[UK] Wright StreetDeck終於現身

原帖由 NV58 於 23/4/2014 03:16 AM 發表

At this angle, it is very hard to tell. Nevertheless Wrightbus did say previously that the Streetdeck bodywork is interchangeable with the Gemini 3, so I am not surprised that this can will be the one. Their weight shall be very comparable as well.

喺另一個網站揾到一張相對清楚, 角度比較好嘅相片
http://malsfotofile.smugmug.com/HeyshamDocks/Stagecoach/i-8Vk32TQ/0/X2/Stagecoach%20London%20%5Bur%5D%20140420%20Heysham%201-X2.jpg

其實上述相片顯示嘅引擎室, 同已更改引擎室嘅DW411好相似(相關相片: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mals_uk_buses/9514699589/)
此外, 仲有一部改法相同, 但並非倫敦版本嘅同款車, 佢哋應該都係StreetDeck嘅原型車

原帖由 FS1819 於 2014-4-24 01:41 發表
In addition, I am not convinced about the "smaller is better" trend.

Your resistance is futile. Not just buses are heading into that direction, the car industries are doing the same thing as well. Economy rules unfortunately.

原帖由 FS1819 於 2014-4-24 01:41 發表

In addition, I am not convinced about the "smaller is better" trend. Re ...

但以前巴士載客量同而家又未必可以直接比較，以前 d 巴士坐滿半車人先等於而家既空車，用油梗係少
而家諗諗下，以前中巴用雞寶套餐行既路線，俾新巴城巴接手後用 Dart SLF / B6LE 行，
就算唔計新車折舊率之類，中巴既營運成本分分鐘仍然係低少少



如果以全車坐滿，全部乘客 60kg 計，應該都有唔少得意數字，可以推算下點解所謂以往既車咁慳油


60 年代 Leyland Atlantean，9.8 公升 Leyland 0600 偈，油耗聽講可以有 8 - 雙位數字 mpg
淨重 7.75 噸，73 座位，滿載負重約為淨重 56.5%，引擎扭力約 900轉 556Nm、馬力 1800轉 125匹


70 年代初至中期 Volvo Ailsa B55，6.7公升 Volvo TD70E 偈，市區 4-5mpg (營運數字)，公路 9-10mpg (不過係空車試車數字)
淨重 9301kg，雙門 75 座位，滿載負重比例約為淨重既 48.4%，引擎扭力 1400轉 660Nm、馬力 2200轉 193匹


70 年代尾 MCW Metrobus，10.45 公升 Gardner 6LXB，副偈大約 830kg，平均油耗值都有 5-6mpg
淨重 9145kg，72 座位，滿載負重比例約為淨重 47%，引擎扭力 1000轉 762Nm、馬力 1850轉 170匹



如果跟返比例黎計，乘返大個扭力同馬力值，
Volvo Ailsa 應有既扭力值同 Atlantean 差唔多，1800 轉左右既馬力值大約比 Atlantean 多少少，跑公路都可以有雙位數字 mpg 值
不過可能正正係扭力預到岩岩好，Volvo Ailsa 上斜唔見得太好，一路谷上高轉，馬力更大，應該亦更徒油，市區營運油耗唔算特別靚
Metrobus 無論馬力定扭力值都大左一截


動力過盛，即使只係略略調低引擎輸出，油耗已經會好少少，1980 年 Dundee 巴士營運測試，比較各種當代雙層型號
巴士公司發現只要將 Dennis Dominator 馬力由 180 匹調低至 170 匹，mpg 值已經由平均 5.86 升到 6





Metrobus 以當代黎講都未算慳油，但用佢個數字黎倍大，
早幾年既普通版 Wright 車身 B9TL，9.4L D9B260，副偈 940kg
淨重大約 12 噸，座位大約 73 個，負重約為淨重既 36.5%，引擎扭力 1100Nm，馬力 260匹
用 Lothian 架 B5TL 計，D5K240，副偈好似係 580kg 左右
淨重係 10.75 噸，都係 73 個座位咁上下，負重約為淨重 40.7%，引擎扭力 918Nm、馬力 240匹





