DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of the Market for Small to Medium Sized Cutaway Buses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of the Market for Small to Medium Sized Cutaway Buses An Evaluation of the Market for Small-to-Medium-Sized Cutaway Buses FINAL REPORT FTA Project Number: MI-26-7280.07.1 December 21, 2007 FTA Project #: MI-26-7208.07.1 An Evaluation of the Market for Small-to-Medium-Sized Cutaway Buses Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202- 4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 21, 2007 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Evaluation of the Market for Small-to-Medium-Sized Cutaway Buses 6. AUTHOR(S) Hidalgo & DeVries, Inc. – Primary Contractor Frances Kernodle Associates, Inc. – Sub Contractor 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER Hidalgo & DeVries, Inc. Frances Kernodle Associates, Inc. 560 Fifth Street 113 N. Alfred Street FTA -003 Suite 401 Alexandria, VA 22314 Grand Rapids, MI 49504 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING US Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Transit Administration Office of Program Management MI-26-7280.07.1 Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Available From: National Technical Information Service/NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Phone 703.605.6000, Fax 703.605.6900, Email [[email protected]] 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words). Small-to-medium-sized cutaway buses represent the most widely available for of public transportation today. Generally associated with demand response, these vehicles are used extensively in both the public and private transportation sectors. The FTA sponsored this research, following the 2005 heavy-duty transit bus study, to provide an exploratory evaluation of the U.S. small-to-medium-sized cutaway bus industry. This study is available to all interested readers but includes information particularly salient to federal transportation officials, transit agency representatives, and bus manufacturing industry professionals. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 199 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18298-102 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Federal Transit Administration An Evaluation of the Market for Small-to-Medium-Sized Cutaway Buses Project Number: MI-26-7280.07.1 Contract Number: DTFT60-07-C-00003 Prepared by: HD/FKA Hidalgo & De Vries, Inc. Frances Kernodle Associates, Inc. 560 Fifth Street, Suite 401 113 North Alfred Street Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Alexandria, VA 22314 December 21, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................... III DISCLAIMER/NOTICE ...................................................................................................... IV GLOSSARY................................................................................................................. V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 1 STUDY GOALS & OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................... 1 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MARKET OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 2 KEY FINDINGS RELEVANT TO PARTICIPATING PUBLIC TRANSIT AGENCIES ..................... 4 KEY FINDINGS RELEVANT TO CUTAWAY BUS MANUFACTURERS.................................... 6 KEY ELEMENTS OF OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 11 RESEARCH BACKGROUND.............................................................................................. 11 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 1: MARKET OVERVIEW..................................................................................... 16 1.1 PRINCIPAL SERVICE FOR CUTAWAY VEHICLES IN PUBLIC TRANSIT................... 16 1.2 FLEET SIZE, VEHICLE LENGTH & OTHER CHARACTERISTICS............................. 19 1.3 VEHICLE COSTS ................................................................................................. 23 1.4 FUEL & PROPULSION SYSTEMS .......................................................................... 26 1.5 MARKET SUBSTITUTIONS................................................................................... 33 1.6 FEDERAL FUNDING & RELEVANT LEGISLATION ................................................ 37 1.7 RIDE SOLUTION –- PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA ................................................ 42 1.8 REPRESENTATIVE TRANSIT AGENCIES ............................................................... 43 1.9 CUTAWAY MANUFACTURER HIGHLIGHTS AND INFORMATION........................... 