Now that would take the sport out of it,wouldn't it? Watch GM,they'll make these for a few years and after they get you guys liking/buying them;they'll stop. Just like the Novas/Caprice.Had every LE in the country buying 'em then stopped production. ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I'll push a handcart before there will EVER be another GM in my fleet. T.C.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 21 to 35 of 35
Thread: GMC 5500 Mini
10-17-2008, 09:54 AM #21
10-17-2008, 12:00 PM #22
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Florida's Space Coast
Let me ask a couple of related question from a different angle for those who know...
1)- Of the higher GVWR on the GMC, how much of that is available for body & payload? Sure, it can have a ton more GVWR, but 1500 pounds of that might be chassis weight. High GVWR doesn't help if your payload capacity doesn't go up much, does it???
2)- On a mini it may not be a concern, but if you want 4WD, and plan to take it off road, do you really want all that more weight? Another 100 gallons -might- be nice, but not if you are stuck up to your higher-GVWR axels...
3)- Has anyone looked at how well Ford or GMC chasis match up on things like tilt tables, etc?
10-22-2008, 08:28 PM #23
Have fun with your handcart. I've had 3 fire and ambulance companies call me this week alone to spec out trucks that are tired of brake and transmission issues with their Fords. Their words, not mine.
Andy, I need more info to answer your question about payload. Are we still talking the 5500 or have you moved up. The C-8500's do go to 56,000 GVW.
10-23-2008, 12:40 PM #24
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Florida's Space Coast
I was looking to compare the Ford F550 to the GMC 5500.
10-23-2008, 09:35 PM #25
Tried to copy this from Chrome Data but it won't allow me to copy so I can paste here. Let's hope this works.
GMC C-5500 4X Crew Cab and Ford F-550 4X Crew Cab XL
Both vehicles spec's with 84" CA, Diesel Engine, Automatic Trans (Allison in the GMC). GMC also has Fire & Rescue Package and factory PTO option.
GVWR: GMC 19,500 ; Ford 17,750
Curb Weight: GMC 9415 ; Ford 8,470
Payload (GVWR - Curb Weight) : GMC 10,084 ; Ford 9480
HMMM, the GMC weighs more but has a bigger payload!
I don't know where you can get flex info. You can go to http://www.gmfleet.com/fleet/specialtyvehicles/bag.jsp for more information including the Body Builders Guide.
Last edited by dragonfyre; 10-23-2008 at 09:38 PM.
10-23-2008, 09:47 PM #26
- Join Date
- Feb 1999
Last edited by firepiper1; 10-23-2008 at 11:00 PM.I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.
10-24-2008, 09:59 AM #27
Just got off the phone with GM engineering and those changes are mostly aftermarket items that can be done by the body manufacturer or are applicable to those who make a custom chassis (HME, or those who make their own cabs.)
Also, it's up to the manufacturer of the recommended "Black box" (did they pay off NFPA?) to make sure it interfaces with the vehicle manufacturer's own computer system and recorder.
Don't think Ford is going to comply either. It's just too expensive for a commercial manufacturer to change everything for a small percentage of sales.
10-24-2008, 10:54 AM #28
- Join Date
- Feb 1999
"GMC has not demonstrated that they have made significant progress in making their chassis compliant to the new standard (primarily the required interfacing for the VDR and occupant detection). As a result, we will not initially be able to utilize them for 2009 NFPA 1901 compliant apparatus."
Last edited by firepiper1; 10-24-2008 at 11:02 AM.I have only 2 allegiances, to my country and to my God. The rest of you are fair game.
10-25-2008, 02:47 PM #29
Who "an apparatus mannufacturer" or "we"?
I will gladly give you Edd Rodgers number in Michigan as he is the one I spoke with.
By the way, the new NFPA 1901 affects Ford, Dodge, KW, International and any other commercial chassis supplier. The bottom estimate is that these new regs will cost each manufacturer over $10 million to comply with while recouping less that 5% of that in actual sales. That's why they're leaving it up to the apparatus manufacturer to add the needed items.
But it looks like your source doesn't want to spend the money to make the truck complient.
10-25-2008, 03:17 PM #30
- Join Date
- Dec 2002
- Rural Iowa
GMC's sales spin on a longterm plan may be great but corporate sill apparently wants to dump the truck division on the 1st willing sucker. Isuzu apprarently is the latest pigeon. GMC has little value as their access to a suitable diesel is history in a year (when CAT quits playing). So a GMC with an Isuzu diesel make you happy? Even the current Isuzu engines can't pass a UL pump test.
