Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    450

    Default

    By your comments I'm assuming you've had problems with your Toyne? Care to elaborate?


  2. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VanIsleEVT View Post
    By your comments I'm assuming you've had problems with your Toyne? Care to elaborate?
    That wasn't at all my intent, but like anything it's not 100% perfect.We've had minor issues, that I'd consider the typical new truck bugs. We had a bad foam sensor and some issues with ROM door sensors. In each case we speak to our Toyne service rep rather than the manufacturer of the part(s). Thus far we have nothing to complain about on the issues or the service/assistance required for correction.

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    575

    Default Sole Source?

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    Absolutely.



    To some purchasers, yes, it is. To some purchasing agents, it is. To others, the fact that the the chassis, cab, and body are built by different manufacturers is of no significance, and they have (and will continue to) buy non-"sole source" apparatus.

    I'm currently fighting this with my volunteer county now. Due to some past mistakes by other departments within the county, they're insisting that our rig be spec'd for sole source. I'm doing a lot of work to show that many, many manufacturers can build on a Spartan chassis that's as good as any sole source vehicle, and many times, we the purchaser can come ahead in money. Hopefully we'll find out soon.
    The sole source argument is much older than anyone has bothered to point out yet. In the mid nineties a mailer was sent out to most people in the fire service industry that pointed out that "sole source" was just so much "bombastic bull****" under today's circumstances.

    Basically, in the day, builders like Seagrave made almost everything except for the light bulbs. That was sole source. There is nothing like that today. Thankfully. Find an old time mechanic who can tell you how much they paid for an ALF or Seagrave axle that was not available on the open market. Or, parts for that Waukesha engine.

    Nowadays the basic components are all built by the same people regardless of who built the chassis. Find a fire truck without an Allison transmission.

    Sole source is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

    I helped perpetuate it for years.

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Right on Command6.... I think we should focus more on single source responsibility. Some of the smaller manufacturer's either have contract maintenance and warranty or you have to bring the rig to the plant for service.

    As a Fire Chief I want to be able to make one phone call and either have the issue resolved by the authorized warranty center or have them at least handle most of the issues.

    You can publish anything in a specification even an unbuildable piece of apparatus. I think that most of us realize that MACK was probably the last 99% true Single Source Manufacturer. "Single Source Responsibility" should be the proper term.

    With the new AFG guidelines it is amazing how may specifications get published that just have the manufacturer's name removed from the detail.

    As a volunteer chief, do any of us really understand most of the junk in a spec anyway.

    I recently was going through some of our old records and found the order form for a 1967 pumper. Amazing 2 pages of features list to select from. What was interesting it didn't have all the garbage and fluff you see in 100 page specs today. Those apparatus put out as much fire as our fancy specs do today.

    Recently, I saw where Rosenbauer and several of the other manufacturers actually have a way to buy a truck similar to the 1967 2 or 3 page order form.

    Amazing how the KISS system just may be the way to go "KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID"

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    165

    Default

    (I think that most of us realize that MACK was probably the last 99% true Single Source Manufacturer.)

    I dont know if even that was accurate. Didnt Mack buy the apparatus bodies from Conestoga body co? Didnt the scopes come from Eaton and later Baker? They also used Waterous and Hale pumps (our B models had Hales, our CF's had Waterous)

  6. #26
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238

    Default

    The closest thing to "true" sole source was many years back when builders like ALF and Seagrave made their own motors (gasoline), pumps, etc.

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffp20 View Post
    (I think that most of us realize that MACK was probably the last 99% true Single Source Manufacturer.)

    I dont know if even that was accurate. Didnt Mack buy the apparatus bodies from Conestoga body co? Didnt the scopes come from Eaton and later Baker? They also used Waterous and Hale pumps (our B models had Hales, our CF's had Waterous)
    Mack, to the best of my knowledge, built most of their own bodies. There were some notable exceptions. Conestoga may well have been one. Around the time Mack closed the Sydney, Ohio plant, they had Hahn complete some trucks for them. They would send a chassis, with pump already installed, I believe, and Hahn built the body. I don't know how many were done that way. A Hahn guru tells me that Mack and Hahn never had a contract for this. Mack would simply issue a purchase order to Hahn and send the chassis from Allentown to Hamburg.

    I do not believe that Mack ever built a fire pump. Many Bs had Hale pumps, later ones had Waterous. Ditto Cs. The only CFs that had anything but Waterous were the ones that came after Mack exited the complete fire truck business. There were a few MBs that were bought as chassis and completed by others. They may have had other pumps.

    You are quite correct about the 'Scopes, although I do note from Harvey Eckart's Iconografix book "Mack Fire Trucks, 1911 - 2005" that there were some early "Scope" booms built by Truco.

    What did set Mack apart from everyone else is that they built their own engines, (manual) transmissions, rears, suspensions, etc. So the "truck" part was a purebred Bulldog. Outside of the old ALFs, Seagraves, Ahrens-Foxes and the like, Mack was the closest thing to true single source there was.

    Hopefully someone(s) with some more detail and corrections, if needed, will contribute some comments.
    Last edited by chiefengineer11; 09-12-2010 at 06:21 PM.