49 CHAPTER 2: TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY RESULTS & ANALYSIS ............................ 57 2.1 OWNERSHIP & OPERATIONS .............................................................................. 58 2.2 CUTAWAY FLEET INFORMATION........................................................................ 60 2.3 TYPES OF SERVICE ............................................................................................. 63 2.4 NEW PURCHASES & DELIVERY .......................................................................... 65 2.5 FEDERAL PROVISIONS, PROCUREMENT ISSUES AND FUNDING ........................... 67 2.6 FUEL SYSTEMS & NEW TECHNOLOGIES............................................................. 73 CHAPTER 3: CUTAWAY MANUFACTURER SURVEY RESULTS & ANALYSIS ........ 76 3.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................ 76 3.2 PRODUCTION CAPACITY .................................................................................... 78 3.3 PRODUCTION MATERIALS AND COMPONENTS.................................................... 79 3.4 LABOR FACTORS................................................................................................ 80 3.5 SALES, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES .......................................... 81 3.6 WARRANTY ISSUES............................................................................................ 82 i CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEWS WITH CUTAWAY MANUFACTURERS 84 4.1 CURRENT STATE OF THE CUTAWAY BUS MARKET ............................................ 84 4.2 FACTORS RELATED TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION & THE FTA.......................... 87 4.3 PROCUREMENT ISSUES....................................................................................... 91 4.4 SALES & MARKETING, LABOR, MATERIALS, WARRANTY ISSUES, R & D .......... 94 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS & OBSERVATIONS ............................................................ 99 5.1 COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE FOR CUTAWAY MANUFACTURERS ........................... 99 5.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF CUTAWAY MANUFACTURERS VERSUS HEAVY-DUTY .. 104 TRANSIT BUS MANUFACTURERS.................................................................................. 104 5.3 SUMMARIZED MARKET TRENDS ...................................................................... 105 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................ 107 INDEX OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX 1: DATASET................................................................................................. 111 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF U.S. TRANSIT AGENCIES REPORTING CUTAWAY VEHICLES....... 148 APPENDIX 3: TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY INSTRUMENT................................................ 153 APPENDIX 4: MANUFACTURER SURVEY INSTRUMENT ................................................. 161 APPENDIX 5: MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................... 167 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 177 ENDNOTES ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS by MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008
    Page 1 of 32 VEHICLE RECALLS BY MANUFACTURER, 2000 Report Prepared 1/16/2008 MANUFACTURER RECALLS VEHICLES ACCUBUIL T, INC 1 8 AM GENERAL CORPORATION 1 980 AMERICAN EAGLE MOTORCYCLE CO 1 14 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO 8 212,212 AMERICAN SUNDIRO MOTORCYCLE 1 2,183 AMERICAN SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. 4 25,023 AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORP. 5 1,441 APRILIA USA INC. 2 409 ASTON MARTIN 2 666 ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 3 304 B. FOSTER & COMPANY, INC. 1 422 BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE 11 28,738 BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY 12 62,692 BUELL MOTORCYCLE CO 4 12,230 CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC. 1 818 CARPENTER INDUSTRIES, INC. 2 6,838 CLASSIC LIMOUSINE 1 492 CLASSIC MANUFACTURING, INC. 1 8 COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC. 8 5,271 COACHMEN RV COMPANY 1 576 COLLINS BUS CORPORATION 1 286 COUNTRY COACH INC 6 519 CRANE CARRIER COMPANY 1 138 DABRYAN COACH BUILDERS 1 723 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION 30 6,700,752 DAMON CORPORATION 3 824 DAVINCI COACHWORKS, INC 1 144 D'ELEGANT CONVERSIONS, INC. 1 34 DORSEY TRAILERS, INC. 1 210 DUTCHMEN MANUFACTURING, INC 1 105 ELDORADO NATIONAL 1 173 ELECTRIC TRANSIT, INC. 1 54 ELGIN SWEEPER COMPANY 1 40 E-ONE, INC. 1 3 EUROPA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2 242 EXECUTIVE COACH BUILDERS 1 702 FEATHERLITE LUXURY COACHES 1 83 FEATHERLITE, INC. 2 3,235 FEDERAL COACH, LLC 1 230 FERRARI NORTH AMERICA 8 1,601 FLEETWOOD ENT., INC. 5 12, 119 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 60 7,485,466 FOREST RIVER, INC. 1 115 FORETRAVEL, INC. 3 478 FOURWINNS 2 2,276 FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION 27 233,032 FREIGHTLINER LLC 1 803 GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Operations Program -- Overview Of
