Opinions on Engines and Transmissions - Luxury Coach Lifestyles
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-27-2006, 12:37 AM   #1
Clay
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 2
Default Opinions on Engines and Transmissions

Im in the begining stages of learning all I can about Newells...so I can hopefully buy a used coach soon.
Does anyone have an opinion on the best engine Newell offered for late 70's, and on up to the late 80's?...
Where there engine, transmisson combos that were just about bullet proof?
Detroit Deisel, Cummins, Catipillar....were they all bolted up to an Allison transmission?.....Did Allison make any one unit that stood out as the best...or perhaps the worst?
Are there some Engines that are easier/less expensive to maintane/rebuild....than others?
thanks for any and all feedback...
__________________

Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2006, 02:42 AM   #2
fulltiming
Senior Member
 
fulltiming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,554
Default

I have seen Newells during that time period with the 3208 Cat, the 555 and 903 Cummins and the Detroit Diesel 6V92. The ones I have seen have all had Allison transmissions, typically the 65x and 7xx series. The 8V92 Detroits were available by 1986 and possibly earlier. The HT 740 Allison was commonly used with the larger engines at least by 1980 and on through the early 1990's.

As to which engine was best, there are Cat people, Cummins people and Detroit people. The size and weight of the coach made a difference in the performance. The 555 Cummins was not considered a speed demon.
__________________

__________________
Michael and Georgia Day
1992 Newell 43.5' #281
8V92 DDEC-2, HT740
PT Cruiser GT with Remco Transmission Pump
http://www.newellowners.com/newellphoto.html
fulltiming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2006, 06:53 AM   #3
ttikalsky
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 43
Default

Had a 1983 Blue Bird Wanderlodge 33 foot weighing 33,000 pounds with the Cat 3208 rated at 225 HP and it was slow, slow, slow. Got me where we needed to go but not quickly. Now have a Newell 40 ft weighing the same 33,000 pounds with the Detroit 8V92TA rated at 475 HP and I am VERY happy. I can reach highway speeds before the end of the ramps, pass with confidence and climb hills without worrying about the truckers getting annoyed with me. I wouldn't want to go back.


Troy Tikalsky
1986 Newell
ttikalsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2006, 05:47 AM   #4
HereWeGo
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hackensack, NJ
Posts: 6
Default

I have owned the Cummins, Detroit and Cat of those era's and my personal first choice is the 6V92 Turbo. They put out the most horse power and have plenty of parts still available since they were used in thousands of buses like Greyhound. There are still mechanics out there who know that engine over the other. Some of the classic Newell owners I have ran into that own the older Cummins and Cats, personally know the engines and do most of their own maintenance. In the late 80's I assume the normal engine option was the 8V92 unless someone just had to have something different.
HereWeGo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2007, 11:17 PM   #5
JohnC
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Grove Oklahoma
Posts: 89
Default

If you plan to drive substantially in mountainous areas I suggest staying with the 6V or 8V Detroit series engines.

John
JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Newell Coach Corporation or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.