company from a Soviet satellite country that tried on several occasions to market its products in the US.  The first attempt came in 1980 in the form of an alliance with Crown Coach Corp of Los Angeles, a long-established maker of heavy duty school buses and fire apparatus, which by this point was in financial difficulties.  Ikarus shipped unfinished versions of its 280 articulated coach for final assembly by Crown.  However, this partnership ended in 1986 with few orders, though Portland did purchase 87.  Portland was not a happy customer though, and subsequently sued Ikarus/Crown for substandard workmanship, documenting forty-five major problems with its coaches.  The suit was settled out of court.

Ikarus-Orion 286  (also known as Orion III) in Toronto

Its second attempt came in 1987, when it entered into a joint venture with Orion Bus Industries to provide 60 foot articulated coaches to the Toronto and Ottawa transit systems.  Unfortunately, this effort was also less than successful, as no additional orders materialized, and Toronto retired its coaches early due to corrosion problems.

The company tried one more joint venture, in 1989, this time teaming with Union City Body Co., of Union City Indiana to assemble a version of the Ikarus 415 transit coach, labeled the 416.  It also incorporated this joint venture as Ikarus-USA.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the company was faced with a much more competitive environment, and its market share decreased significantly.  This put strain on its US operations and Ikarus-USA was forced to dissolve in 1992.  Thus began a major transition for the company.  Ikarus sold 75% of the company to a UK-based Fund Manager who moved operations to Anniston Alabama.  Then in 1996, Ikarus sold the remaining 25% essentially ending its US operations – the new company was renamed North American Bus Industries (NABI), with no affiliation or tie to Ikarus.

Free from the shackles of its former parent, NABI began making successful inroads into the US transit market, developing and selling a full line of products.  It continued to offer updated versions of its 416 high floor coach.

35 ft

40 ft

60 ft

And in 1997, began marketing its LFW low floor model in 35, 40 and 60 ft articulated versions.  Powertrain options were typical for North America (Detroit Diesel, Cummins, Caterpillar; Allison, Voith, ZF).

NABI routinely updated the model – this is a 2012 Gen 3 version, 31 ft, using CNG.

The BRT series was the final new model NABI developed.

In June 2013, New Flyer Industries acquired NABI from its current owner, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (yes, that Cerberus…).  It elected to discontinue all NABI models and switch production to New Flyer buses – the last NABI coach was built for DART (Dallas) in October 2015.  The Anniston plant will begin assembling the New Flyer Xcelsior this year.

Perhaps due to a similar acronym, NABI is often confused with BIA (Bus Industries of America) which we reviewed in a previous post.  They were in fact two separate companies with separate products, though the one thing they did have in common was that they were both ultimately subsumed by New Flyer.

I must have walked by this early ‘80s Nissan Laurel fifty times – it’s parked in the lot of a local mechanic, on the route from our house to the nearest train station.  I always give it an admiring glance, but Johannes Dutch’s recent post on a Laurel he encountered while attending the 2016 Ewijk Festijn prompted me to give it a little extra scrutiny on my most recent walk by – and am I glad I did.  It has a badge that I had previously overlooked…

Before we identify the badge, let’s look back at the Laurel.  Nissan built the Laurel from 1968 to 2002, through eight different generations.  It was a mid-size offering that was a step up from a compact (Nissan Sunny (Sentra) or Toyota Corolla), but didn’t have the prestige of a luxury model (Nissan Gloria/Cedric or Toyota Crown).  Its equivalents today are the Camry, Accord, Mazda 6, Fusion, Malibu, etc.

As with most JDM models in this era, it came in a broad range of body styles and engine options.  On top is a mild-mannered sedan with a 1.8L four cylinder, while on the bottom is a stylish coupe with a mighty fuel-injected 2.8L straight six (L28E – same engine as the 280Z).

The Laurel was always given a little more styling “pizzazz” than other Nissan models, and it was generally the most aggressively styled of its other mid-sized contemporaries (Mark II/Chaser/Cresta/Vigor).  I thought this sixth generation (1989-93) had an attractive, low-slung, lean look to it.

