Misunderstood.
I think it was the initial configurations when they are
new that made the performance of the bus so bad, like the gear
tuning, the engine brake and probably the speed limiter. I believed
the gears, when the buses was new, was so tightly limited
that it failed to release the full potential power for each gear
shift. Hence limiting the potential full power of the Scania
engine. I believe that Scania buses are generally very powerful
buses, even the older N113CRBs have as powerful engines like the
O405s. There goes for the L series as well.
Now without the engine brakes and fine tuning of the gears, the
buses feel smoother and less jerky. However some gear tuning
needs to be considered for improvements as there is still
limitations, which cause the engine to rumble at low speeds, during
gear changes.
However I think it is the bodyworks that cause the bus to have a
bad reputation. I don't think that Gemilang is suitable for the
Scania engine, since their engines are mounted in a way that are
quite seperate from the chassis., not sure about this but I hope
someone can verify this. Even the OC500LEs are also vibrating now.
I think an European bodywork like from Alexander Dennis or Wright
or even Scania's own in house bodyworks can handle and cushion the
vibrations of the Scania chassis and engine layouts better
than Gemilang. If SBST had chosen the European bodies, most likely
they might save a lot on correction costs on the bodywork.
But then during that moment of meeting the WAB bus fleet
criteria and replacing the old buses which cannot be further be
extended anymore, SBST had no choice but to get the Scanias. Having
1100 of the same kind is more than enough, and I hope that they can
venture in other makes in future. At least they are improving the
performance of the buses now, but I think that the bus is still
hard and costly to maintain and also not so easy to drive as
compared to other models. Based on the performance of these buses
and the need of constant maintainance costs of these buses, I have
doubts that the model might not fully serving its 17 years
lifespan.
Right now, they should address the issue of the radiator noise
by installing some insulators and also the air con. Some of the
older KUBs, especially the EEVs had weak air cons.
However I am still puzzled by their decision of purchase that
time. Why choose the K series which uses longitudinally engine that
takes up more space and hence the higher aisle at the rear where
the N series can save more space in the interior with its
transversely mounted engine?
i have reason to believe that the engines were governed because
of the initial manufacturer warranty phase to prevent any
unnecessary wear and tear that may not be covered under warranty. i
believe that the manufacturer's warranty period is over or about to
end, thats why SBST is able to finetune the operating
characteristics of the engine to better suit local settings.
i believe the K series buses are easier to maintain compared to
the N series? not too sure about that though. N series would have
allowed SBST to possibly have a low-floor bus interior much like
the citaros or the MAN NL323F.
