[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by swiftdiesel

A small query: Why does the Volvo multi-axle has its trailing axle (single wheel) at the front whereas the Mercedes multi-axle has its trailing axle (single wheel) at the back of the main axle?

Originally Posted by silversteed

There is no particular reason for it to be like that. Volvo's B12B also has the trailing axle behind the powered axle. There were rumours that the B12B will be the next product to be launched by Volvo in India

In Europe, the Mercs/Most multi-axle buses have steerable trailing axles for better maneouvreablitiy. I dont think the Indian models have the steerable wheels at the trailing axle. Although the bus retains(mercs only) the same engine(detuned) and rest configuration remains the same sans the restroom facility. In Europe, even the Volvos dont have steerable wheels and the config is similar to indian ones. Keeping the steering point far behind helps in turning a huge 15mts bus(euro spec.) In India they have retained the chassis as such so the config. I am not sure if that is the real reason but there has to be reason behind the trailing axle position.

[Ashley2]

Originally Posted by swiftdiesel

A small query: Why does the Volvo multi-axle has its trailing axle (single wheel) at the front whereas the Mercedes multi-axle has its trailing axle (single wheel) at the back of the main axle?

Though its not clear why Volvo brought this design but MB have some advantage when the tag axle is behind drive axle.
Dummy tyre wear in MB much lesser compared to Volvo.
When the rear axle is approaching a bump, when its received by a twin tyre rear axle as in MB the shock received by passenger will be comparatively less than as in the case of single tyre rear axle as in the case of Volvo. Though this effect can be reduced by providing softer suspension but it will still have some effect on tyre wear.

Apart from this MB has a larger wheel base which translates to higher luggage compartment 11Cu.m Vs 10 Cu.m.
Also globally all majority of the Multi axles has tag axle at the rear and drive axle before that.
From Vanhool Astromega to Neoplan Starliner and Scania Touring to Man Lions coach

[swiftdiesel]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

Though its not clear why Volvo brought this design but MB have some advantage when the tag axle is behind drive axle.
Dummy tyre wear in MB much lesser compared to Volvo.
When the rear axle is approaching a bump, when its received by a twin tyre rear axle as in MB the shock received by passenger will be comparatively less than as in the case of single tyre rear axle as in the case of Volvo. Though this effect can be reduced by providing softer suspension but it will still have some effect on tyre wear.

Apart from this MB has a larger wheel base which translates to higher luggage compartment 11Cu.m Vs 10 Cu.m.
Also globally all majority of the Multi axles has tag axle at the rear and drive axle before that.
From Vanhool Astromega to Neoplan Starliner and Scania Touring to Man Lions coach

Going by international builders, Volvo seems to have the odder design. Probably they found it easier to couple the drivetrain to the driven axle. Thanks Ashley2.

[black12rr]

Does these buses such as mercs or volvos have toilets/rest room in them ? . I have never traveled in these hence asking .

[scopriobharath]

No - There are no toilets. There was a Hyderabad Bangalore Bus (Non Volvo) with a toilet. To know how (in)convenient it is just step into the bus. Trust me the whole bus stinks. In fact i do not book in a bus which has toilet facility.

The average Joe does not leave the toilet clean. People use the wash basin to "shave" their beards / moustache etc and not use it just to wash hands post toilet usage.

In the west almost all buses have a toilet, which is clean and usable. In India for a clean toilet and all people to be courteous (comparing with USA) to others it will take at least 500 more years.

[rejoycjohn]

The long cherished dream of traveling with star accomplished yesterday when I traveled from Hyderabad to Bangalore with Orange transports .
We had specially booked this Benz as me and my friend wanted to experience the difference between the 2 direct competitors in this market .

To be honest , I was very much disappointed with the comfort that the bus offered us . We were sitting in the last but oneth row , and booked it only because of our experiences with volvo buses in the same seat .
The ride was very bumpy and we were almost thrown in the air at almost every single undulation on the road . The side swaying made the ride even worse while negotiating curves .

The only thing that I loved was the gear knob which was very classy compared to the long stick in the volvos

[sary]

News from the MB bus cockpit:
I came across a Volvo driver who choose to leave a travel company that operated MB buses, reasons:

1. No "tool box" provided with the bus by MB
2. Diesel smell traveled all the way into cabin, passenger often complained. Apperently they changed 7 tanks in 11 months. Known defect !
3. In multi axel buses, the rear axel design i.e. 4 wheels first and single wheel later makes it quite un-menuarable especially when you turn high speed.
4. Very difficult to replace the tyre when punchiered
5. Spare parts scarcity (4 out of 10 buses lying at the operator yard)
6. Expensive to buy one (compared to Volvo)
7. Poor pick up especially on ghat sections

PS: These are the practicalities coming directly from the driver perspective and not from passenger.

[n.devdath]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

When the rear axle is approaching a bump, when its received by a twin tyre rear axle as in MB the shock received by passenger will be comparatively less than as in the case of single tyre rear axle as in the case of Volvo. Though this effect can be reduced by providing softer suspension but it will still have some effect on tyre wear.

Sounds true technically, but in reality, I had a very bad experience in the Merc that I traveled in, the day before yesterday. It was new 54k km run multi axle and the journey was a total disappointment, to say the least.

[ranjithrnath]

Originally Posted by AMATMO

blue lines bangalore had a mercedes benz bus looked like a doudle deck bus above
it was golden biege in colour, bluelines had bought it 2-3 years ago

Found these pics from Yeshwanth Kadri's website
http://kadri007.com/


The coach pics from Sutlej website and Preetam Almeida's picasa web albums

[audioholic]

These days I rarely see a Merc doing duty except for the Neeta and the KSRTC ones. Recently I had to travel from Chikmagalur to Bangalore and I chose a Rajahamsa. At the same time there was a Merc headed to Bangalore. I checked it out and it badly needed some attention. Though the exterior was fine, the conductor and driver were not so happy when I asked them about the bus. They said that an old and battered volvo performs well and is also much comfortable for passengers. I havent been on a merc so cant really compare. But I have travelled in various volvos, right from new ones to the oldest ones in KSRTC. Except for the exterior maintenance, they rode well and performed well.

Also I have not seen much Merc multi axles too. It is just volvo volvo everywhere. As Binai said, it could be bad aftersales that are hurting the most. But who really depends upon the manufacturer for servicing etc? Dont they do it locally?

[binaiks]

Originally Posted by audioholic

Also I have not seen much Merc multi axles too. It is just volvo volvo everywhere. As Binai said, it could be bad aftersales that are hurting the most. But who really depends upon the manufacturer for servicing etc? Dont they do it locally?

They do it locally - but what about getting the spares? MB takes its sweet time to get spares. Accident repairs are even worse - they take anywhere from 1-6 months to repair a bus, where as Volvo does that in 10 days to a month!

Volvo is much more operator friendly when it comes servicing. A lot of operators have their own set of Volvo trained mechanics, and well-stocked spares godowns!

[coriollis]

Originally Posted by julupani

Though I agree about the issues with the quality and service issues with Mercedes buses, but your logic here is not sound in my view.

Take a look at the airline industry as an analogy. Big operators like Indigo or Air Asia also keep their fleet variations to a minimum. And they operate the Airbus A320series. But it doesnt mean that the Boeing 737 is not a good product.

So VRL not opting for a Merc is logical, as having a few Mercs among hundred+ of Volvos will not make sense. It will be a service nightmare. But for a smaller operator, it doesnt make that much of a difference.

Hello,
Definitely the Merc product had flaws.

Neeta bought Mercs in a bulk order. Neeta already had a fleet of Volvo's operating for them.

Then why buy a Merc?

They bought it because they had to try a new product which had a great legacy. It was also bought for a novelty factor. At that time operational cost for Volvo's was seen as catastrophic. Market was yet to come to terms to such high recurring costs. The costing models were not geared up to incur such high recurring demands.
Even if they were successful in showing reduced recurring costs, the product would have been a success. They gambled and failed. Merc didn't receive their repeat order as well.

People learn from others mistakes. VRL and many other big players saw the plight of buses bought by Neeta and stayed away.

People pay hard earned money, and expect a reasonable logical return on their investment( Not Neeta though ).

Smaller players didn't matter as they were unable to get a Volvo product as all the slots were occupied. So they bought Mercs and suffered.

And when you are talking about Airbus 320 and Boeing 737 products, please see that these two are proven products first and are at the same level of marketing. So then comes the factor of ease of operation by choosing only one brand. But for that, there has to be some operation at least. Merc didn't give people that chance.

Cheers,
Abhijeet

[TKMCE]

And when you are talking about Airbus 320 and Boeing 737 products, please see that these two are proven products first and are at the same level of marketing. So then comes the factor of ease of operation by choosing only one brand. But for that, there has to be some operation at least. Merc didn't give people that chance.

Well said. Airbus A320 family first flew in airline service in 1988, a full 20 years after the Boeing 737. A320 had a lot of teething problems initially, primarily because the product was well ahead of its time (Glass Cockpit for example). A320 successfully came out of the initial troubles to produce one of their most successful aircraft. I am sure the same will be the case for Merc as well in India.

[Ashley2]

Originally Posted by coriollis

...They bought it because they had to try a new product which had a great legacy. It was also bought for a novelty factor..
People learn from others mistakes. VRL and many other big players saw the plight of buses bought by Neeta and stayed away....
Smaller players didn't matter as they were unable to get a Volvo product as all the slots were occupied. So they bought Mercs and suffered..

None other than Mercedes was responsible for their failure. Everyone wanted to try Merc. People have given very good reception for the simple fact brand Mercedes Benz. In India today Volvo is synonym for luxury bus. But Merc is the pinnacle of premium luxury. With so much heritage it was a big lesson for Mercedes Benz. In my view Merc did few mistakes
- Like many other global markets Merc positioned it higher than Volvo. Though engine capacity, power, torque were higher it lacked critical features like disc brakes. Though there was retarder, engine brake, confidence with drivers was always less. And when Sharma's bus met with accident ( 1st Merc accident? ) this message(if any) spread heavily in market.
- Product did not had the premium for the money it was asking. One such was engine cooling system, OBD etc.
- Mercedes engine was far more efficient than Volvo in terms of fuel performance. But when few engines failed the brand reliability was under question mark. Added to reduced service support it increased the problems.
Kpn buses were off road for more than few days for the want of minor spares.

In case of VRL the issue was their bad experience with Isuzu. They believed big on Isuzu, but it failed. So they stopped anything to try new. Even now they have not thought of Scania. So until the dust settles they may not go for newer ones.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by Ashley2

And when Sharma's bus met with accident ( 1st Merc accident? ) this message(if any) spread heavily in market.

- Product did not had the premium for the money it was asking. One such was engine cooling system, OBD etc.
- Mercedes engine was far more efficient than Volvo in terms of fuel performance. But when few engines failed the brand reliability was under question mark

Do you have any more details on the FE & reliability issues of the engines?

What is lacking in the cooling system and was the Sharma accident due to product failure?