    July 2000 • NREL/MP-540-27962 Field Operations Program― Overview of Advanced Technology Transportation CY2000 K. Kelly L. Eudy National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste Field Operations Program—Overview of Advanced Technology Transportation, CY 2000 The transportation industry’s private sector is adept at understanding and meeting the demands of its customers; the federal government has a role in encouraging the development of products that are in the long-term interest of the greater public good. It is up to the government to understand issues that affect public health, well-being, and security.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiesel Fleet Durability Study
    Draft Final Report Biodiesel Fleet Durability Study Prepared for: Mr. Bob Okamoto California Air Resources Board 1001 "I" Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 July 2010 Submitted by: Dr. Thomas D. Durbin Dr. J. Wayne Miller Ms. S. Michelle Jiang University of California CE-CERT Riverside, CA 92521 951-781-5791 951-781-5790 (fax) Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the California Air Resource Board. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products. Acknowledgments We acknowledge funding from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the grant No. G06-AF38. i Table of Contents Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii List of Tables iv Table of Figures v Abstract vi Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Executive Summary ix 1 Introduction 1 2 Biodiesel Use in Use in Compression Ignition Engines 3 2.1 Biodiesel Basics 3 2.1.1 What is Biodiesel? 3 2.1.2 Properties of Commercial #2 Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels 3 2.1.3 Biodiesel Fuel Standards 5 2.2 Engine and Fuel System with Biodiesel Use 7 2.2.1 Biodiesel Use in Compression Ignition Engines 7 2.2.2 Statement of the Diesel Fuel Injector Manufacturers 9 2.2.3 Warranties 9 2.2.4 Engine Performance 12 2.2.5 Biodiesel Solvency & Filter Plugging 12 2.2.6 Materials Compatibility 12 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • Bill No. 85-33 (COR)
    I lWINA'TRENTAI TRES NA LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN 2015 (FIRST) Regular Session Bill No Introduced by: T. C. Ada AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE GUAM REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (GRTA) TO ENTER INTO A LONG TERM PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL ENABLE AN INVESTOR FINANCED IMPLEMENT A TI ON OF THE GOVERN~1ENT OF GlJAivl TRANSIT BUSINESS PLAN 2009-2015. '~ 1 Section I. Findings & Intent. 1 Lihes/aturan Guahan finds that an effec'\iii-e \:o\_ 2 and efficient public transit system is needed to support Guam· s growing popu.J)i{ion '• '°'\%, 3 and economic development. •" 4 And I Liheslaturan Guahan further finds that a similar observation was 5 made by the Governor of Guam on February 20, 2014 through Executive Order 6 2014-04 noting that despite millions of dollars of annual subsidies, Guam's public 7 transit system is: ( J) "lacking in timeliness, re!iahi/i(y. accessibility··· al! necessary 8 fi111ctions of'transportation and economy ... ". and (2) " ... As the demand [f(Jr 9 transportation related services} grows. so do the concerns over traffic 10 congestion ... ". and 0) " ... improving acccssihi!i(v to contemporary transportation 11 to all Guamanians is a priority .. 12 1 Lihes/aturan Guahan further finds that the island's public transit system is 13 rapidly deteriorating. Consequently the eJlectiveness of the current system is being 14 negatively impacted and is losing its ability to eHiciently serve as an alternate 1 1 mode of transportation. This is evidenced by the fact that ridership has declined 2 30% in the past 4 years. 3 I Liheslaturan Guahan additionally finds that in a December 2008 study, 4 jointly commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 5 Department of Public \Yorks (DP\V) and which formed the basis for the 2030 6 Guam Transportation MasterPlan, the following findings were made.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020-2025 Transit Development Plan