Another unique aspect was that with the exception of one model generation (5th-1984/89), it never used a V6 engine – in six-cylinder form, it used versions of Nissan’s current straight six, the stout SOHC L-series in early models, and then the superb RB series DOHC in later ones.

Given its rear drive orientation and easily modified engines, it was and is a favorite of the drift crowd…

The last model year was 2002…this is another special edition; a “Club S” – under the hood is a 2.5L RB25DET good for 280 hp.

It was replaced by the Teana in ’03– quite a step back in my view…

Back to the badge – here it is – a little tough to make out but I‘m sure any Nieman-Marcus shopper or Lincoln Mark IV – VI owner will recognize the signature of Hubert de Givenchy.

This is a fourth generation Laurel (built from 1980-84) and a fairly rare Givenchy edition built only in 1982.  As a special model, it had the top engine offering; a 2.0 L-series (L20ET) fuel injected, turbocharged straight six, good for 145 hp.

This style two-toned charcoal/silver paint scheme was somewhat de rigueur in the late 70’s/early ‘80s in Japan.

That checked interior looks sharp – didn’t Audrey Hepburn wear a hat with the same style in Breakfast at Tiffany’s?

There’s no sign in the window but next trip by, I’m definitely going to ask the shop owner if it’s for sale…

A majority of our Bus Stop Classic posts to date have focused on motor coaches used in the US and Canada – we’ve yet to look at a bus from our other North American neighbor – Mexico, and as I started reviewing possible candidates, one clearly stood out – the Sultana TM 40 – a 4 axle intercity bus with steerable front tandem wheels.

Coaches with tandem front wheels, which allow for heavier loads on weight-restricted jurisdictions, were once a bit more common in Europe, Asia and other parts of the world, but increasing weight limits and lighter construction techniques have made them mostly irrelevant.

A little history first – Sultana coaches were built by a Mexican transportation conglomerate – Trailers de Monterrey, established in 1952 that built trailers, trucks and buses.  It is now called Groupo Industrial Ramirez.  The company’s founder, Mr Ramirez, is in the middle of the above photo.

Sultana Super Integral

Brill ACF IC 41

The TM 40 was preceded by several other Sultana models; here is a “Super Integral” which bears a close similarity to the ACF Brill IC 41 coach.

Sultana Integral

GM PD 4103

This is a later “Integral” which closely resembles a GM PD 4103.

Sultana TM 40

GM 4501                                                                      Flxible VL-100

The TM 40’s inspiration seems to emanate from two mid-’50s buses; the GM 4501 Scenicruiser and Flxible VL-100 Vistaliner.

Interesting in that the company’s main competitor, Dina, license built versions of Flxible’s coaches in the 1960’s.  This is a Dina “Olympico.”

The TM 40 first rolled off the assembly line in 1963 and was built up to the late ‘70s.  It used mostly GM engines shipped from the US – typically the 8V71, with a Fuller “Road-Ranger” transmission.

Like its US counterpart, it was air-conditioned and had a restroom.  Some also had small galleys that could prepare buffet meals for long trips.  The SP stood for “Super Panoramico”

The coach was routinely used on the Mexico City to Acapulco route – in the ’60s and ‘70s about a 10 hour run.

Sultana supplied buses for much of Central and South America and my understanding is several are still in use in smaller Central American countries.

Though drawing inspiration from other models, it’s a truly interesting design…

Walking though our suburban Tokyo neighborhood always offers the chance of running across some exquisite, rare JDM classic – so when I spotted this on a recent Sunday, I couldn’t have been more surprised.  No JDM model here, this in all its splendor is a 1969 Chrysler 300 convertible, with period correct aftermarket Crager SS wheels – some real heavy Detroit iron from the Swinging ‘60s…

I’ve walked by this car before but it always had a car cover on it – so while I could see it was something fairly large, I couldn’t make out any identifying details.  I thought maybe it was an older Toyota Century or Nissan President.

As I’m sure readers of CC know, this is an example of Chrysler’s “Fuselage” styling, seen on the company’s large models built from 1969-’73.