如果跟返比例黎計，近代既巴士以 B9TL 做例
副偈特別重、扭力馬力亦係過量，負重比例對比部車既淨重亦最低，難怪會比以往徒多咁多油
就算用英國版 E400 做例，副 ISBe 偈比 D9B 輕 1/3 噸 (都佔左 5 個乘客重量)，
但跟比例計，其餘數字同舊車比仍然係過量，新車點都係徒油




又或者咁講，馬力扭力太大太細都唔係好事，Volvo Ailsa 細 cc Turbo 偈推架雙層巴士，
印象中直至近年用 ISBe 放落 E400/DB300 之前，容積最細既雙層巴士就係佢地，以公路計係數一數二慳油，不過市區 mpg 值以當代車黎講甚低
大 cc 相信跑公路之類相對無咁操勞，公路上可以慳到油，但市區動力過盛即係得不償失，如果用近代少少既車比較：
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/15th-october-1992/36/q-ver-20-years-ago-pundits-were-forecasting-an-end


Dennis Dominator，12.7 升 LG1200，油耗係市區 (其實以文章既形容，所謂市區個平均車速都似乎太高) 高公路低
(mpg 值係 13以上，相信過往半世紀都唔係太多巴士做到)
淨重 10.77 噸，86 座位，滿載負重約為淨重 47.9%，引擎扭力 1200轉 949Nm 馬力 1900轉 210匹
Leyland Olympian，10 公升 LT10，調返轉係市區慳油公路徒油
淨重 9.615 噸，93 座位，滿載負重高達淨重 58%，引擎扭力 1200轉 806Nm 馬力 1900轉 180匹



相信應該係容積、扭力、馬力要拎最佳平衡先得  
StreetDeck 同 B5TL 從數字上睇，會略略比歐六 E400 好，倫敦巴士相對較重，又雙門，載得更少客，負重同自重比例相當低
用 Abellio 架 9544 同 Go-Ahead 架 V6 對比下，如果將馬力扭力跟返比例黎計，兩者係完全一樣
但 9544 cc 大左一截，而且坐滿人負重對比淨重比例只係 33% 左右，V6 有 34.9%，以倫敦市面計 V6 應該可以驗勝 9544

如果加埋維修成本，細cc大turbo又係咪真係好過大cc細turbo呢？

原帖由 FS1819 於 2014-4-26 22:30 發表
如果加埋維修成本，細cc大turbo又係咪真係好過大cc細turbo呢？

Considering, in the case of the B5, that it is the operators that asked Volvo to go with the smaller engine instead of a B8TL when the B9TL is being replace, and the latter being in Volvo's initial plan, it's clear that the users have the believe that the whole life operational cost will be better with a smaller engine.

What you need to take into consideration is that, over the last 5 years in particular, combustion engine technology, both petrol and diesel, have moved on significantly and all manufacturers are working on reducing engine sizes. You would have thought that they will design the new engines with similar durability that older, larger engines anyway.

原帖由 NV58 於 27-4-2014 19:01 發表


Considering, in the case of the B5, that it is the operators that asked Volvo to go with the smaller engine instead of a B8TL when the B9TL is being replace, and the latter being in Volvo's initial  ...

I was asking because I saw a thread the other day, talking about an engine blown up on a delivery run to Dublin.

http://irishtransport.yuku.com/topic/7076/GS-class#.U1zq6V6fbjJ

It feels like a smaller engine requires much more expertise, with major consequences resulting from minor mistakes.

[ 本帖最後由 FS1819 於 2014-4-27 19:42 編輯 ]

原帖由 FS1819 於 2014-4-27 11:36 發表
I was asking because I saw a thread the other day, talking about an engine blown up on a delivery run to Dublin.

http://irishtransport.yuku.com/topic/7076/GS-class#.U1zq6V6fbjJ

It feels like a small ...

That can happen on an rough unit of any engine size. Whilst it is one generation older, the B5F used on the Euro 5 B5LH runs pretty well from a reliability point of view, so that alone shall close out any reliability concern.