    2020 - 2025 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Wheaton Way Transit Center Grand Opening Nov. 2019 Photo By All American Marine Table of Contents Contents Glossary 3 Section I: Organization 3 Section II: Physical Plant 6 Section III: Service Characteristics 7 Section IV: Service Connections 10 Section V: Activities in 2019 12 Section VI: Proposed Action Strategies, 2020 – 2025 14 Section VII: Capital Planning 16 Section VIII: Operating Data, 2019 – 2025 17 Section IX: Operating Revenues and Expenditures, 2019 – 2025 19 Section X: Transit System Vision Map 20 Appendix I: Routed System Map 21 Appendix II: Equipment & Facilities Asset Inventory 22 Appendix III: Fleet Inventory 23 Appendix IV: SK Ride Service Area Map 24 Appendix V: Kingston Ride Service Area Map 25 Appendix VI: Kingston Fast Ferry Commuter Service Area Map 26 Kitsap Transit 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200, Bremerton, WA 98337 Date of Public Hearing: September 1, 2020 Pursuant to RCW 35.58.2795 2 Glossary ACCESS – Kitsap Transit’s ADA demand ORCA – One Regional Card for All regional response bus service fare payment card used on Puget Sound area transit systems and WSF ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act PSNS – Puget Sound Naval Shipyard APC – Automatic Passenger Counters ROW – Right of Way AVL – Automatic Vehicle Locator RRFP – Regional Reduced Fare Permit ORCA BTC – Bremerton Transportation Center Card for qualified persons to ride for reduced cost at ½ the normal fare. CRA – Comprehensive Route Analysis TAM – Transit Asset Management Plan CTR – Commute Trip Reduction TIP – Transportation Incentive Program for DOD – Department of Defense Department of Navy employees to help reduce their daily contribution to traffic DSHS – Department of Social and Health congestion and air pollution, as well as Services expand their commuting alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Chassis Catalog
    Parts for Trucks, Trailers & Buses ® BUS PARTS 7 CHASSIS Proven, reliable and always innovative. TRP® offers reliable aftermarket products that are designed and tested to exceed customers’ expectations regardless of the vehicle make, model or age. FENDERS • SUSPENSION & RIDE CONTROL • WHEEL END Tested. Reliable. Guaranteed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chassis CHASSIS FENDERS Choosing the right Half Fenders - Poly ............................7-5 replacement part or service for your vehicle—whether you own Full Fenders - Poly ............................7-6 one, or a fleet—is one of the Single Axle Fenders - Poly ......................7-7 most important decisions you can make for your business. Super Single Fenders - Half . 7-9 And, with tested TRP® parts Super Single Fenders - Full .....................7-9 it’s an easy decision. Super Single Fenders - Quarter .................7-11 Regardless of the make you drive, TRP® quality Half Fenders ................................7-13 replacement parts are Full Fenders ................................7-17 engineered to fit your truck, trailer or bus. Choose the Single Axle Fenders ..........................7-21 parts that give you the best Quarter Fenders . 7-26 value for your business. Check them out at an approved Fender Mounting Kits .........................7-29 ® TRP retailer near you. Top Flap for Quarter Fender ....................7-39 Mudflap Hangers ............................7-40 The cross reference information in this catalog is based upon data provided by several industry sources and our partners. While every attempt is made to ensure the information presented is accurate, we bear no liability due to incorrect or incomplete information. Product Availability Due to export restrictions and market ® demands, not all products are TRP North America always available in every location.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 10 School Bus Companies Blog