I can remember when these were introduced – the new fuselage design theme was somewhat controversial.  While some thought it was sleek, others criticized it as unnecessarily large and “bloated” looking, especially in the rear, with too much overhang aft of the rear axle.

1970 Chrysler 300 Hurst Edition

I was a fan of these cars, but I did think the roof and “C” pillar were a bit out of sync with the rest of the design, and caused it to look somewhat awkward –  the convertible didn’t have this C pillar design and in my view was the best looking.

The grill marks it as a ’69 – the ’70 and ’71 did away with the “gun-sight” in favor of variations of the remaining horizontal chrome band.

If only the hood was open…inside is either the stock RB 440 good for 350 hp.and 460 ft lbs of torque or the “TNT” version with a mighty 375/480.

With either engine, I can understand why the owner isn’t using it as a daily driver – gas here in Tokyo is about $5.00 per gallon (as in the states, the lowest in some time), so with a 24 gallon tank, each fill-up will set you back $120 bucks.  But what a great weekend cruiser – just keep it on the main thoroughfares and out of Tokyo’s notorious smaller streets – don’t want any scrapes on that beautiful fuselage body…

Related articles:

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics/ebay-find-1969-dodge-monaco-this-fulsome-fuselage-is-fundamentally-fine/

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/fender-blades-on-a-fuselage-the-design-of-the-1973-imperial-by-chrysler/

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-outtake-1969-chrysler-newport-convertible-at-the-beach/

Several comments on previous bus articles expressed an interest in Dina, or to be correct, DIesel NAcional, S.A (now known as Consorcio G Grupo Dina, S.A. de C.V.).  For those not familiar, Dina is a long-time maker of cars, trucks, and buses in Mexico founded in the city of Sahagun, in the state of Hidalgo.  It has expanded to a large conglomerate today that markets its products in Mexico, throughout Central and South America, parts of Europe, and the Middle East.  During a merger with Motor Coach Industries (MCI) in the ‘90s, the company also sold coaches in the US.

1950’s and early 1960’s Dina Fiat Buses

Dina was founded in 1951, majority owned by the government of Mexico with a minority interest by Fiat.  The company assembled versions of Fiat’s bus and truck models, and also the 500, 1100 and 1400 automobiles throughout the 1950’s.  That partnership ended in 1961 and in 1963, Dina joined with Renault to assemble versions of that company’s D-500 and D-700 buses.

And as highlighted in Dan Andreina’s superb article here, and in comments by “twoeightythree” in our Sultana bus article, they also license built versions of the Renault Alpine…

Not satisfied with Renault’s coaches, and looking for a larger and more substantial bus, Dina found a willing partner in Flxible, the Loudonville Ohio-based manufacturer of both transit and intercity coaches.  An agreement was reached and in 1964, Dina was licensed to assemble versions of the Flxible Flxliner 35 ft intercity coach.

Dina named this model the “Olympico” – it was essentially equivalent to the Flxliner with a “Torsilastic” suspension, GM 8V71 or Cummins NT/NH engines, and Spicer manual transmission.  Dina subsequently purchased the tooling for this bus when Flxible exited the intercity market in 1969 – and continued to build this model through 1987 – quite a long production run.  Fun fact:  The bus was marketed as the Dina Flxible 311 until 1968 when its name was changed to Olympico in honor of the 1968 Olympic Games held in Mexico City.

To help with both their truck and bus operations, Dina reached an agreement with Cummins in 1968, and began producing Cummins diesel engines under license…

The company made several different versions of the Flx through the years…here is an “Avante” with a more squared-up front area and modern window treatment, mimicking the styling of Eagle buses from this period.

This is a late 80’s “Dorado”, a 40 ft version that came with the GM 6V92 TA.  While it and the Avante could be fitted with an Allison automatic, Mexican operators preferred mostly manual transmissions.

Dina partnered again with another manufacturer in 1990 and reached agreement with Marcopolo SA of Brazil to import bodies of their large intercity coach to mate with a Dina chassis.  This bus was named the Viaggio – and when Dina and Motor Coach Industries (MCI) entered into a merger in 1994, MCI marketed this model in the US as the Viaggio 1000.  These were large buses, 102 in wide and 45 ft in length – they typically had GM 60 Series engines with Allison automatic transmissions.  Depending upon whether they had a lavatory, they could seat 52-56 passengers.