10-25-2008, 03:47 PM #31
Apparently while working the trenches everyday with GM I have learned nothing, as opposed to those outside the business who reads anything they see and takes it as the Bible.
CAT has not been a player for GM engines for 2 years. They could not meet the new emissions standards. I won a bid for Long Island RR and had to get them to switch their specs to the Isuzu engine, a very "suitable" engine. I have not ordered a CAT engine in any of my stock vehicles for 3 years since they changed the warranty. Also, CAT is rethinking their corporate strategy and going back to their "core" business of off-road machinery.
Don't know where you get that the current engines won't pass pump tests. There are plenty of them out there. (The Duramax is an Isuzu engine and always has been).
GM is trying to sell off the only division that has made money for them recently (besides Cadillac) while it has value. Don't think you'll see Isuzu buy it as they don't want to deal with the unions. GM and Isuzu were partners together in the truck manufacturing for years and "divorced" August 1, 2007. They were also the first one offered the division.
But then what do I know, I just sell them every day.
10-25-2008, 05:53 PM #32
Steve,We have differing opinions on products.Both you and I(or at least I)are OK with that.Insofar as these new IDIOTIC regulations are concerned,it's about time we collectively petition the village idiots that think this s**t up and tell them in no uncertain terms to STOP! And yes,if enough people would step up and actually DO it I'm certain that at the least it would be revisited.Get rid of about half of the overregulation and you'd start to get back some reliability.I'm particularly amused with the 5%variance.What working engine that you know of maintains 5% WORKING? Pure lunacy! A thermofan will kick up more than 5%.I'm so fed up with government that I could choke somebody.And ENJOY every minute of it.I'm sure Ford is going to be around long enough for me to finish my Towing career out with them and we don't run any small Fire iron so we're OK there too.I think the new 45's/55's will work out fine,I've just had BAD experiences with GM's and have no interest in revisiting that misery.And we make a decent living fixing them. Others feel the same way about Fords or Dodges.Fortunately we still have choices(for the moment).Thanks for supplying the info on the GM's,I like having it even if I'm not "buying"it. T.C.
10-25-2008, 08:16 PM #33
RESCUE101: I'm okay with differing opinions, that's why they make vanilla and chocolate, and I respect that. I agree that we have to take a stand and stop the lawyers and insurance companies that run NFPA from making unrealistic standards. Is the seatbelt interlock really needed? Remember when we had them in cars in the mid-70's and everyone buckled them and them sat down on top of them.
What peeves me is people on the outside of an industry trusting everything they read as gospel and then thinking they know it all. (Not you)
It's like a supervisor in another township here in Berks County thinking he knows about firefighting. The local paper reported that the fire company was having trouble making the payments on their truck that they bought for $428,000 in 2001. According to the paper, "It can carry and pump water and has a ladder". (We'll talk about press coverage another time.)
One supervisor really had the answer to the problem: "Supervisor David B Himmelberger asked how the coumpany could justify keeping the truck because it hasn't been used for the last two months."
Hope he doesn't need to be rescued from his second floor bedroom anytime soon.
10-25-2008, 09:25 PM #34
dragonfyre: Since you sell great mountain climbers , I have a question about the future availability of the t-7500-8500 chassis. Are they only available with the isuzu 260 hp engine? will they be available in the next year or two?
We currently have three cabover apparatus built on these GMC's and will be speccing a tanker in the next year. We've had good luck with them in the past
10-25-2008, 09:55 PM #35
You are correct on the limited engine choice this year. The truck is only being built in general specs versions for 2009, there's very little we can do to change or add options.
We have been told that for 2010 we will be getting a new (to us) truck built in Japan and shipped here like the rest of the Isuzu line. The "T" series has always been assembled here with an Isuzu built cab.
I 've seen the new truck at meetings but can't find anything on the internet.
Glad to hear the trucks have been serving you well. Haven't seen too many in the fire service.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Catch22 in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 37Last Post: 12-02-2007, 07:23 AM
By bjlffire in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 8Last Post: 02-21-2007, 10:48 AM
By ROOKIELZ in forum The Off Duty ForumsReplies: 23Last Post: 12-19-2004, 05:33 PM
By DozerGrl in forum The Off Duty ForumsReplies: 11Last Post: 09-16-2004, 04:17 PM
By firenresq77 in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 7Last Post: 06-01-2004, 06:59 PM