(first posted 4/2/2016) You don’t have to be a professional gambler to know the phrase “a sure bet” – a clear winner, in no doubt, guaranteed.  As public transportation was evolving in the late 1960s to mid-70s, there was no more ”sure bet” than GM hitting another home run in the transit bus market.  Just look at the history; its “Old Look” coach had captured 84% of the market in the mid-50s, and the “New Look” coach was almost as dominate with close to 70% of the market in the 60s/70s.  Both those coaches were legendary for their class-leading, pioneering technology and robust, quality construction.  So when the first RTS II coach rolled off the GM Truck and Coach Division line at Pontiac Michigan in August 1977, expectations were high.  But those hopes quickly faded when the coach proved to have more in common with other products GM was turning out in the 1970’s – like the ones we’ve been reviewing this month… 

Let’s first look back on the somewhat twisted path that led to this third, and ultimately final, GM transit coach.  In the 1960s, GM was truly at its peak – its various automobile divisions were producing a series of innovative, ground-breaking vehicles; Corvair, Tempest, Stingray, Riviera, GTO, Toronado…..this same spirit of innovation was also hard at work over in its Truck and Bus division.  By the late 1960s, the company was already thinking of a follow-on coach to its still-popular New Look.

And innovative it was – this is the Rapid Transit Experimental (RTX) – a demonstrator model developed by GM and introduced in 1968.  Three axles, plastic vs aluminum exterior panels, ultra-modern interior, but perhaps most shocking, it was powered by a GM GT 309 gas turbine engine.  This engine was part of GM’s automotive turbine development program similar to Chrysler’s more well-known effort – and was seen in the Turbo Titan III truck and other applications.

Three years later, in 1971, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) launched its “Transbus” project — an initiative by the Federal Government to develop a new revolutionary advanced bus design built solely to rigid Federal specifications.  The three then-current U.S. bus manufacturers each submitted an entry – GM’s was a slightly modified RTX, re-named the “RTS-3T” (Rapid Transit Series, 3 axle, Turbine).

However, by 1974, the Transbus effort was succumbing to government “red tape” and a realization that it was perhaps an over-reach; the buses were prohibitively expensive and some of the cutting-edge technologies (such as the turbine engine) were not ready for commercial, day-to-day use.  GM saw the writing on the wall and began developing an interim bus, less radical than the Transbus but still a major leap forward in comparison to the New Look – this bus was called the RTS II (II in this case denoting 2 axles).

Besides modern, streamlined styling, RTS II’s incorporated several other innovations; they were the first coach to use modular construction – buses were built in 5 ft stainless steel modules that were then welded together.  They used impact resistant acrylic windows, came with automatic temperature control, and had a kneeling feature to assist access by the elderly and physically challenged.  And in a sign of the times, the seats were made of hard vandal-resistant fiberglass, and the exterior panels were impervious to graffiti.

GM began limited production of the RTS II in August 1977 and in October, the first RTS II Series 01 coach was delivered to Long Beach Public Transportation Co.  These Series 01 coaches can be identified by their less protruding front bumper with no recess for a front license plate.

In 1978, production would switch to the Series 03 with the larger front bumper.  Here is one of the first models coming down the line at the Pontiac Assembly Plant for the Southeastern Michigan Transit Authority (Detroit).

Series 01/03 “Slant Back”                                       New Look exterior A/C unit

These early Series 01/03 models were unfortunately plagued with a series of problems – most related to the location of the air conditioning unit.  Note the “slant back” of these models – in an effort to give the bus a smoother, integrated look, GM reduced the size of the exterior A/C unit and placed it in the lower engine compartment, near the radiator, rather than the “hang-on” method above the rear window on the New Look.  This caused several problems; the smaller unit wasn’t sufficient to cool the bus and would routinely fail, and since it was over-stressed, it ran constantly causing engine overheating and electrical issues.

Most 01/03 models were retrofitted with a GM designed cap that housed a larger A/C unit, and this addressed most the overheating problems.  But there were others; a poorly designed rear door that would routinely “hang up”, requiring drivers to leave the seat to close it.  The transmissions, Allison V730s, would only go 30K miles until requiring a re-build, in comparison to 200K miles for New Looks.  The RTS also lacked the New Look’s high-quality construction – in 1981, Washington Metro found 42 discrepancies in an early model they tested prior to delivery of their order.   As problems from operators flooded in, GM fixed some, and blamed poor maintenance practices and driver error for others.  The bus developed an extremely poor reputation.

Starting with the Series 04 model in 1981, the larger unit was more effectively integrated and these were known as “Square Backs” – the 04 model was widely produced.

The next major revision came with the Series 06 in 1986 which changed from independent to solid beam front axle.  In the early 2000’s, GM offered the 50 Series 4 cylinder diesel engine, resulting in a minor modification to the rear of the bus.  The 06 Series was produced by all three RTS manufacturers; GM, Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC) and Novabus.

30 ft                                                                          35 ft

       40 ft                                                                  6V92TA

RTS coaches came in 30, 35 and 40 ft lengths; 96 or 102 inch wide.  Engines were 6/8V71 and 6V92, along with Cummins and Caterpillar options, with the GM 50 series in-line engine an option in later models.

As mentioned above, the RTS had three different manufacturers – in 1987, during the “Roger Smith” era, GM decided to sell off its bus operations, and the RTS design and manufacturing rights were purchased by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation (TMC), a subsidiary of Motor Coach Industries (MCI).  TMC moved RTS production tooling from Michigan to an MCI factory in Roswell New Mexico.  They built a number of buses until 1994 when they sold the RTS to Novabus.  Novabus kept the factory going until 2002, when it sold the rights to Millennium Transit Services, which declared bankruptcy 2009, but re-emerged in 2011 and still operates the Roswell factory (primarily for parts) today.

So now we get to the question – Deadly Sin or just a “General” failure?  This was a tough call for for me.   The RTS remained in large-scale production for over 25 years, through three different manufacturers.  But from a historical perspective, it did not dominate the market like its two predecessors (production totals:  38,000 Old Looks, 44,000 New Looks, approx 20,000 RTS), and its numerous problems contributed towards GM “throwing in the towel” and selling off its bus operations in 1987.

Just from the fact that it was a major contributor to one of the most storied bus manufacturers in US history exiting the motor coach market seems sufficient to me to deem it a Deadly Sin.  Though in all fairness, it was just one of many GM products produced in the 1970s by a corporation that became over-confident, prone to “cutting corners”, and failed to adhere to the high engineering standards it had built its reputation on…

Paul’s superb post from a few weeks ago on the Toyota T40 Corona was still fresh in my memory when I recently came across this senior citizen on a weekend sojourn through our Tokyo neighborhood.  I quickly ran back home to grab the camera, then as I lined up this shot, I noticed a couple other JDM gems lurking in the background…

But first let’s take a look at the T40 – my best guess is this is a 68-70 model given the mesh “Schick Shaver” grill with Corona badge (for those that may be curious, that’s a second generation (1986-91) Toyota Soarer coupe in the foreground).

Earlier Corona models had a different grill design with “Toyota” or Toyopet” spelled out in the center.  Engines options in Japan ran from a small 1.2 liter mill, up to the 1.9 liter 3R that went in North American models.

My own personal preference would be for a RT55 2-door coupe that came with the 9R DOHC 1600 engine – a Japanese Lotus Cortina…

Back to the picture – hiding in the right corner, obscured by a light pole is a first generation Mazda Carol.  The Carol was a light or “kei” class car produced from 1962-70.  Its contemporaries were the Subaru 360, Honda N360, and Mitsubishi Minica.

