Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AC7880 · (This post was last modified: 02-14-2014 01:44 by AC7880.)

My 0nly 2 diesels have been a 83 FC35 Cat 3208 225 HP, and my turned up mechanical Turbo Cummins 8.3 in my 94 BMC 37'.

What years did the EGR kick in on Bluebird? 2004 as below? What effect on MPG, HP, and TQ, heating/cooling from EGR?

"I am with you there Steve, and from my personal perspective I would not consider buying a new coach at all. After having had a fleet of new trucks with DPF's and DEF, I have learned that all of these new emissions systems are problematic. It seems that 9 issues out of 10 are related to the emissions systems. FWIW, I have no issues with the 2004 emissions regs that require EGR only, and that regulation extends to include 2007 model year engines. For me that is the newest coach that I would ever consider owning. "

Also, what are the opinions on the ISL in the M380 VS the ISM in the LX coaches?

Would you consider one engine inherently "better" than the other, or similar given the different application of coach weight? Would you think MPG of the M380 and the LX would be similar given the different rear axle ratios and higher TQ of the LX? In other words, would the LX ISM overcome the greater weight with the higher TQ and axle ratio?

My "guess" is the LX will be around 1 mpg less than the M380. The M380 scares me a bit with the limited CCC, availability of front end components (ball joints), and the head gasket issues affecting some of them.

JD33 · 02-14-2014, 18:57

Dan, I don't think that you are far off on your guess re fuel mileage LX vs M380. Personally I can only speak of an LX, and I am very happy with the power to weight ratio and fuel economy of the coach. Pre 2004 for sure there is no emissions concerns, my 2001 LX does not even have an EGR. FWIW, I pull a 26' enclosed featherlight behind my LX, fully loaded, run between 65 and 70 up and down the east coast on I-81, I-77 and I-95 and average right around 7 mpg. I do not find any hill a challenge and that includes Fancy Gap.
That being said I would not hesitate to look hard at an M380, however the concerns that you mentioned are certainly valid.

JD33 · (This post was last modified: 02-25-2014 09:39 by JD33.)

My friend is on the way back to FL with his new Entegra, I will ask him how the engine job went and post back once I see him

DonB · 02-25-2014, 20:19

The M380 does not have an EGR. Perhaps because the engines were all made in 2002.

A comment was made about Newells being aluminum, which is true also of the M380. I do not doubt that my old 90WB would handle a rollover better than my M380, so I guess I will just have to not roll it over Smile

Seriously, though, neither a Newell nor an M380 is going to blow apart like a coach where the walls are built by vacu-forming a sandwich of fiberglass, 1x1 aluminum framing, and a tyan-board inner wall, with some foam sheet inbetween. Stand that up, bolt it to the floor, and hold it all up using the internal walls and cabinets.

By comparison, I have 1x2 stainless ribbing acting as studs, then everything added to it like a stick-built house. Another example of differences is that the floor of the bays are stainless, while they are usually not metal on a standard coach or are simple sheet metal. I've seen some examples where everything has rotted or corroded.

The biggest risk in an M380 apparently is fire in the exhaust stack. I don't want to downplay that, but all of the pictures of the handful of coaches that have burned show that they still have structural integrity. Would not be the case with an all-fiberglass coach.

JD33 · 03-02-2014, 09:29

So my friend did get his new Entergra and stacker, they put a new engine in it and all is well for now. He drove it back from Indiana to Florida lat week, pulling an empty stacker and is positive after checking it several times that he got 3.4 mpg. So maybe things are not so good? Something is definitely wrong there I think.

***ernie ekberg*** · 03-02-2014, 10:37

3.4 mpg--plus you have to use that DEF junk
hope he has deep pockets

AC7880 · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 18:01 by AC7880.)

Did they have to cut the rear cap and engine area framing to swap engines? 3-4 mpg from a ISX seems extremely low. Did he hand calculate it, or rely on the engine computer readout?

I would have guessed 5-7 mpg range (60-70 mph) for the newest Cummins ISX, even with the weight and frontal area of that coach. I'd want to research lemon laws on the purchase if Cummins/Entegra can't sort it out.

A 45 foot coach is way to big for my personal preference, and 4 slides adds too much complexity for my taste. I might do a 1 - 2 slide 38' - 40' coach someday - after researching which slide systems are reliable and which are not.

(03-02-2014 09:29)JD33 Wrote: So my friend did get his new Entergra and stacker, they put a new engine in it and all is well for now. He drove it back from Indiana to Florida lat week, pulling an empty stacker and is positive after checking it several times that he got 3.4 mpg. So maybe things are not so good? Something is definitely wrong there I think.

That's some good MPG while pulling a trailer of that size and at that speed. I usually cruise 63 - 68 on interstates and get 8.5 towing a light Honda Fit (94 BMC 37').

(02-14-2014 18:57)JD33 Wrote: Dan, I don't think that you are far off on your guess re fuel mileage LX vs M380. Personally I can only speak of an LX, and I am very happy with the power to weight ratio and fuel economy of the coach. Pre 2004 for sure there is no emissions concerns, my 2001 LX does not even have an EGR. FWIW, I pull a 26' enclosed featherlight behind my LX, fully loaded, run between 65 and 70 up and down the east coast on I-81, I-77 and I-95 and average right around 7 mpg. I do not find any hill a challenge and that includes Fancy Gap.
That being said I would not hesitate to look hard at an M380, however the concerns that you mentioned are certainly valid.