The Viaggio sold well, to both intercity and tour operators, but in 2000 Dina’s then financial problems led to a rupture in their merger with MCI, and the collaboration ended.

F11 (35 ft)

F12 (40 ft)

F14 (45 ft)

Refocusing back to their non-US markets, the company’s next intercity coaches were the F-series; the F-11 through F-14 – the F14 being a lengthened three axle version.  These were Dina’s first intercity coaches designed entirely in-house.

The company went through some tough financial difficulties in the early to mid-2000’s, but appears to be coming back with a variety of urban and intercity coaches.

Today, the company’s main intercity coach is the Buller – 40 foot long, seating 46 passengers.  Dina has now partnered with Scania and the Buller uses a Scania L6 Turbodiesel, good for 360 hp and 1365 ft lbs of torque.  Aerodynamics seems to be the primary factor in bus design these days – I can appreciate the reduced operating costs in fuel, but am not a fan of how they look.

Call me old school, but of all the models above, I think the Flxliner/Olympico is the most attractive…

Imagine that you are a “fly on the wall” in the executive suites of Mitsubishi Motors in the early 1960’s.  The subject – the styling for Mitsubishi’s upcoming model in the “executive” class, their flagship model, the Debonair…

“Saito-san, we’re stuck, we don’t know in what direction to go – what should the Debonair look like?”

“That’s a good question Abe-san, so to help inspire us, I have brought over three luxury models from the US – all 1961 models; a Cadillac Sedan Deville, a Chrysler Imperial, and a Lincoln Continental.”

“Saito-san, they are all so very different, how can we choose?”

“Abe-san, remember our car’s name – Debonair – it means elegant, stylish, chic, tasteful…”

“Yes, Saito-san, I see what you mean, you’re right; there is only one choice…“

Mitsubishi Motors Debonair and Mitsubishi Aircraft MU-2 Turboprop

The ‘60s were Japan’s “go-go” years – it had rebuilt itself from the utter destruction of the previous World War, and its industries were humming.  As before the War, Japan’s economy was largely in the hands of several large conglomerates.  These conglomerates had numerous individual business entities – so there were lots of senior executives.  Company loyalty is a given in Japan, and these executives needed transportation – and for Mitsubishi exec’s, (aircraft, cars/trucks, shipbuilding, chemicals, energy, electronics, financial, real estate), riding in a Toyota or Nissan just wouldn’t do – thus was born the Debonair.

Century                                                                           President

The Debonair, and later  Nissan President (1965) and Toyota Century (1967), were sold mainly to fleet operators of their respective parent corporation or affiliated companies.  They shuttled executives as they went about their very busy duties contributing to Japan’s economic miracle.  The cars were not generally marketed to the public, but if you knew the right person, one could be ordered.  They would also show up on the used car market.

The Debonair debuted in 1963, and with its slab sides and chrome-stripped fender peaks, clearly drew its inspiration from the Elwood Engel-penned 1961 Lincoln Continental.    This first generation model was built an incredible 22 years – from 1964 to 1986.  There were three changes during the production run.

The initial model, the A30, was powered by the KE64 1991cc straight six with dual carburetors, and was sold from 1964 to 70.

For 1971, a new “Saturn” series 6G34 straight six was installed, and in ‘73 the round taillights gave way to L shaped versions – this model was designated the A31.

The “Silent Shaft” 2.6L 4G54 four cylinder debuted in 1976 – this was the same engine recently highlighted in Paul’s Plymouth Arrow post.  The car remained basically unchanged until 1985, when only 205 rolled out in their last year.

2nd Gen                                                                              3rd Gen

The following generations (Debonairs were built until 1998) were more mainstream models marketed to both the public and business fleets.  The second generation was quite distinctive, to include an AMG model, but that’s a story for another post…

“Saito-san, look at these sales figures – I think we chose wisely…”