    TOP 10 SCHOOL BUS COMPANIES Throughout the years, the task of making the best buses for school transportation has been handled by various companies. This article features 10 school bus companies which made a name for themselves, when it came to redefining the way we look at a school bus. #1 WAYNE CORPORATION Topping our list of companies is Wayne Corporation. Though the company declared itself bankrupt and discontinued operation in 1992, the Wayne Corporation had played a vital role in the development of safe buses for school children. They were the first and foremost to introduce the concept of school buses for schools. Their innovation predates the famous yellow coloured buses which are widely used these days. www.trackschoolbus.com They introduced the horse drawn carts, including kid hacks, which later evolved into automobiles which used full metal body chassis. Wayne Corporation introduced guard rails on the sides of all school buses, inboard wheelchair lifts, and even high-headroom doors. They were the first with a school bus based upon a cutaway van chassis, the Wayne Busette. This chassis design is still one of the most popular in North American markets even after more than 35 years. #2 BLUE BIRD An all time giant, the Blue Bird Corporation (formerly called Blue Bird Body Company) is clearly one of the top school bus manufacturing companies even today. Blue Bird's corporate headquarters and main manufacturing facilities are in Georgia. www.trackschoolbus.com It was in 1937 that the company began production of full-steel bus bodies. This innovation would soon replace the wooden bodies which were commonly used in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service
    TRANSIT SERVICE Transit services in Glendale include the Beeline local transit system and the services provided by the MTA. These systems combine to provide frequent transit service on many key streets in downtown Glendale. Transit service is offered at least every 10 minutes on Brand, Central south of Broadway, San Fernando, 4 Glendale Boulevard, and Broadway. With service this frequent, riders do not need to carry a schedule, but can depend on the next bus arriving soon after they reach their bus stop. Figure 4-1 shows the existing transit services in the study area, including services provided by MTA and the City of Glendale. Despite this network of high frequency transit services, many residents in Glendale find transit services inadequate, or are unaware of the level of service actually provided. GLENDALE DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY | 4-1 4.1 PRINCIPLES The key principles for improving transit service in Glendale include increasing awareness about the services that are avail- able, and marketing a complete system to riders who can choose whether an MTA or Beeline route serves them best. The Downtown Mobility Study recommends operating a new shuttle route which will be dedicated to downtown travel, and linking regional transit corridors with the commercial, entertainment and employment opportunities in the Glendale core. The shuttle route, which can begin service almost immediately using exist- ing resources, should ultimately be improved and expanded for a long term future that may include streetcar operations. Create and market a comprehensive system of coordinated re- gional and local transit that takes advantage of the relatively high level of service that already exists in Glendale, and emphasizes new linkages where needed.
    [Show full text]
  • June 28, 2019 Gabriel Ride Control Is Pleased To
    June 28, 2019 Gabriel Ride Control is pleased to announce the following light vehicle New Product Introductions: FRONT REAR Make Model Year VIO Count Product Type Left Right Product Type Left Right Acura ZDX 2010 - 2013 5,282 Ultra Strut G52249 G52250 Ultra Shock G64080 Buick Encore 2019 9,677 Ultra Strut G52495 G52494 Ultra Shock G511030 Chevrolet City Express 2018 1,476 Ultra Strut G52591 G52592 Ultra Shock G64146 Chevrolet Suburban 2018 - 2019 66,811 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57023 Ultra Shock G64101 Chevrolet Suburban 3500HD 2016 261 Ultra Shock G64148 Ultra Shock G64149 Max Control Shock 779750 Chevrolet Tahoe 2019 18,081 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57023 Ultra Shock G64101 Guardian Shock 81947 Chevrolet Trax 2019 7,844 Ultra Strut G52495 G52494 Ultra Shock G511030 ReadyMount Loaded Strut G57206 Dodge Grand Caravan 2019 37,329 Ultra Shock G64042 Ultra Strut G52131 Max Control Shock 77614 Max Control Shock 77623 Ultra Shock G63622 Ultra Shock G63623 Guardian Shock 81744 Guardian Shock 81828 Ford E-350 2015 - 2019 59,639 Front Load Carrier 34076 ProGuard Shock 61646 LTV 58622 LTV 58623 Hijacker 49178 Max Control Shock 77614 Max Control Shock 77623 Ultra Shock G63622 Ultra Shock G63623 Guardian Shock 81744 Guardian Shock 81828 Ford E-450 2015 - 2019 59,187 Front Load Carrier 34076 ProGuard Shock 61646 LTV 58622 LTV 58623 Hijacker 49178 Ford Escape 2017 - 2019 819,647 Ultra Shock G511001 Ford Explorer 2018 - 2019 215,852 Ultra Shock G51980 Ford Police Interceptor Utility 2013 - 2019 149,315 Ultra Shock G51980 - PAGE 1 OF 6- Visit our website at www.gabriel.com to view our Online Catalog for specific model information.
