MPG for a bus?

SgtTupac said:
Buses we get into work average around 4mpg.

Edit - thats a single decker, 12 litre diesel.
SgtTupac said:
It was a Volvo B12M.
SgtTupac said:
In Cardiff City centre they use B10's They are 10Litre diesel, but probaly average around 8mpg.
don't you think it's strange that the B12 is only averaging HALF the consumption of the B10?
it makes you wonder why they chose to go with them, especially as the B12 on a '53 plate will probably be a Euro 3 engine so you'd expect economy to be higher.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
don't you think it's strange that the B12 is only averaging HALF the consumption of the B10?
it makes you wonder why they chose to go with them, especially as the B12 on a '53 plate will probably be a Euro 3 engine so you'd expect economy to be higher.

We have some "Euro 3" Scanias that are considerably worse (despite the same 420BHP rating) on fuel than our previous "W" reg 420's that recently went back.

Busses will have auto boxes in the main (fuel drinkers) and by the definition of their job will return poor consumption figures.

The average truck won't break far into double figures, yet they average a considerable mileage cruising on motorways & A roads , at very good economy. Something busses rarely get the opertunity to do.
 
R124/LA420 said:
We have some "Euro 3" Scanias that are considerably worse (despite the same 420BHP rating) on fuel than our previous "W" reg 420's that recently went back.
it took Scania a while to get Euro 3 right IIRC.
R124/LA420 said:
Busses will have auto boxes in the main (fuel drinkers) and by the definition of their job will return poor consumption figures.
not so sure i'd agree with that.
the Volvo Geartronic doesn't return economy figures much lower than the manual and the Semi-auto/full auto switchable in the Actros returns very good figures.
R124/LA420 said:
The average truck won't break far into double figures, yet they average a considerable mileage cruising on motorways & A roads , at very good economy. Something busses rarely get the opertunity to do.
true, but remember trucks are geared to do upto 60MPH and be able to pull upto 44 tonnes in this country, neither of which are within the remit of a bus design.
 
We aint arguing lol? Anyways, most buses around here are AUTO's. We do have the new I-Shift design in the B12B Deckers. The new Volvos are Euro 4, but they are 13 litre and are not yet in buses. I know up in Birmingham they run gas buses, these are diesel engines converted to run on gas.
 
The_Dark_Side said:
seriously, if you knew the amount of tat in my head you'd be worried for my safety. :eek:
Spoken for truth. :o

Its the diesel fumes that do it to us..... :p :D

arguing? me? Naah! :p
 
Volvo B7TL Double Decker
release of co2/km total 1,406g
release of NOx/km total 12.3g
average fuel consumption 54.03 l/100km (approx 5.2 mpg)

Mercedes Citaro Artic (so called bendy bus)
release of co2/km total 1585.7
release of NOx/km total 13.61
average fuel consumption 59.82 l/100km (approx 4.7 mpg)

And the biggest surprise:
Leyland Olympian DD Cummins repower no trap (the oldest double decker on London roads - except hop on/hop off on selected routes)
release of co2/km total 1288.3
release of NOx/km 16.06
average fuel consumption 48.75 l/100km (approx 5.8)

The figures above are on empty, unladded run on route 159. Test by Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.
London transport quotes 8 people on average per km of bus run in London. Regardless of a bus.
 
Last edited:
So the oldest engine is the most economical and releases the least CO2 :confused:

However is it actually good at what it does?

Whats this Euro-3, Euro-4 classification all about?
 
Stonedofmoo said:
So the oldest engine is the most economical and releases the least CO2 :confused:
I don't have precise numbers (no one researched it properly) but if you want to trust TFL drivers, apparently they mentioned many times before Routemasters were taken off London roads, that old Routemaster was most efficient in terms of mpg - ~ 9 mpg - and by fuel burning alone produced less CO2 than newer Euro3 engines. All that because it was much lighter than any of the newer buses. Same with Layland Olympian - because they are lighter and don't have all the extra mod cons - active suspension, TFT screens, halogen interior lighting, climate control etc - it is effectively poluting less. However, Mad Ken and Transport for London worked under impression that if they rolled out bendy buses everywhere they would take more passengers and as such polute less per person carried. Of course this is stupid approach, because number of passengers on given route remains the same regardless of the bus and is currently nowhere near full capacity. Effectively any Euro4, smaller, lighter bus could do the same job at 30% of price of bendy bus, without clogging small streets and junctions, in much faster fashion with just as many modern advances onboard. But someone cashed in on the contract and convinced Ken to go for 18 metre monstrocities which are, de facto, most poluting bus ever driven on London roads... in process killing one of the last London icons - doubledecker bus. It is, from all angles, equivalent of running Airbus A380 on commuter route between Manchester and Birmingham.
 
