SMRT Buses purchases MAN A22 buses valued at S$65mln
-
Originally posted by buses[IN]gapore!:
When did K230UB stopped production?It has not stopped production, but the 230hp engine is no longer being offered in Australia for their K-Series Citybus.
>> Scania K Series 4x2 and Engines (Australia)
However, the engine is still being produced and offered to other markets.
So it's still possible to have a Scania K series UB type chassis and mount a 230hp engine on it, which is refered to as K230UB.
-
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:
Errr... NO.
A23 and A24 are the same, but A23 is an integral product (i.e. chassis & bodywork) whereas A24 is chassis ONLY.
Ah I see, so I can say SMRT (most likely) will have a A24....
-
Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:
I think you should just stop your rubbish in this forum. Go and get yourself scrap with the f lousy scania buses. Seriously irritating and annoying to some of us.
The MAN are equally horrible buses but in terms of load.It's like going as if everything will never suit you.
-
Originally posted by Merczrox:
In the 1st place,i thought ppl were saying that they were K270UBs??According to Scania, it's a K230UB, according to Woodlands Transport (the operator of the Budget Ter. shuttle), it's a K270UB, so we are not sure.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
It has not stopped production, but the 230hp engine is no longer being offered in Australia for their K-Series Citybus.
>> Scania K Series 4x2 and Engines (Australia)
However, the engine is still being produced and offered to other markets.
So it's still possible to have a Scania K series UB type chassis and mount a 230hp engine on it, which is refered to as K230UB.
The 230hp output engine is a derating of the 280hp output engine, so it wouldn't be difficult for Scania to continue production of this variant. The only thing is, Scania found that fuel consumption of the 230hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 5.57:1 (to aid startability) in a K-UB is higher than the consumption of the 280hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 4.88:1 under all conditions in an otherwise identical K-UB, so it makes no sense for operators to opt for the lower horsepower rating.
-
more citaros is fine, but there shld be lesser seats for more standees plus better a/c with eyeballs.
-
Originally posted by Merczrox:
In the 1st place,i thought ppl were saying that they were K270UBs??Someone had later confirmed that they were Scania K230UBs.
-
Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:
I think you should just stop your rubbish in this forum. Go and get yourself scrap with the f lousy scania buses. Seriously irritating and annoying to some of us.You were the one to be posting all your rubbish in this forum. If you find this irritating and annoying you can just step aside because as time goes by, the one who is really irritating and annoying is you.
-
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:
The 230hp output engine is a derating of the 280hp output engine, so it wouldn't be difficult for Scania to continue production of this variant. The only thing is, Scania found that fuel consumption of the 230hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 5.57:1 (to aid startability) in a K-UB is higher than the consumption of the 280hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 4.88:1 under all conditions in an otherwise identical K-UB, so it makes no sense for operators to opt for the lower horsepower rating.
Dave, the k230ub in sg are too configured with a final drive ratio of 5.57:1 (but smaller tyres) and i believe that was to ensure full use of the 6 available gears and torque. It's interesting as to why the australian k230ub are too configured to this ratio, while having larger tyres and limited to 100km/h (compared to 60km/h in sg). Wouldn't the gearshifts occur after 1500rpm in this case? Some efficiency would have already been lost, if so. Having the 4.88 ratio on the australian k230ub won't work too, as startability would likely go to crap.
-
Originally posted by TIB770T:
According to Scania, it's a K230UB, according to Woodlands Transport (the operator of the Budget Ter. shuttle), it's a K270UB, so we are not sure.
Check on One-Motoring. The model fits the description what Bus Stopping has said (Scania K-series 4x2). One of the regos is PC1095P according to the picture posted on that thread.
-
Originally posted by SMB228X:
That is why we need more Citaros! :D
More Citaros for which company?
-
Originally posted by SBS 1000U:
SBST fleet is bigger, so they can have the capacity to get more Citaros. 300 is only a small percentage in their 3000 fleet. So should get more Citaros as well.Well, you can say that is your mood but it is more logical for for SMRT to get more MAN A22s now since MAN bus is their new distributor now. And bendies isn't applicable to our infrastructure and operation changes from now, so will be better that SMRT switches to MAN double deckers instead. Double deckers are in long run better for SMRT.