    [Show full text]
  • School Bus Classifications
    bus models School Bus Classifications A Type A school bus is a conversion bus A Type B school bus is constructed utiliz- trance door is behind the front wheels. constructed utilizing a cutaway front- ing a stripped chassis. The entrance door This type also includes the cutaway section vehicle with a left-side driver’s is behind the front wheels. This defini- truck chassis or truck chassis with cab door. This definition includes two clas- tion includes two classifications: Type with or without a left-side door and with sifications: Type A1, with a gross vehicle B1, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or a GVWR greater than 21,500 pounds. weight rating (GVWR) of 14,500 pounds less; and Type B2, with a GVWR greater or less, and Type A2, with a GVWR great- than 10,000 pounds. A Type D, or transit-style, school bus er than 14,500 pounds and less than or is constructed utilizing a stripped chas- equal to 21,500 pounds. A Type C, or conventional, school bus sis. The entrance door is ahead of the is constructed utilizing a chassis with a front wheels. hood and front-fender assembly. The en- Source: 2010 National School Transportation Specifications and Procedures. Model Classi- Capacity Available Fuel Engine Headroom fication Chassis Options Location Blue Bird Corp. For Micro Bird Type A, see Micro Bird Inc. specifications Blue Bird Vision C Up to 77 Blue Bird Diesel, Front 77 inches Blue Bird’s Vision propane All American FE D Up to 90 Blue Bird Diesel Front 77 inches All American RE D Up to 84 Blue Bird Diesel, CNG Rear 77 inches Micro Bird Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 38: Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, And
    43 CHAPTER 7 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS 7.1 OVERVIEW LPG and natural gas are often quite similar; the major difference is that the CNG system must be calibrated for a LPG is a by-product of both petroleum refining and higher volumetric fuel flow rate at a given load. natural gas processing plants. Approximately 60 percent of Automotive fuel-grade CNG has a substantially higher the LPG produced in North America comes from natural octane rating than automotive LPG; therefore, to prevent gas processing. Processing removes most of the ethane and combustion knock, a heavy-duty LPG engine is normally heavier HCs as well as carbon dioxide, which may exist in designed for lower peak combustion pressures than a the gas at the wellhead, to produce a pipeline gas with a similar CNG engine. This is accomplished by using a lower relatively consistent heating value. In North America, LPG compression ratio or a lower turbocharger boost pressure. is formulated to consist mainly of propane with minor Because of this octane limitation, an LPG engine would be amounts of propylene, butane, and other light HCs. LPG is expected to have somewhat lower fuel efficiency than a gaseous at room temperature and atmospheric pressure, but CNG engine operating in similar service. Because the LPG it liquefies at pressures greater than 120 psig. This property vehicle would almost certainly have a lighter fuel storage makes it convenient to store and transport LPG as a system than a similar CNG vehicle, the LPG vehicle would pressurized liquid. The stored liquid fuel is easily perform less work, with the result that actual in-service fuel vaporized into a gas with clean-burning combustion consumption (on a Btu/mi basis) probably would be quite properties similar to those of CNG.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Texas School Bus Specifications Are Effective Upon Final Adoption of the Public Safety Commission
    2009 TEXAS SCHOOL BUS SPECIFICATIONS Effective: August 13, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 1 Specifications Revisions ............................................................................................... 5 Section A - General Definitions and Abbreviations ............................................................................ A-1 General Information, Requirements, & Conditions .............................................. A-3 Warranty Provisions .......................................................................................... A-9 Section B - Chassis Specifications Alternator ........................................................................................................ B-1 Battery (ies) ..................................................................................................... B-2 Brake, Parking ................................................................................................. B-2 Brakes, Service ................................................................................................ B-2 Bumper, Front .................................................................................................. B-3 Cooling System ................................................................................................ B-3 Daytime Running Lamps ................................................................................... B-3 Drive Shaft Guards and Shields ........................................................................
    [Show full text]