Stonedofmoo said:
Whats this Euro-3, Euro-4 classification all about?
it's an emission specification, that's the easiest way to put it.
the 1.5td in the megane is a Euro4 spec engine, that's why it's only £50/YEAR to road tax it.

EDIT they run sequentially, Euro4 being current.
 
v0n said:
However, Mad Ken and Transport for London worked under impression that if they rolled out bendy buses everywhere they would take more passengers and as such polute less per person carried. Of course this is stupid approach, because number of passengers on given route remains the same regardless of the bus and is currently nowhere near full capacity.
the only way that would work is if they ran less frequently, therefore putting the compliments of two or three buses into the catchment of one bendy-bus.
and less frequent is exactly what they're trying to avoid.
politicians...you gotta love 'em.
 
Stonedofmoo said:
However is it actually good at what it does?
Cummins engines are meant to be the dogs danglies, really powerful unit according to my dad.

Why don't cities still use trolley buses?
They're one of the most efficient forms of transport and need less infrastructure than trams and light railways.
 
Last edited:
Mr Joshua said:
Cummins engines are meant to be the dogs danglies, really powerful unit according to my dad.
always a powerful lump.
you can tell if your on top of a cummins as it will barely spin more than a couple of revolutions before firing.
 
v0n said:
I don't have precise numbers (no one researched it properly) but if you want to trust TFL drivers, apparently they mentioned many times before Routemasters were taken off London roads, that old Routemaster was most efficient in terms of mpg - ~ 9 mpg - and by fuel burning alone produced less CO2 than newer Euro3 engines. All that because it was much lighter than any of the newer buses. Same with Layland Olympian - because they are lighter and don't have all the extra mod cons - active suspension, TFT screens, halogen interior lighting, climate control etc - it is effectively poluting less. However, Mad Ken and Transport for London worked under impression that if they rolled out bendy buses everywhere they would take more passengers and as such polute less per person carried. Of course this is stupid approach, because number of passengers on given route remains the same regardless of the bus and is currently nowhere near full capacity. Effectively any Euro4, smaller, lighter bus could do the same job at 30% of price of bendy bus, without clogging small streets and junctions, in much faster fashion with just as many modern advances onboard. But someone cashed in on the contract and convinced Ken to go for 18 metre monstrocities which are, de facto, most poluting bus ever driven on London roads... in process killing one of the last London icons - doubledecker bus. It is, from all angles, equivalent of running Airbus A380 on commuter route between Manchester and Birmingham.

I have to be honest with you though, the 3 doors to get off and on with on bendy buses are bloody useful on the busy routes :p
 
When I worked at New Flyer building busses, we had the Deisel-electric hybrid and the gasoline-electric hybrid variants coming through the line. The D-E-H was meant to get up into the double digits with a full load in city traffic. The G-E-H was meant to get up to and including 15mpg in city traffic. And these were the 40 foot variants.

The standard Cummins and John Deere Deisels were supposed to get around 6-7mpg (US gallon) fully loaded, but thier emissions were supposed to be much less than earlier models. Not too sure if they actually achieved that, but that was what the brochure said.

Then you get the 4BRT's (Bus Rapid Transit) like Cleveland uses. These are 60ft articulated (bendy) busses that are specifically designed to run as express busses (very few stops, travel on highways a lot). They were getting up to and including 20mpg with the DE60LF (Deisel Electric 60ft Low Floor) with a full load of passengers. Not sure how they were doing that, guess it was the whole screaming down the road at 75mph that did it. They are also VERY aerodynamic and made from a lot of alloys to lighten them up. They were also geared for freeway use, so they accelerated VERY slowly in comparison to thier non-BRT bretheren. But they just ticked over at 75mph. Could barely hear the engine sitting in the rear most seat. But OMG they were a right pain in the arse to build!! That joint in the middle made for some VERY interesting routing of wires, hydraulic lines, air lines, A/C coolant lines, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom