SBST ordered new buses to replace Mark twos
-
This is because they are yet to be refurbished. They will get a refurbn in due course, where they have different air-powered door mechanisms, with individual arms, which they fitted progressively to the O.405 fleet even when they were stil NAC because of the said door issues. It came down to the regulators in the doors only working to a certain amount of pressure to close the door, but not keep it closed (to a certain angle, one the angle increased, air pressure is also increased, so it stays in a certain position.
-
I believe everyone here knows that u r so anti-scania buses. Why ah? Every day u board scania buses uh? I guess u live in the east side and that's why u r sick and tired of scanias?Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:No thanks man, the faster the scanias N113 retire, the better for me . I am absolutely sick and disgusted of the sight of those scrap metals.
Scania CRB's are way better than those cramped, stuffy, rickety MK2s hands down! And besides, Scania CRBs have so called 'futuristic' engine and will stand the test of time. No other buses are very silky smooth and silent as Scania CRBs. Dennis Lances' performance are almost as close as Scania CRBs. Fantastic acceleration some more. U shud try taking sv39 Scania CRB and see how they perform on the expressways.
SMRT Scanias rock too!
I prefer MK2s to be scrapped. I hate the seats. -
Overall speaking, i find it a matter of course that the Scanias are THE more well engineered & 'refined' lot of buses compared to the Volvo B10M (whatever Mk.) eventhough in design age the N113's here are older than many of the B10M's here.
But also of course, my statements above are valid only upon the assumption of a properly maintained N113 i.e. N113 without all those over jerky gearchanging or excessive engine vibrations & noise due to too low engine idling speeds set etc. !! On almost ANY vehicle (even the top class marques) if they are not maintained up to the standard they're supposed to be in & designed to be, then the resulting experience can seem very lousy, maybe even perceived to be worse than some lousier marque but maintained in better conditions.
Vehicles with sub-standard maintenance & condition i don't recognize as i don't allow any such deviations from the original 'set norms' to influence my judgement as to whether, overall speaking, the model is 'good' or not. Only those in acceptable servicible condition to me i recognize & fortunately i do know there remains quite a good number of N113's here still in good enough form as not deserving to be written off as yet.
That's why my stand has been & remains that between the N113 & B10M (any Mk.) the N113 remains the better bus to be on !
Yes the Scania engine technology of charge-cooling & full engine encapsulation etc. was somewhat ahead of time in 1989 & even today remains quite technically advanced although many others have since narrowed the gap.
The suspension ride comfort on the N113, although noisy & lousy (compared to O 405 & O 305 standards) still is overall superior to that on the B10M's, where hard spine-jarring rides are the norm especially @ the extreme rear end !
Yes, i agree the B10M's are THE ones to be gotten rid off from here 1st ! Not necessarilly scraped yet but just exported to some more 'sub-standard' country
where sub-standard vehicles are more the norm there !! Talk of world class transport here ?!? That will never be so with models like B10M still hanging around ! Even the O 305 has that x-factor touch of class which makes it overall still superior (bus-chassis wise) to the B10M ! B10M as i've said is 'in the middle of nowhere' & is fast becoming an 'irrelevant' model in this day & age.Originally posted by cool_elf:I believe everyone here knows that u r so anti-scania buses. Why ah? Every day u board scania buses uh? I guess u live in the east side and that's why u r sick and tired of scanias?
Scania CRB's are way better than those cramped, stuffy, rickety MK2s hands down! And besides, Scania CRBs have so called 'futuristic' engine and will stand the test of time. No other buses are very silky smooth and silent as Scania CRBs. Dennis Lances' performance are almost as close as Scania CRBs. Fantastic acceleration some more. U shud try taking sv39 Scania CRB and see how they perform on the expressways.
SMRT Scanias rock too!
I prefer MK2s to be scrapped. I hate the seats. -
Lol! I also would rather have some N113s and O305s... B10Ms (except DM3500), go away. Hate to see them. Especially when going to school in Clementi, I try to close my eyes or wear cap. (Block myself from B10M, duh!)
-
You can't blame a west sider for being a Scania freak. Really.Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:No thanks man, the faster the scanias N113 retire, the better for me . I am absolutely sick and disgusted of the sight of those scrap metals.
-
B10Ms are coach chassis... u cant blame them for having a weak acceleration...