Though SBST fleet is bigger and they should get more Citaros (as what you had said), but time shall proves everything. I believe by that time (when all 300 Citaros are on the road), people will no longer want to have more Citaros for SBST.
As for SMRT, it will have to depend on whether they want double decks. If they rejected the offer of double decks, what's the use of those 12m single decks on the road when even one cannot pick up passengers during peak hours? That is one of the reasons I believe bendies are a part of everyday life.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Actually I wouldn't mind getting 1000 Higers, Yutongs, King Longs and watching some folks writh in pain here.
So long as they dont use Cummins engines and they dont explode in my face.....oh and good aircon. I can live with the rest.
These buses are quite good.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Dave, the k230ub in sg are too configured with a final drive ratio of 5.57:1 (but smaller tyres) and i believe that was to ensure full use of the 6 available gears and torque. It's interesting as to why the australian k230ub are too configured to this ratio, while having larger tyres and limited to 100km/h (compared to 60km/h in sg). Wouldn't the gearshifts occur after 1500rpm in this case? Some efficiency would have already been lost, if so. Having the 4.88 ratio on the australian k230ub won't work too, as startability would likely go to crap.
The selection of larger tyres has the same effect as selecting a taller final drive ratio - a tradeoff between acceleration capability and top speed capability.
You're correct about the use of a 4.88:1 final drive ratio on a K230UB - the startability would be unacceptable. That's why Scania has chosen to offer the 280hp engine rating as an absolute minimum. The significantly higher torque of this engine variant (1400Nm compared to 1050Nm) ensures that startability and gradeability is improved despite the use of a taller final drive. The extra torque also has the advantage of ensuring that the engine doesn't have to work as hard in any given topographical situation. The use of TopoDyn on the ZF-Ecomat 4 transmission further strengthens this advantage.
-
I just realized one thing. @Powered_By_CNG, are you the same guy that produces OMSI mods for engines and gearboxes?
-
Originally posted by nfshp253:
I just realized one thing. @Powered_By_CNG, are you the same guy that produces OMSI mods for engines and gearboxes?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:
The selection of larger tyres has the same effect as selecting a taller final drive ratio - a tradeoff between acceleration capability and top speed capability.
You're correct about the use of a 4.88:1 final drive ratio on a K230UB - the startability would be unacceptable. That's why Scania has chosen to offer the 280hp engine rating as an absolute minimum. The significantly higher torque of this engine variant (1400Nm compared to 1050Nm) ensures that startability and gradeability is improved despite the use of a taller final drive. The extra torque also has the advantage of ensuring that the engine doesn't have to work as hard in any given topographical situation. The use of TopoDyn on the ZF-Ecomat 4 transmission further strengthens this advantage.
That's right, but for the Singapore market the taller final drive ratio and 280hp engines would be uncessary; as our transit buses don't go above 60km/h and operates mostly on roads without steep inclines. The short final drive ratio and smaller tyres alone should already allow the 230hp engine to provide sufficient torque for the terrain and loads, and up to the maximum speed of 60km/h in Singapore.
-
Aha but theres always exception.Although buses are governed till 60 but theres always a Tan Jiak bus that can hit 80 provided theres nothing wrong when you did it.These Tan Jiak bus are mostly EB,WT and spare buses...
-
Beside the so called Bendy chassis i also saw a 3 axles bogey chassis..Haha maybe SMRT interested in trialing DD?But wait i though the Lion City DD is 13.8m?
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
That's right, but for the Singapore market the taller final drive ratio and 280hp engines would be uncessary; as our transit buses don't go above 60km/h and operates mostly on roads without steep inclines. The short final drive ratio and smaller tyres alone should already allow the 230hp engine to provide sufficient torque for the terrain and loads, and up to the maximum speed of 60km/h in Singapore.