While the back window didn’t go down, the C pillar has a vague early-60’s Mercury Breezeway look to it…

The Carol was significant in that it was one of only two kei class cars in that era to have a four cylinder engine – in this case a diminutive 358 cc unit, mounted transversely in the rear.  Most other 60’s minicars chugged along with V twins, horizontally opposed two cylinders, or an inline triple.  Sure would be interesting to peek inside those four cylinder bores just to see how tiny they were.

On the left of the pic, parked inside the building is a real piece of history – a Daihatsu Midget 3-wheeler that appears to be in very good condition.  This is an MP5 version, made from 1962 to 1972.

Engine in the MP5 was a single cylinder, two-stroke, 305 cc powerhouse, making a pavement-shaking 12 horsepower.  Max carrying capacity was 300 kg.

Over 330,000 of these Midgets were made and they plied Japan’s small streets carrying everything from sushi to sheet rock, contributing significantly to the country’s “economic miracle” in the decade of the 60’s.

Interestingly, versions of the Midget (MP5 and earlier models) are still being built in Thailand where they serve as small motorized rickshaws called “Tuk-Tuks”…

Japan has many active collector car enthusiasts, but the hobby is just not as robust as in North America and Europe – it’s hindered by a general view here that cars are disposable items to be recycled.  Hopefully all three of these senior citizens can escape that fate and find doting new owners…

The bus above is a Fitzjohn Roadrunner, an intercity model manufactured by the Fitzjohn Coach Corp in Muskegon Michigan, from 1954-58.  The Roadrunner was the final bus produced by the company before it closed it doors.  As with Beck, ACF-Brill, Aerocoach, and others, Fitzjohn was a company that found itself unable to compete with “The General” in the post WW II urban transit and intercity bus markets.  Let’s take a quick look at the company and this last model to wear its badge…

Fitzjohn was a middle-tier manufacturer of coaches, limousines, and trucks in the early to mid-twentieth century.  It was most well-known for building stretched versions of Chevrolet sedans used as small buses and “jitneys.”

So well known, in fact, that it received quite a few government orders during WW II for these “stretchouts” used to ferry workers at the nation’s defense plants.

After the war, it had two moderately successful designs; its Cityliner urban transit bus was initially purchased by several large cities; to include Detroit and Toronto.  It was a 31 or 37 passenger bus that came in both gas and diesel versions; gas being a Hercules JXD inline 6 cylinder and a Cummins JT6 in diesel form.  By most standards however, it was inferior to the GM “Old Look” and by 1954, as sales dwindled, Fitzjohn departed  the urban transit business.

The other post-war model was the Duraliner – an intercity model that came in several different lengths with seating capacity from 28 to 41.  It was front-engined, with the powerplant typically a Waukesha 140 525 cu in gas 6 cylinder putting out 177 hp and 450 ft lbs of torque.

It terms of looks, it was very similar to the more popular ACF-Brill IC-41…

GM PD 4104

With GM’s game-changing PD 4104 Highway Traveler being introduced in 1953, all the other coach manufacturers had to play catch up or risk being left far behind (hindsight would show that even with updated models, GM would still reign supreme).

Fitzjohn came out with their Roadrunner – similar in size to the 4104 at 96 in wide and 35 ft in length, with a passenger capacity of 37.  Have to love that 50’s advertising…“new from beak to tailfeathers”…

Engines were similar to the Duraliner – an updated Waukesha 140 series gas engine (model code FIG) with an option of a Cummins JT-6B diesel (FID).

Several operators purchased special models built as tour and sightseeing coaches…

No matter the ad copy, the Roadrunner unfortunately wasn’t “going places”, and further orders failed to materialize.  After a purchase of 54 Roadrunners from a Mexican operator in 1958, Fitzjohn closed it doors – and the Muskegon factory was sold to Blue Bird who used it to assemble school buses.

Several weeks ago we looked at the Fitzjohn Roadrunner, an intercity coach built from 1954 to 1958 that failed in the marketplace due to the overwhelming might of General Motors and the transportation industry’s preference for GM’s products. The bus above unfortunately faced that same fate. It’s a Model P-372 built from 1950 to 1952 by the General American Aerocoach Corporation of Chicago Illinois.

Aerocoach is another bus manufacturer with an interesting history. It began as Gar Wood Industries which developed and marketed one of the most technically sophisticated buses of the 1930’s – the Model C and D, designed by noted aircraft engineer William Stout, yes, the same Bill Stout of “Stout Scarab” fame…

Stout approached designing buses similar to how he designed aircraft and cars.  He used a steel-framed monocoque body fitted with aluminum outer panels, powered by a Ford flathead V8 engine in the back, driving the rear wheels.  The monocoque body and chassis resulted in a very light bus with superior gas mileage and lower operating costs.

The D models featured streamlining, similar to the Scarab and came in 24, 33 and 37 seat versions.  In 1939 the bus portion of Gar Wood Industries was sold to General American Corporation – forming GA Aerocoach.  GAA continued building the Gar Wood models through 1942 when it switched to defense work for the duration of the war.

Post-war, the company introduced more mainstream urban transit and intercity models.

Their intercity coach was the P-371, 96 in wide 35 ft long, with seating for 37 passengers. Engine was typically an IHC Red Diamond 6 cylinder that could run on gas or propane.  The “heart-shaped” front windows made them easy to identify.

The P-372 and 373 followed in 1950 with a restyled front and the option of a Cummins JT6 diesel.

As with the Roadrunner, the ad copy rarely squared with reality – by 1952 only a handful were sold and the company closed its doors that year. The Chicago factory was sold to a railroad tank car company who continued to build its products there until 2008.

A beautifully restored model resides at the Antique Auto Museum in Hershey PA.

(original pictures and some text by Paul N.)   Over the past several months, we’ve reviewed several different motor coach manufacturers that went toe-to-toe with General Motors in the intercity bus market of the 1950’s – ACF Brill, Beck, Fitzjohn, Aerocoacoach.  All fought the good fight, but ended up on the canvas. OK, enough boxing metaphors – let’s look at the bus that vanquished all of these challengers, and set the template for all buses to come. All hail the GM PD 4104 Highway Traveler.

Paul’s post on the 4104’s predecessor, the GM 3751 and 4151 “Silversides” coaches detail how GM first became a powerhouse in the coach field, thanks to innovative alloy semi-monocoque construction and GM’s new light but powerful 2-stroke diesel engine. That engine was so eminently well suited for buses with its transverse location at the very rear and angle drive to the rear wheels.

These and their predecessors were radically new before the war, and were given minor updates when introduced in the post-war market. They were excellent buses; well built and profitable to operate with the GM/DD 6-71 engine. But they weren’t the sweeping, all-new bus that Greyhound, GM’s largest customer, desired for the post-war era. It took a few more years for that model to be introduced – but when it was in 1953, it shook the intercity bus market to its core.

What made the 4104 so special, and how did it come to utterly dominate the market? Several factors, but first and foremost, it was just plainly superior to any other bus being offered at the time. Let’s look at the details.

Weight. Rather than use a separate body and chassis, 4104’s were fully monocoque-bodied (similar to the Gar Wood coaches we looked at in our Aerocoach post). High strength aluminum panels over the monocoque frame made for an extremely light yet rigid coach, easily able to stand-up to the constant over-the-road pounding an intercity bus endures.

Power and mileage. The relatively light weight 2-stroke 210 hp Detroit Diesel 6-71 engine, which was then an exclusive to GM coaches, combined with the light weight of the coach, made the 4104 North America’s most fuel efficient bus, and most likely one of its faster ones. A 4104 could typically get 8-10 miles per gallon of cheap diesel fuel compared to 2-3 mpg for the ACF Brill using the Hall-Scott gas engine, or 7-8 mpg for the Fitzjohn and Aerocoach which used the four stroke Cummins diesel. And it had a cruising/maximum speed of 65 mph.

The Rootes-type blower on the side of the engine is necessary for a two-stroke diesel to scavenge the cylinders quickly as well as fill the cylinders with fresh air for the intake stroke.

A two stroke diesel operates rather differently than a gas-oil fed two stroke engine, as the diesel has two or four exhaust valves in the cylinder head. This shows its operation.

The Spicer unsynchronized four speed manual transmission was also more efficient than later automatics, but it was not exactly “slick-shifting”

The long gear shift lever was some 30 feet away from the transmission, so it required a deft hand. Upshifts were relatively easy, and the better drivers managed it without a clutch. Downshifts required double clutching and revving up the engine to the required speed in order to match the rotation speed of the gears on the output shaft. Pulling off a downshift without any hint of gear grinding was the sign of a superior driver.

Ride. While other coaches were experimenting with air suspension systems, GM had theirs ready for use on both its urban transit and intercity models – it provided an extremely smooth ride, no matter how many passengers were on-board, and just as importantly was very reliable.

These reinforced rubber bellow-type springs are utterly ubiquitous now on buses and a high percentage of trucks and trailers, but in 1953, this was a big deal. The improvement in ride quality was very significant, as steel-spring buses had to use quite stiff springs in order to cope with a full load. The air springs rode the same now matter how many  passengers.  I can remember riding on Marmon-Herrington trolley coaches in the early ’60s in my hometown of Columbus Ohio – these were steel spring buses and when lightly loaded, there was a cacophony of “Bam, Boom, Rattle” with lots of bouncing in the seats.

Storage. With no longitudinal frame, the 4104 had significantly more underfloor storage capacity than any other coach – more room for luggage and freight, in those pre-FEDEX days.

Appearance. Though somewhat hard to envision now, the 4104 was a revolutionary design when launched – more modern looking than any other bus (or car) on the road. It created as much buzz as the ’63 Stingray or ‘ 66 Toronado. The full aluminum-encapsulated body and forward canted large windows became iconic design elements on buses for the next 30 years or more. Everyone rushed to imitate the 4104.

Quality. The folks who worked the line at the Pontiac Michigan Assembly Plant knew how to build a bus. The key word here is “solid” – GM buses of the 1950’s and 60’s had just a much more solid feel to them than any other coach. I can remember riding Greyhound 4104s in the ‘60s and you could tell they had lots of miles on them. Yet, they still had this “all-of-a-piece” feel.

It explains why the 4104s were still snapped up from Greyhound by smaller operators, and why they became the most favored bus for motorhome conversions for decades. They’re still popular in that role, and it’s relatively easy to keep one on the road.

Put all this together and you get a bus that gave passengers a significantly elevated travel experience while at the same time put more money on operators balance sheets – a win-win…

Their durability and cost efficient attributes were not lost on operators outside North America either.

Testament to the goodness of their overall design, the 4104 was superseded by the 4106 in 1961, which was essentially a 4104 with larger windows, an updated HVAC system, dual headlights, and the more powerful 8V-71 engine.

And the 4104’s advanced lightweight design, construction methods and even the slanted windows were all key aspects to GM’s “New Look” transit buses in 1959.

The 4104 laso had a big brother, the iconic greyhound PD-4105 Scenicruiser. They were essentially co-developed, with the Scenicruiser arriving in 1954, one year after the 4104. Unfortunately, the Scenicruiser did not enjoy the same sterling reputation as the 4104; it quickly became rather problematic, with body cracking issues and problems with the twin engines. Paul’s detailed write-up is here.

I routinely peruse various bus and transportation websites and you find nothing but praise for the 4104; “the perfect bus”, “the best bus ever built”…it still has lots of fans out there.

Over 5000 were built from 1953 to 60 – and their solid construction means many still remain on the road today.

And some have even been restored to their former all-original glory; now that’s what I like to see.

Related:

1947 GM PD-3751 “Silversides”: The First Modern Bus    PN

GMC “New Look” Transit Buses   PN

GMC PD-4105 Greyhound Scenicruiser   PN

As I’ve mentioned before, taking a stroll on a Sunday afternoon through our suburban Tokyo neighborhood always turns up something interesting.  Last weekend was no exception – sitting back in the weeds near an older apartment complex was this early 90’s Starcraft Starquest conversion van on a Ford E-series chassis.  I had to shake my head a few times – I thought I was back in my old neck of the woods of central Ohio…

Starcraft made quite a few of these vans from 1977 to 2001, and at least one made it across the Pacific.

The company is no longer in the recreational van business but does assemble shuttle buses using the current Ford Transit chassis.

Couldn’t look inside or under the hood, but it’s likely to have the superb Ford 460 cu in V8 – a great engine whether in an F-250 or a Continental; smooth, torquey, OK, maybe just a little thirsty.  The Triton 6.8L V-10 replaced it in 1997 – not a bad run, almost 30 years.

One has to wonder, what is the allure of an out-sized, gas guzzling, fake-wood paneled American van to the average Japanese consumer when there is no shortage of economical Japanese conversion vans.  Toyota’s HiAce makes for a very nice one – either recreational or small camper.  It comes with a thrifty 3.0L 4 cylinder turbo diesel and is right-sized for Japan’s small streets.

If I had run across the owner I would have tried to diplomatically ask the question – but its unlikely I’ll have the chance – this one had an abandoned vehicle notice on the windshield – 30 days to move it or the local constabulary will haul it away.

Being a teenager in the ’70’s, I’m familiar with these van’s reputation as “Dens of Iniquity”.  I never had one, nor any of my friends, so don’t know if it’s true, but I can’t help thinking, what if GoPro cameras had been invented in the 1970’s…

In the mid to late 1970s, intercity motor coach operators in North America had several options to choose from as they looked to recapitalize their fleets.  As we saw a few months ago, GM was still producing its “Buffalo” – the P8M 4108/4905, though production was slowing, making it ever more clear the company would not be in the intercity bus market much longer. MCI was heading in the opposite direction, with its manufacturing facilities going full bore, building coaches for Greyhound as its sole source provider, and offering its popular line of buses to other operators. Then there was Eagle, supplier to Continental Trailways, and to those in the entertainment industry that preferred its “Torsilastic” rubber encased torque tube suspension. But there was one other model who’s manufacturer outlasted two of the previous three, and went on to serve as the vanguard of the company’s successful entry into the lucrative US market – the Prevost Le Mirage…

As we discussed in our post on the HS-60, Prevost, now a subsidiary of Volvo Bus, is a Quebec-based motor coach manufacturer with a history of innovation. Popular in Canada, it first marketed its Champion model in the US in the late 1960’s – a 96 in wide coach that came in both 35 and 40 ft lengths. Unfortunately, it made little headway against the dominant and entrenched GM, MCI and Eagle brands.

GM PD 4104

Mack 97G

Looking to differentiate itself from the competition, Prevost took a page from European buses and opted for a unique, much larger side window design. You may remember from our recent GM PD 4104 post that an iconic design element of this ground-breaking bus was its forward canted windows. Every bus thereafter mirrored this design – MCI, Eagle, Flixble, Fitzjohn, Beck…even Mack used it, though the 97G had them somewhat surprisingly canted rearward. To quote Madeline Khan in Blazing Saddles, it’s hard to tell if this bus is coming or going…

This updated Champion had vertical, cathedral-like side windows, 42 inches tall, that extended up into the roof. Prevost called this new model the Prestige. While selling better than the Champion, it still wasn’t the breakout hit the company had hoped for – likely due to limited marketing and promotion.

With the exception of GM, by the mid-70’s manufacturers were moving away from their “notched” or “stepped” front ends by increasing the windshield’s height and having a smooth, unbroken roof line from front to rear.  Prevost followed this trend, and with a much larger budget and more focused marketing strategy, introduced the Le Mirage model in the US in 1976.

As they say, “the third time’s the charm”…transport operators and the tour industry quickly took to the new model which offered passengers improved visibility and a much more open and brighter interior compared to its contemporaries.  Orders poured in forcing Prevost to expand its manufacturing facilities in 1980.

Initially offered in only a 96 in by 40 ft version, Prevost widened the model in 1984 to 102 in, naming it the Le Mirage XL.

Appearance remained largely the same – halogen headlights were added in 1987 which resulted in a new lower front fascia.

In 1995, a 45 ft model, the XL-45 was introduced to compete with MCI’s popular 102DL3

Finally, in 2000, the Le Mirage XLII was launched with a fully paintable exterior (no stainless steel fluting).

DD 60 Series DDEC diesel

Powertrains were typical for North American motor coaches – early models used the GM/DD 8V-71 with a Spicer or Dana manual transmission. This was supplanted by the DD 6/8V-92 with the option of the Allison HT-740 automatic. The later XL-45 used the DD 60 series engine with the Allison B500 6 spd auto.   Cummins or Caterpillar engines could also be ordered, but it appears DD’s went in most models.

Prevost X3-45

Prevost dropped the Le Mirage name in 2004, with the coach carrying on with the XLII moniker. It remained in production until superseded by the X3-45 model in 2006.

I couldn’t find overall production numbers but its clear that quite a few rolled out of Prevost’s factories over thirty years – and many still remain on the road today, hard at work ferrying passengers or carrying families as mobile home conversions.

It’s a landmark model – the genesis of the company’s rise to the top tier of motor coach manufacturers in North America it occupies today.

This unique vehicle certainly caught my attention when I was doing a little research recently for an upcoming MCI post.  The first thing that popped into my head was “where and when did the tornado happen?”

I’ve seen some UK double-decker buses with their roofs removed for use in the tour industry, but have never ran across one based on a North American model – until now.  This is a 1982-87 MCI 9 coach that has been shorn of its roof by an aftermarket firm in eastern Pennsylvania that specializes in unique, one-off buses. It’s called a “Suncrusier” and is a single model built as a demonstrator that has since been sold to a tour operator. The company’s website said another one is currently under construction, if you’re interested.

The firm assures potential customers that additional reinforcement has been added to provide equivalent structural integrity, but one has to wonder how rigid a vehicle of this length could be without all the overhead roof rails binding it together.

It’s an interesting modification. I’m not usually a fan of taking hacksaws and Dremel tools to buses, but if it gives it a new lease on life versus being sent to the crusher, I guess I can’t complain.  I do wonder though if sunscreen and ponchos come standard or are optional…

Unless you’re a certified bus fan (and a certified old guy), it’s unlikely you’ll recognize this coach. Motor Coach Industries (MCI) built only 100 of them for Greyhound between 1969 and 1970, and they spent most of their time on roads in Canada and on the two US coasts. When introduced, it was probably the most unique intercity bus in service. It’s an MCI MC-6 Supercrusier.

First some history – by the mid-1960’s, Greyhound’s General Motors PD 4501 “Scenicrusiers” were getting tired – they had been in front-line service for a good 10 years and needed to be replaced. You may remember that Greyhound purchased MCI in 1959 to serve as its sole source provider, largely based on its disappointment with the 4501, which had initial powertrain reliability problems and later developed cracked frames.

MCI already had their successful MC-5 as a replacement for older GM 4104 and 4106 models.

But the company needed a larger, high floor model also, so to meet this requirement, MCI developed two new buses jointly – the MC-6 and MC-7. The MC-6 was certainly the more unique of the two. How so?

Size: The MC-6 was the first 102 inch wide 40 foot long intercity coach. At the time, Canada and several US states on both coasts had increased their interstate highway maximum vehicle width dimensions from 96 to 102 inches. Greyhound had assumed, incorrectly, that other states would follow suit and adopt these wider limits also. But many states kept their 96 inch rule until the Federal government enacted the Surface Transportation Highway Act in 1982 which standardized the 102 inch width on the entire national highway network. As such, these buses were confined to routes in Canada and along the two US coasts. Initially, the MC-6s operated only on the East Coast, but later were all sent to work on the West Coast.

At least the first two prototypes had their non-driven tag-axle wheels covered by bodywork, like this one seen in San Francisco, but the production versions had exposed wheels. And one of these two prototypes used a Mercedes 8 cylinder diesel, so it appears that MCI and Greyhound were in the same quandary as they had been back when they built the Scenicruiser: the lack of a just-right sized DD engine for this bigger bus.

Power: The MC-6 was one of few coaches to use the GM/DD 12V-71 engine, a 14 liter, 852 cu in V-12 monster than twisted out over 400 hp and 1200 ft lbs of torque (other versions would go up to 600 hp). With its unique two stroke exhaust note, this engine was nicknamed the “Buzzin’ Dozen” and was paired with a Spicer or Fuller manual transmission. It gave these buses superb performance, albeit with a penalty in fuel consumption. The eighty-five MC-6’s in the US (fifteen remained in Canada) were subsequently re-engined with the 8V-71T and Allison automatics in 1977 when they were sent to the West Coast. The US fleet was retired in 1980, and sold off to other operators.

The Canadian MC-6s retained their DD 12V-71 engines and manual transmission.

Multi-stepped Seating Area and Roof: Most models in the late ‘60‘s-early 70’s had stepped seating areas and notched roofs; the GM Buffalo, Eagle Model 05, etc. The MC-6 had two stepped areas (not including the entrance); three steps up to the first seating area behind the driver, then one additional step up to more elevated seating from the middle to the rear of the bus. In turn, the roof had two notches instead of one. This made it 12 ft tall at its highest point, so it was not only the widest but also the tallest intercity bus then in operation.

The more mainstream MCI MC-7 (96 in wide, 40 ft length) developed in conjunction with the MC-6, achieved much greater success, with over 2500 being built, and soon became the mainstay of the Greyhound fleet.

But the MC-6 was the largest (non-articulated) and most powerful intercity bus on the road until the introduction of the MCI 102A3 and Eagle Model 15 with the DD 8V-92TA engine in 1985.

Truly ahead of its time; six inches too much so, actually.

For those that have a little (or a lot) of military background, you’re no doubt familiar with the VFW. For those that aren’t, VFW stands for Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization that assists and supports Vets. One thing it also does is run establishments (bars and pubs) outside most US military installations – even those overseas. I came across these three old MOPAR vets on a recent Sunday walk here in suburban Tokyo; on the left is a 64-66 Dodge Dart, in the middle a 62 Plymouth Savoy, and on the right an early 70’s Plymouth Duster. Seeing them lined up like this, my first thought was “three old timers, all a little more worse for wear, sitting at the bar in the VFW bending an elbow and sharing war stories.”

