I'm fairly confident in saying that your example sentence:
"I saw a blue car and bus"
is not grammatically correct English, and also not something a native speaker would ever normally utter.*
English requires articles before nouns (except when it doesn't, but let's not dive into that rabbit hole right now). And a fluent English speaker would insert one before "bus", unless they were either:
- referring to some single thing named "car-and-bus", or
- trying to use the word "bus" as something other than a singular countable common noun.**
So it's not surprising that you're getting contradictory answers on how different people understand this broken sentence, since it all depends on how they try to mentally correct it.
Anyway, inserting the missing article, the corrected sentence "I saw a blue car and a bus" strictly speaking only says that the car was blue, without implying anything about the color of the bus. It could of course also be blue, but it doesn't have to be.
That said, in a suitable context, I could see it carrying a suggestion that the bus was blue, too. For example, imagine a child playing a game where they have to spot as many different blue things as they can during a trip, and later being asked by their parent if they saw any, and answering:
"Yes I did! I saw a blue car and a bus and a mailbox and a traffic sign and flowers and a balloon and…"
The speaker certainly could have repeated the word "blue" before each item in the list, but they chose not to (and the parent listening to them was probably thankful for it). But the contextual implication that this is a list of blue things is still there, even if only the first item is explicitly described as being blue.
*) Those are not the same thing, at least not unless you want to be an ultra-descriptivist and basically define something to be "grammatically correct" if and only if it's idiomatic for native speakers of the language to say. While I tend to be a descriptivist myself, I wouldn't go quite that far: even if a grammar, to me, is essentially an attempt to formalize how speakers of a language actually communicate, I'm still willing to grant such formal descriptions an existence and validity separate from the vague and nebulous thing that they try to describe.
**) A second verb could come naturally after "and", but "bus" can't really be parsed as a verb here, since it doesn't look like a regular past tense English verb ending in "-ed" and doesn't match any common verb with an irregular past tense either. Of course there are other possible interpretations too, like "Bus" maybe being somebody's (kind of weird) name, but those get increasingly outlandish and unlikely.