Even though the road speed requirement in Singapore does not exceed 60 km/h, a taller final drive ratio may provide advantages that you wouldn't realise until you see the specific fuel consumption curves for the relevant engines.
A shorter final drive ratio and/or smaller diameter tyres means that the engine needs to operate at a higher speed in order to achieve targetted road speeds in each gear. This in turn leads to unnecessarily higher fuel consumption.
As an example of how a tall final drive ratio and a high output engine can be beneficial, Sydney's Scania L113CRLs have a 3.80:1 final drive coupled to Scania's DSC 11 Euro 2 engine which outputs 310hp and 1315Nm. These buses have amazing off-the-line performance despite being fitted with such a tall final drive and return well under 40L/100km in stop-start urban traffic - better than many of today's state-of-the-art buses. The maximum road speed required for Sydney's city buses is 80 km/h.
As you can see, it is vitally important that bus operators choose the correct final drive ratio for every given model of bus. As for tyres, Australian operators prefer 11R 22.5 or 295/80R 22.5 sizes because they are far cheaper than the smaller 11/70R 22.5 and 275/70R 22.5 sizes.
-
Also, I should add that a shorter final drive ratio means more gearchanges - less comfortable for the travelling passengers and more difficult to operate smoothly for the driver.
-
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:
The 230hp output engine is a derating of the 280hp output engine, so it wouldn't be difficult for Scania to continue production of this variant. The only thing is, Scania found that fuel consumption of the 230hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 5.57:1 (to aid startability) in a K-UB is higher than the consumption of the 280hp engine combined with a final drive ratio of 4.88:1 under all conditions in an otherwise identical K-UB, so it makes no sense for operators to opt for the lower horsepower rating.
So the possibility of a K270UB detune to 230HP and "rebrand" as K230UB exist? -
Originally posted by Gus.chong:
Though SBST fleet is bigger and they should get more Citaros (as what you had said), but time shall proves everything. I believe by that time (when all 300 Citaros are on the road), people will no longer want to have more Citaros for SBST.
As for SMRT, it will have to depend on whether they want double decks. If they rejected the offer of double decks, what's the use of those 12m single decks on the road when even one cannot pick up passengers during peak hours? That is one of the reasons I believe bendies are a part of everyday life.
300 Citaros is nothing as compared to 1100 K230UBs, so more people will want more Citaros, especially it if fully low floor.
Currently there are only 2 low floor models in Singapore being purchased, Mercedes Benz Citaro and MAN A22. Since SBST has already engage Mercedes Benz for new Citaros, it is logical for them to get more Citaros in future. And Citaros are better than A22 because A22 has a crooked rear narrow aisle, which is even worse than the Citaro. Volvo B9TL full low floor configuration is the best of the 3 but is a double decker chassis.
As for SMRT double deckers, it is still best for them to use double deckers.
As mentioned by someone, feeder services will have more stringent frequencies after the new QC requirements. More buses on a feeder service means better frequncies which means number of passengers in a bus will be lesser. Thus it is useless to use bendies if they are not fully utilised all the time, which in turn waste more fuel and road space, and increase operating costs. And double deckers are more suitable for space tight city roads and using bendies on city routes like 190 are definately hogging other buses schedules instead.Originally posted by Gus.chong:More Citaros for which company?
For both.
-
Originally posted by buses[IN]gapore!:
So the possibility of a K270UB detune to 230HP and "rebrand" as K230UB exist?The K230UB Euro 4 has a detuned 270hp engine. The K230UB Euro 5/EEV has a detuned 280hp engine. K270UB = Euro 4, K280UB = Euro 5/EEV. The Euro 5/EEV engine has a higher pressure injection system, a larger displacement (9.3-litres instead of 8.9-litres thanks to a larger bore diameter) and a variable geometry turbocharger. All this extra technology makes a significant difference - the 270hp engine produces 1250Nm of torque whereas the 280hp engine produces 1400Nm.
-
Originally posted by Powered_By_CNG:
Yes.
OMG! It's really you! Thanks for your wonderful work. Maybe you could work on creating Scania engine mods the next time. :)