Actually, these three are sitting outside “Kennie’s MOPAR Service”, a small garage that specializes in helping Japanese owners of Highland Park’s finest. My guess is Kennie’s real name is Kenji, but as the place was closed, I couldn’t ask. I’ll definitely be back because I’d like to hear the backstory on how these three made it into his care – and what plans he has for them. It also happens that I have a “six degrees of separation” link with two of these three.

1964 Ford Fairlane 500

1966 Dodge Dart GT

1966 Ford Mustang  

(Pictures are representative examples found on the Internet)

My first car, in 1972, was a 1964 Ford Fairlane 500 4 door with a 260 cu in 2 bbl V8 and a Fordomatic. One of my High School buds had a ’66 Dodge Dart GT, with the 273 4 bbl and Torqueflight. Another best bud had a ’66 Mustang Coupe with a 289 4 bbl A Code and Cruiseomatic. As you can imagine, I was routinely the loser at our stoplight Grand Prix’s, but what was also fairly consistent was the Dart walking away from the Mustang. They both made similar amounts of horsepower on-paper (235 for Chrysler, 225 for Ford) but the 273 was just stronger throughout the rev range. I was a Ford guy back then, but I admired that Dart and the 273 – it was a tough little engine.

I never had any association with a 62 Plymouth, other than having a burning desire to own one. Yes, the styling was polarizing – but it was pure Virgil Exner, and more importantly, could be had with the 413 cu in Max Wedge engine, which dominated the drag strip that year. Here was Chrysler showcasing its engineering prowess…quite different from my experience with the remaining product of this trio.

In 1976, the significant other at the time, having secured her first full-time job, bought a new Plymouth Duster – baby blue, with only a radio and Torqueflight as options. I remember two things clearly about that car, first; after only two weeks of ownership the ECM module fried and it had to be towed back to the dealer. Second, the first time I drove it I remember wrapping my hands around the cheap plastic steering wheel and encountering excess casting flash around the entire inner portion. At red lights, I’d kill time by peeling it off. That pretty accurately describes Chrysler quality control in the ‘70’s.

I’m glad I stumbled across Kennie’s – I feel a real kinship with these three old-timers – likely because I’m also a Vet, a lot worse for wear, and always up for hoisting a few cold ones while swapping old war stories…

While I always enjoy looking back at some of the classic motor coaches from the Golden Age of bus transportation, its also good to look forward to see where mass transit may be heading.  A few months ago we reviewed current and future trends in bus propulsion technology; CNG, Hydrogen, and Battery Electric.  We concluded that battery-electric would likely become the dominant player. Here’s an example supporting that view – the Proterra battery-electric urban transit coach.

Proterra was launched in 2004 and introduced its first 35 ft battery-electric bus in 2008, the Ecoliner BE35.  It’s an innovative design, using carbon fiber and other advanced composite materials for a majority of is structure, resulting in a very light curb weight.

Additionally, like some older bus designs, it has its engine, transmission, and other control functions in one power pack unit that can be easily removed and replaced for service and maintenance.

Like every electric vehicle manufacturer from Detroit Electric to Tesla, Proterra had to address the two major hurdles with this type of motive power; battery capacity (as expressed in range) and recharging cycle time.  These initial BE35 models have a nominal range of around 146 miles – adequate for shorter lines, but not for a regular urban route which averages around 300 miles in a typical 18 hours of operation.  Additionally, recharging requires 3 – 5 hours, which means the bus has to be taken out of service.  As a result, initial sales were slow – Foothill Transit of Pomona CA purchased three BE35’s in 2009, ten were sold to five different operators in 2011, nine in 2012, and eleven in 2013.

But things brightened considerably beginning in 2014 – the company hired a new CEO, Ryan Popple, who was previously the Chief Financial Officer for Tesla.  Additionally, the company’s R&D efforts began paying dividends – a new 40 foot model was introduced named the Catalyst XR.  This model has both an extended range, 258 miles, and a new fast-charging system.  In turn, total 2015 sales reached sixty-two coaches to 13 different operators.

In 2016, an updated Catalyst, the E2, was brought out with the longest range of any battery-electric coach – 358 miles on a typical urban transit route.  In addition, a further refined fast charging system permits a 26% recharge in only five minutes and a full charge in less than an hour and a half.

In January of this year the company built its 100th bus, and more importantly has another 200 orders on its books.  It forecasts that by 2020 every major urban transportation operator will have a portion of its system operating on battery-electric, with 50% of all new bus sales being electric by 2025.  Those figures may seem optimistic, but the numbers are compelling; typical real-world MPG for diesel, CNG and hybrid transit buses are, respectively, 3.8, 3.3, and 4.6.  A 2016 study of 12 Proterra buses in use by Foothill Transportation of Pomona over 400K miles showed a power usage rate of 2.15kWh per mile which translates to 17.48 mpg equivalent.

Bus prices are coming down also as the manufacturing process becomes more mature and efficient.  Early Proterra models were $1 million each – that price has dropped to $800K.  Comparable diesel/CNG/hybrid models start at $300K on the low end, up to around $600K.  As we’ve mentioned before, the Federal government provides grants that fund about 80% of the cost of new capital purchases – plus additional federal subsidies are given for zero emission models.

BYD K9 Battery-Electric Bus in testing service with MTA of New York 

But there are competitors – coach manufacturers in Europe and the US are also pursuing battery-electric models. The Chinese company, BYD, however is on par and in some aspects ahead of everyone else – to date they have built over 4000 battery-electric buses worldwide, and have a new US manufacturing facility in Lancaster CA.  They also have a range of sizes that include 35, 40, and a 60 ft articulated version.  But while BYD has more models and are less expensive than Proterra’s buses, they lack the range and proprietary fast charging system.

My sense is we’re very likely to be seeing more Proterra buses gliding silently along our streets…

Take a close look at this bus…doesn’t look especially unique, does it.  Seems to be fairly representative of any intercity coach in the US and Canada in the decade of the 1990’s.  But this model was actually quite revolutionary – with this coach MCI broke precedent with a fifty-year design element that was the hallmark of every intercity bus produced in North America, irrespective of manufacturer.  This is an MCI 102 B3, and it was the first intercity coach since the late 1930’s to have a fully painted body, i.e., no fluted aluminum or stainless steel exterior.

Well, to be truthful, that last statement is only partially correct – the 102 B3 was initially offered only with fully painted sides and front.  But this may have been a “little too much, too soon” for the typically conservative transportation industry, as operators weren’t sure how their passengers would react.  They lobbied MCI to add back the option of stainless steel siding (which the company did).  Consequently, you’ll see 102 B3 models both with fluted siding, and fully painted.

When I talk to fellow bus enthusiasts in Europe and Asia, I find myself somewhat consistently answering the question; why did all North American intercity buses up until the 2000’s look so “Industrial?”  It’s a valid question, and I usually answer by offering a short history of the dominance and influence of General Motors, which set the template for the modern intercity coach with their PD 3701/3751 “Silversides” model in the late 1930’s (if you haven’t seen Paul’s informative Silversides article, it’s here).

Of course, GM was just imitating the groundbreaking Pioneer Zephyr of 1934, built by Budd, which introduced the stainless steel fluted cladding. And North American railroad coaches used the fluted cladding for about as long as the buses did. It just became deeply entrenched, and it was of course practical too.

Beck 1040 and GM PD 4501

GM set the standard when it came to buses, both urban transit and intercity, from the late 1930’s until 1980.  A good example was highlighted in our recent PD 4104 Highway Traveler post.  GM was the trendsetter, and every other manufacturer followed the company’s example – some to the extent that they were almost a direct copy (see CD Beck and Sons post here).

1950’s – ACF Brill IC 41 and Flxible High Level 

1960’s – Eagle Model 05 and GM PD 4106

1970’s – GM PD 4107 and MCI Model 7

1980’s – MCI Model 9 and Prevost LeMirage

Fluted aluminum or stainless steel became the defacto exterior design theme for all intercity coaches, for over five decades.

But back to the subject – the 102 B3 was built from 1990-94, and had typical North American dimensions; 102 inches wide, 40 feet long.  A two-axle version, the 102 B2, was also built.  Most seated 47 passengers.

The DD 6V92TA seemed to be the preferred power train with either an Allison HT 740 4 speed automatic or a Fuller T-11605D 5 speed manual.  Similar to the bodywork, there was also a transition in the engine bay – 102 B3 was the last MCI coach to use a version of GM/DD’s two-stroke diesel (71 and 92)  that were being phased out due to their inability to meet ever-tightening emissions standards.  Subsequent buses used the four-stroke 50 or 60 series.

The 102 B3 was superseded by the 102 D3 in 1994.  Operators gradually became more comfortable that customers would accept the lack of fluting, but MCI would continue to offer it as an option on the 102 D3 and D4500 models until the turn of the century.

As an old guy, I tend to favor the older fluted designs, though I have to say the latest Greyhound scheme in dark blue is fairly attractive.

So, what’s your preference; fluted siding or fully painted?

Think of Toyota and the first thing that’s likely to pop into your mind is a Corolla or a Camry.  But the Toyota Group, like most Asian conglomerates, has an amazing number of subsidiaries and affiliates – you may be surprised to know that here in Japan you can buy a Toyota house – supposedly built with the same precision as an LS 460 and the sturdiness of a Land Cruiser.   But as we’re Curbside and not Neighborhood Classics, we’ll focus on Toyota’s wheeled products.  One of the company’s major affiliates is Hino Motors, their large vehicle manufacturer and a member of the Toyota family since 1967 – and one of Hino’s most popular models is its large intercity and touring coach, the S’Elega. 

Hino is certainly an interesting company – it built its first vehicle in 1917, and was prior to WW II part of a conglomerate that included Isuzu Motors.  After the war it focused primarily on diesel trucks and buses.

Renault-Hino 4CV

Hino Contessa

But it did assemble Renaults in Japan under license beginning in 1953.  Based on that experience, they launched their first in-house model in 1961, the Contessa.  It was a small, compact car with a rear OHV longitudinal engine, i.e., very Renault-like.  In 1964 it received a significant re-design with an attractive new body by Michelotti.   Alan Lacki has a great post on the Contessa here.

With its incorporation into the Toyota Group, Hino dropped its car line and focused on larger vehicles.  It’s currently the most popular truck and bus manufacturer in Japan; ahead of Isuzu, Mitsubishi, and Nissan – and has expanded significantly into Asia, the US, and Europe since the early 2000’s.  The S’Elega is its top-of-the-line intercity and touring coach.

The S’Elega comes in 12 and 9 meter lengths.  The 12 meter version has a 12.9 litre turbocharged OHC six-cylinder Hino diesel that pushes out 450 bhp and 1560 ft lbs of torque.

Recently here in Japan, tour companies have been offering “premium” services catered to a more well-heeled clientele, and the S’Elega is their coach of choice.  It can be configured with up-scale “first class” seating – not a bad way to see the sights, though pricey.

I’ve had the opportunity to ride in several S’Elega’s and can confirm they are very Lexus-like.  Fit and finish is prefect – panel gaps are small and uniform, and line up exactly – not something you typically expect to find in a bus.  The ride is very quiet and composed – the quietness was what surprised me most, I’m used to a few rattles when riding a bus – none here.

Fairly close to our home is the Hamura Hino Assembly facility – a sprawling factory that encompasses four or five city blocks and has its own banked test track.  Each Spring they open the gates and invite the public in to enjoy the cherry blossoms that are scattered around the plant.

They also offer a variety of attractions – my favorite being a bus ride around the test track – pretty entertaining as you round a 39% bank in a bus going about 100 kph.  No photography was permitted at the track, but they did allow pictures at the loading point – this S’Elega had the new diesel-electric hybrid power train.

Maybe if I hit the lottery I can afford to ride in a Premium model one day…

Several months ago we reviewed the Mack MV-620-D, a large demonstrator intercity coach from the late-1950’s that the company hoped would be selected as a replacement for GM’s PD-4501 Scenicrusier, then Greyhound’s top-tier coach.  Unfortunately that didn’t come to pass, however, Mack had much better luck with its urban transit models; the C Series.  While produced in far less numbers than the ubiquitous GM “Old Look”, it could count on several large metropolitan transportation authorities as loyal customers.  Why did these cities choose the Mack?  Likely because the buses enjoyed the same “tough” reputation as the company’s trucks…

While most associated with its truck line, Mack also built buses from its earliest days – in fact, the company’s first model produced in 1900 was a 20 passenger surrey-type bus.

Motor coaches were in the company’s DNA and a key part of its product line.  From 1900 until just prior to WW II, Mack produced approximately 55,000 vehicles – 42,000 trucks and 13,000 buses.

Post-war, it saw opportunities in the urban transit market as almost every transportation company sought to recapitalize their war-weary fleets.  Its first model, introduced in 1946, was the C-41.  This was a 96 in wide, 33 ft coach that could carry 41 passengers.  These initial 1946 models came only with a gas engine – the Mack 672 cu in (EN-672) inline 6 with a 2-speed Spicer 184 “Turbomatic” torque converter transmission.  Model code was C (series) 41 (passenger load) G (gas) T (Spicer torque converter).  In the picture above, new C-41-GT’s are headed via railcar from the factory to the Detroit DSR (Detroit Street Railways).

Detroit was one of Mack’s loyal customers and purchased some 332 Mack buses – the last one being retired in 1962.

Operators quickly placed their orders but also wanted a larger model, and in 1947 the 35 ft C-45 answered that need – it also had a new diesel version of the 672 engine (END 672); its model code was C-45-DT.

In 1954, the final version was introduced, the C-49-DT – lengthened to just over 39 ft .  The front end was given a refresh, with the “Mack” script being replaced by the trademark “Bulldog” symbol.  In 1953, an updated version of the diesel engine was also made available; the END 673, which was the initial model of the long-running “Thermodyne” brand.

In 1958, the bus was treated to a new front end – larger front windows, dual headlights and a somewhat “frowning” lower fascia – similar in style to the MV-620-D.

There were overseas sales also – here is a smaller C-39 version being operated in Ghent Belgium in the mid-1950’s.

Mack’s bus sales reached a peak during the immediate post-war period, then began a continual downward slide.  In 1960, the company realized it could make much better use of its production facilities to assemble its in-demand trucks.  So after 60 years, Mack left the bus business.

Mack C-49-DT (left) and GM Old Look (right)

What were some of the reasons Mack failed in the bus market, while at the same time being extremely successful with its truck line?  Well, once again, it all comes down to cost.  As with their trucks, Mack buses enjoyed a reputation for being extremely durable and “tough”.  Rather than using semi-monocoque construction like GM, Mack buses used a separate body on frame design – with that frame being extremely robust (and heavy) – in fact, it was given the marketing moniker “Fortress Frame”.  As a comparison, a diesel-powered GM TDH-4507 with the 426 cu in 6-71 engine weighed 17,850 lbs., while a Mack C-45-DT with the 632 cu in engine was significantly heavier at 20,260 lbs.  Given their greater weight and larger engine, they were just more expensive to operate.

But as previously mentioned, some operators were extremely loyal to the brand – the most loyal being perhaps New York’s MTA, at that time named NYCTA (City Transport Authority).  NYCTA had been a buyer of Mack’s both before and after WW II –  800 prior to 1939, and over 1300 from 1947 to 1956.   That loyalty was not surprising given the Mack Bros. established the company and its first factory in Brooklyn, before subsequently moving to Allentown PA in 1907.

Thanks to the forward-thinking folks at New York’s MTA, you can still experience riding in a Mack.  No. 6259 is a beautifully restored C-49-DT that is part of MTA’s historical fleet – it is brought out on holidays and special occasions – I hope to be lucky enough to catch a ride someday…

We’ve reviewed quite a few motor coach manufacturers that hoped to “cash in” on the post WW II sellers’ market where operators were rushing to recapitalize their fleets that had been worked hard during the war.  Small, regional manufacturers and the larger national brands all had eager customers waiting in line ready to sign contracts for new buses.  That prompted some interesting players to throw their “hat in the bus ring” – one being a company more well known for making taxis…

But we begin with Ford – since the mid-1930’s, Ford had been producing a small urban transit coach in cooperation with the Union City Body Co. of Union City Indiana – Ford produced the chassis which was then shipped to Union for final assembly.  Ford marketed this model as the “Transit Bus”.

The Transit had a rear mounted 239 cu in “Flathead” V8 and a 3-speed manual transmission.  It was 96 in wide and about 25 ft in length, and would typically seat 29 passengers.   It sold well, with over 12,000 being built between 1939 and 1947.  Customers included Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia and Chicago.

Ford marketed the buses through Transit Bus Inc., a joint venture established with Union City.  But even though they sold well, the immediate post-war period was an extremely tumultuous one for Ford, and in 1947, the company decided to end its association with Transit Bus.

Both Union City and Transit Bus now needed a new chassis provider – and they found one in the Checker Cab Manufacturing Corp. (for more on Checker see Paul’s excellent post here).  Checker was looking to expand and had some excess capacity at its Kalamazoo plant.

In 1948, Transit designed an updated 31-passenger model and selected Checker to produce the pusher chassis.  It was similar to the earlier Ford bus with exception that the Flathead V8 was replaced by a rear transverse-mounted 226 cubic inch Continental six-cylinder inline “Red-Seal” gas engine – the same engine used by Kaiser-Frazier.

The buses were assembled at the Union City plant and sold through Transit’s Dearborn-based distribution network.  Sales started off well, over 500 were built in 1948-49, 300 of which were purchased by the City of Detroit.  However, Transit had hoped for much larger sales, and in 1950, both Transit and Union City approved a buy-out offer from Checker – Checker was now both a bus and taxi builder.

Checker then introduced their version of the bus, marketed as the “Series E”, in 33 and 40 passenger models.  Bodies continued to be built by Union City and marketed by Transit Buses Inc., now subsidiaries of Checker.  The City of Detroit quickly ordered 450 units.

But further sales failed to materialize – operators were looking for larger coaches like the GM Old Look, Twin Coach, and Mack.  Only 50 Series E buses were sold over the next three years, with Checker finally pulling the plug in September 1953, going back to building just sedans, cabs and extended wheelbase station wagons.

An interesting small sidelight from a very interesting company…

When we settled down in our suburban Tokyo neighborhood a good ten years ago, one of the things I was most looking forward to was a good, leisurely walk where I could indulge all my JDM desires; searching out first-gen Mazda Cosmos, Isuzu 117 Coupes, and Nissan Fairlady Z’s…  Well, I’ve seen a few of those, but what has surprised me most was discovering a significant a number of cars that would have been right at home in my central Ohio high school parking lot circa 1974.

After finding Kenny’s MOPAR Service a few weeks ago, another Sunday walk in the opposite direction turned up this second generation Dodge Charger, decked out in what looks like some true period-correct JC Whitney accoutrements.  Actually, this picture got me thinking, I imagine most folks under 40 may not know what the phrase “jacked up” means; at least in automotive terms.  “Jacking up” your car was a favorite trick in the late ’50’s thru late 70’s – the rear spring shackle was extended, raising the back end so you could fit oversize tires, usually slicks, to give your car that “Pro Stock” appearance.  The resulting ill effects on handling were usually overlooked.   Ahh, youth…

Just like those in my ‘70’s high school parking lot, this one has aftermarket Centerline wheels and a set of “Mickey Thompson’s” in the back.  No engine call-outs, so not sure what’s under the hood – engine choices in 1970 were plentiful; from a 225 Slant six to a brace of V8’s – 318, two 383’s, a 440 Magnum or Six Pack, and the infamous 426 Hemi.

Looks like a toolbox on the passengers side so more modifications may be on the menu…

The chrome rectangular grille surround with no center divider and full-width taillight marks this as a ’70, and the badging (or lack of) make it the base model.  Chargers for ’70 could be had in three versions; base, sporty R/T, and luxury-themed SE.  Unfortunately, the wedge-nosed, high wing Daytona model was no longer available.

As I’m sure CC’ers know, this generation B-Body Charger is regarded as one of the most evocative and attractive designs to ever come out of Highland Park/Auburn Hills – and I agree.

1974 Dodge Charger SE – example from internet

This is another car I’ve had some experience with – in 1977 I bought a used third-gen ’74 Charger, base model, 318 with Torqueflight.  I thought the second-gen was better looking but the ’74 was newer and when you’re 21 years old, newer has a unique appeal.  Not a bad car – but probably the worst winter car I’ve ever driven – even with snow tires it would just spin its wheels.

Back to the ’70 – here’s why I wouldn’t drive this one to the Fraternal Police Ball…at least the owner was thoughtful enough not to translate it into Japanese…

More Charger love:

1968-dodge-charger-rt-the-most-beautiful-car-of-the-muscle-car-era

1968-dodge-charger-six-rarer-than-a-hemi-charger

There were several large-vehicle manufacturers in the early to mid-twentieth century that that were well known for their heavy-duty trucks, but less well-known for their buses – we looked at one several weeks ago; Mack, and in a future post we’ll review another; Kenworth.  Today, we’ll examine several bus models from the White Motor Corporation. 

No discussion of White can begin without mentioning its most well-known model – the 3000-series COE medium-duty truck and tractor.  From its introduction in 1949 until the last one came down the line in 1967, it was a routine sight across roads throughout the US and Canada.  As a guy of a “certain age”, it’s an indelible part of my childhood memories.  It deserves its own separate post, but I mention it as it appears to influence one of the bus models we’ll review below.

Much like Mack, buses were a key part of White’s product line in the first part of the twentieth century.  They made a variety of conventional, front engine buses throughout the 1920’s and 30’s.

Perhaps White’s most famous coach during this period was the 706, a bus built for transporting tourists at national parks in the Western US – most famously at Yellowstone and Glacial.  They had bodies designed by noted industrial stylist Alexis de Sakhnoffsky, and came with pull-back canvas tops so passengers could stand and see the sights.  Refurbished models are still in use at both parks.

In 1937, the company introduced an urban transit model, the 700 series.  It was 96 in wide and came in 30 and 35 ft lengths.  As with Mack, it wasn’t broadly sold but it did have certain loyal customers – Cleveland, Washington DC, and Boston all had White’s in their fleets.