-
Can't help but to agree with you man.. I used to take NAC 170s MK2s everyday years ago to school and I really hate the experience. MK2s are powerful buses but what irates me most is that the air holes keep blowing hot stuffy air! Imagine boarding a semi crowded MK2s on hot afternoon and you'll sweat like mad. That's what I experienced. Really hate it man. Their cousins MK3s have nice bodywork but they are tortoises on roads! There are so many MK4s on the roads and it's quite boring to always board them.Originally posted by Donavan:Lol! I also would rather have some N113s and O305s... B10Ms (except DM3500), go away. Hate to see them. Especially when going to school in Clementi, I try to close my eyes or wear cap. (Block myself from B10M, duh!)
It's ok to take MK2s once in a while but not everyday!! I'd rather take MBO405s, Scanias or DDs than MK2s! The only Volvo bus that I can tolerate is MK4 DM3500.
MK2s are powerful but extremely uncomfortable bus to be in! MK2s are more like lorries transporting ppl!
I prefer those 80's NZMB Volvo B57s to Mk2s! Really missed the former.. -
r the new buses on the roads already?
-
Nt so FastttOriginally posted by 28_29_293:r the new buses on the roads already? -
Deleted
-
B10Ms' suspension are really "gone-case". Furthermore they are the constant source of screeching fan belts!
-
So far, I have not encountered this problem with DM3500s. Anyway, many B57s also had the screeching noise.Originally posted by Halide:B10Ms' suspension are really "gone-case". Furthermore they are the constant source of screeching fan belts! -
B10M hasn't got anything heavy @ the rear of the chassi.
That i find is THE major source of the problem of its extremely lousy uncomfortable air-suspension.Originally posted by Halide:B10Ms' suspension are really "gone-case". Furthermore they are the constant source of screeching fan belts! -
Those front engined leaf spring-suspended Volvo with NZMB bodies during the 80's are THE ultimate e.g. i find of a bus which is just like a lorry transporting people !!
Especially if you sit @ the extreme rear & the bus goes over a hump even @ low speed !! Your backside gets tossed up the air & lands most violently hard onto the seat afterwards with big shocks thru your spine ! Absolutely condemned lousy & outright failure in the area of suspension ride comfort !!!!
The B10M, being air-suspended is 'somewhat better' only but of course, compared with the rest here, still THE lousiest in this area nowadays.Originally posted by cool_elf:Can't help but to agree with you man.. I used to take NAC 170s MK2s everyday years ago to school and I really hate the experience. MK2s are powerful buses but what irates me most is that the air holes keep blowing hot stuffy air! Imagine boarding a semi crowded MK2s on hot afternoon and you'll sweat like mad. That's what I experienced. Really hate it man. Their cousins MK3s have nice bodywork but they are tortoises on roads! There are so many MK4s on the roads and it's quite boring to always board them.
It's ok to take MK2s once in a while but not everyday!! I'd rather take MBO405s, Scanias or DDs than MK2s! The only Volvo bus that I can tolerate is MK4 DM3500.
MK2s are powerful but extremely uncomfortable bus to be in! MK2s are more like lorries transporting ppl!
I prefer those 80's NZMB Volvo B57s to Mk2s! Really missed the former.. -
Accurate fleet list of Volvo B10M Mk IIs:
-
1844 and 1845 are CAC.Originally posted by Apex-LW'21:Accurate fleet list of Volvo B10M Mk IIs: -
So, there are now 31 NAC & 69 CAC Mk II buses (Duple Metsec).Originally posted by tranquilice:1844 and 1845 are CAC.
-
SBS1845Z is a NAC DM on sv151
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
SBS1696-1700 have alrd retired earlier this year.... Their lifespan not extended right?
[b]Dates of retirement for B10M-61 Mk II's
28/03/2007: 1696L
20/04/2007: 1697J
23/05/2007: 1698G, 1699D, 1700H
[/b] -
oops.Originally posted by lemon1974:SBS1696-1700 have alrd retired earlier this year.... Their lifespan not extended right? -
SBS1696L-SBS1700H had already retired this year, lifespan has not extended for the first 5 Mk II buses, the rest of the 194 were extended by 2 years. (SBS1836A had been sold to NZ)Originally posted by lemon1974:SBS1696-1700 have alrd retired earlier this year.... Their lifespan not extended right? -
bump to cause server to auto-delete 50 cent pictures