What was most unique about this model was its power train – it had a White 464 cu in, 165 hp horizontally opposed “pancake” 12 cylinder gas engine mounted amidships underfloor.  It made for a bus with (relatively) snappy acceleration.

You can see and hear a little of this 12 cylinder in this video of a beautifully restored 748 model that’s part of San Francisco Muni’s historical fleet.

The longer 35 ft 798 model continued in production until 1948, when it was revised as the 1100 series.   An updated front and option of a Cummins diesel (in 1951) to replace the thirsty gas flat 12 were the major changes.

Later, White added a small grill to the front – somewhat similar in appearance to the 3000 truck.  But as we’ve seen with so many other bus manufacturers in the post war period, GM with its superior Old Look coach and large production capacity was able to completely dominate the urban transit bus market – and the last model, the 1150, came down the line in 1953.

White would go on to proposer in the large truck market of the 1960’s and early 70’s, with its Freightliner and Western Star model lines.  But by the mid to late-70’s, the company was in dire financial trouble, and after several attempts at consolidating with other US and European partners, it was purchased by Volvo Trucks in 1980.

Paul has written informative articles on both of these coaches here at CC, but as I was doing some research for an upcoming post I came across this great old photo – and, as a single photo can sometimes do, it just brought forth a whole slew of recollections and memories. Please indulge an old “bus fan” as I offer a few of these below…

1. GM at its peak. We’ve mentioned on more than one occasion how dominant GM was in the post-war intercity bus market. There are some conspiracy theories that still persist that claim to explain this dominance – I fall on the side that it was due to a superior product. As Paul’s post superbly outlines, the GM Old Look was the bus that maximized the two key variables of any successful transportation entity; passenger riding experience and the company’s operating cost balance sheet – a win-win. This model held 84% of the market in the mid-1950’s. Even more than its car and truck divisions, this was GM at its peak.

2. The passing of the baton. How many times have we seen a manufacturer hit a “home-run” with a product and then flub the follow-up. Yes, even GM  had their fair share of these follow-up “deadly sins” – but not in this case. With its New Look coach, the company kept all the advantages of the Old Look; economical operation with the two-stroke diesel engine, light weight stressed skin monocoque construction, and superb build quality – and addressed those few that needed fixing – a smoother shifting VH hydraulic automatic transmission, upgraded HVAC with factory air-conditioning as an option, and much larger windows (which we’ll discuss more about below). It didn’t quite reach the Old Look’s market share, primarily because the government won an anti-trust suit against GM in the late 1950’s and the company had to share its powertrain and other proprietary items with its competitors. But even with this handicap, the New Look still had over 70% of the urban bus market in the 1960’s and 70’s. Two clear “back-to-back” home-runs.

Old Look                                                                    New Look

3. Let the sunshine in. Paul has driven both these models during his younger bus driving days and has mentioned it several times. I haven’t driven these models but have sat in the driver’s seat of both. The Old Look, and really all buses of this vintage, were very difficult to see out of – the small front windshield limited both front and peripheral vision. When you’re wheeling 35-40 foot of bus, the more “situational awareness” you have, the better.  As the top photo perfectly captures, the New Look really “opened the aperture.” Sitting in them back-to-back, the effect is quite striking – you’re able to see much more of what’s going on around you, and in turn, operate the coach in a much safer manner. The “Fishbowl” nickname certainly fits. Additionally, for passengers, Old Look-vintage buses all were somewhat dark and dreary inside. The small side windows coupled with a black rubber floor and dark colored seats (mostly brown or green) made for a “dark-hole” riding experience. I can still remember my first ride in a New Look bus circa 1962 and how bright it was inside – larger side windows let in much more sunlight and the lower interior panels in white (with light green “shooting star” pattern) really brightened things up.

4. Our good friends in Europe set the standard in buses these days, but as this photo made me vividly remember, there was a time when no bus could come close to a GM…its products set the standard and were so far out in front of their competitors, that there were no competitors…

Most of us here north of the equator are in the throes of summer – heat, humidity, and more heat….hopefully this post will allow you a zen-like moment of cool relief. The bus above is a 1948 TDH 4507 GM Old Look coach that belonged to New York’s CTA, and this ole’ girl has an interesting history…

First, think December in New York City…

Bitter cold…

And lots of snow…

But as with any large metropolitan area, the city runs on its public transportation, and bus stops, turnouts, train tracks, and other locations need to be cleared of snow so buses and subways can operate. That’s where these “Snow Fighters” made their mark. These were modified older coaches, pulled from front-line service, that transported work crews to various areas around the city to clear snow. Several rows of seats were removed and space was made available for large salt bags, shovels, and other implements. They also had heavier front bumpers, and a set of spotlights on the front and back roof. Best guess is around 18 of these coaches were modified for this role.

Here’s a work crew digging out the rails at a station in Brooklyn, likely transported there by several Snow Fighters.

In the 70’s, NYMTA moved on to more specialized, less manpower-intensive equipment to keep their lines open.

While NYMTA has a superb historical fleet, unfortunately none of these models were preserved. This picture was taken in 1971 as coach #SF-12 was waiting to be scrapped at NYMTA’s Canarsie Yard.  The Snow Fighters had fought their last fight (flake?).

Another Sunday Tokyo sojourn and another interesting find – actually sharp-eyed readers may recognize this location from a previous post – yes, the pristine Nissan Laurel “Givenchy” edition is still there – I stopped by about six months ago and the owner happened to be outside – I asked him if the Laurel was for sale and he gave me a “non-answer”, which in Japanese means “no” – evidently knows what he has and intends to keep it. But I snapped this shot the other day to give our non-Japanese readers a little vision of parking, Tokyo style…

Actually, you won’t find parking spaces this small in Japan – the owner of this shop (service and a little selling) has more cars than he has space for – and with land so expensive, sometimes you just have to make do with what you have. Though it’s tough to make out in the photo, there is no metal-to-metal contact – though my eyeball guess is about a quarter inch separates them.

So what do we have here? Let’s start on the right – this is s very clean late ‘60s/early ‘70s Mercedes Benz 250 CE Coupe. Outside looks good with just a little faded paint – Inside from a distance (couldn’t get any pics – lot chained off) looks brand new. Not surprising as most Japanese owners are fastidious when it comes to the inside of their cars.

I like the look and stance of these classic 3-box Mercedes – styled by Paul Bracq. Interesting to compare this upright styling to the new 2017 400E Coupe with its swoopy C pillar.

Nissan Skyline (C10) GT-R Sedan from internet

On the left we have a ‘68-’72 Nissan Skyline 4-door. All the badges have been removed but my guess is it’s a GT model – don’t think it’s a GT-R as the interior looks pretty stock. It’s in somewhat poorer shape than the Mercedes but these older Skylines have a devoted following here – and there are quite a few shops that will take on a restoration.

Mercedes M114                                                                    Nissan L28

These two have something else in common – their engines. If this is a GT, then the Skyline has a 2.0 liter naturally aspirated version of Nissan’s strong SOHC L-series inline 6 – good for 120 hp. I’ve read at several different times that Nissan got a little help from Mercedes when designing the L-series back in the mid-60s. The 250 CE has the M114 straight 6 – 130 hp with Bosch D-Jetronic fuel injection. Take a look at both these engines – appearance-wise, they do look rather similar…

Hope on the next trip by the owner has sold a few cars so he has little more room to maneuver…