  8. #28
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge Twp , New Jersey
    Posts
    492

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefengineer11 View Post
    Mack, to the best of my knowledge, built most of their own bodies. There were some notable exceptions. Conestoga may well have been one. Around the time Mack closed the Sydney, Ohio plant, they had Hahn complete some trucks for them. They would send a chassis, with pump already installed, I believe, and Hahn built the body. I don't know how many were done that way. A Hahn guru tells me that Mack and Hahn never had a contract for this. Mack would simply issue a purchase order to Hahn and send the chassis from Allentown to Hamburg.

    I do not believe that Mack ever built a fire pump. Many Bs had Hale pumps, later ones had Waterous. Ditto Cs. The only CFs that had anything but Waterous were the ones that came after Mack exited the complete fire truck business. There were a few MBs that were bought as chassis and completed by others. They may have had other pumps.

    You are quite correct about the 'Scopes.

    What did set Mack apart from everyone else is that they built their own engines, (manual) transmissions, rears, suspensions, etc. So the "truck" part was a purebred Bulldog. Outside of the old ALFs, Seagraves, Ahrens-Foxes and the like, Mack was the closest thing to true single source there was.

    Hopefully someone(s) with some more detail and corrections, if needed, will contribute some comments.
    What was the largest size diesel motor that Mack Trucks put in there CF chassis fire apparatus ? Pumper or Aerial.

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodbridgeFFII View Post
    What was the largest size diesel motor that Mack Trucks put in there CF chassis fire apparatus ? Pumper or Aerial.
    The Maxidynes, both 237 and 300 (actually, 285 hp) were common. FDNY used mostly the standard 673 (actually, all of them were 672 c.i.) which was a 260 hp engine with a normal torque rise as opposed to the Maxidynes fast rise. Some of the later CFs had the 350 hp standard rise version of 673 block.

    Harvey Eckart's Iconografix book "Mack Fire Trucks 1911 - 2005 says that there were 112 CFs built with V8 Mack diesels. They would have been the 864 c.i engines. Actually, he notes that there were 864, 865 and 866 c.i. versions. I feel sure that none of the later 998 c.i. V8s were ever put into Mack fire chassis.

    About 6 or 7 years ago we had a chance to get a demo in the station, a truck we referred to as the "McSutphen." It began life as a CH Mack (conventional cab). Sutphen removed the cab and put a forward control fire truck cab on it. That one had a 427 hp 728 c.i Mack engine. That engine came long after Mack got out of the fire chassis business.

  10. #30
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I remember seeing a CF with a gas engine. It had a Chrysler V-8 but i dont remember what it had for HP or displacement.

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffp20 View Post
    I remember seeing a CF with a gas engine. It had a Chrysler V-8 but i dont remember what it had for HP or displacement.
    Again, refering to Mr. Eckart's book, there were 173 Model CF608 built with the Mack 707 gas engine. No Chrysler engines are listed. But there were a total of 49 B models with the Chrysler original hemi head engine. The engines were 204 hp and 354 c.i. Nine were 500 gpm and the rest were 750. I don't see any Chrysler engines listed in C models.

  12. #32
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Campellstown Pa had a gas powered CF but i dont know if it had chrysler or Mack power.

    heres a link showing a CF responding, it doesnt sound like a maxidyne:

    http://www.guitarsolos.com/videos-en...ZGvGcDc%5D.cfm

    i believe this cf was a Chrysler gas job:

    http://greenefireapparatus.net/image...20Ex%20ETA-311

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    165

    Default

    i really gotta jog my memory here but i think the tag under the window, just behind the drivers door didnt say cf600 but something like cf600v-8 or something odd.

    http://greenefireapparatus.net/image...20Ex%20ETA-311

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffp20 View Post
    i really gotta jog my memory here but i think the tag under the window, just behind the drivers door didnt say cf600 but something like cf600v-8 or something odd.

    http://greenefireapparatus.net/image...20Ex%20ETA-311
    It would be nice to see what the actual VIN was on that one. I question whether it was a Chrysler engine for these reasons. One, that's a big truck. It has a long wheelbase and longer than standard compartments. Plus, it has the broom compartments above. It has three hard sleeves and pony sleeves inside them. If all of those compartments are being utilized, there's alot of weight there.

    Given the length of the body, I'll take a SWAG and say it's something on the order of a 1000 gallon tank. All of that adds up to lots of weight.

    The area around Catskill, if memory serves, is not exactly npfd801's flatland. So while the Chrysler hemis blew the Hudson Hornets off of the race track, I don't think one would handle a large CF in that first due. Mack's engineers were known for being particular about what they would approve. I doubt if they would have held still for that one.

    My guess is that if it's gas, it's a 707. Too bad we don't have a picture of the right side so we could see the size of the tailpipe. That would provide a clue. I expect to see Harvey Eckart next month at a wintertime monthly gathering of us apparatus nuts. I'll try to remember to ask him. If he doesn't have it in his memory, he'll have it in his records.

  15. #35
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Chief, i gotta say i stand corrected on this. That unit did in fact have a Mack Gas Engine.

  16. #36
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefengineer11 View Post
    It would be nice to see what the actual VIN was on that one. I question whether it was a Chrysler engine for these reasons. One, that's a big truck. It has a long wheelbase and longer than standard compartments. Plus, it has the broom compartments above. It has three hard sleeves and pony sleeves inside them. If all of those compartments are being utilized, there's alot of weight there.

    Given the length of the body, I'll take a SWAG and say it's something on the order of a 1000 gallon tank. All of that adds up to lots of weight.

    The area around Catskill, if memory serves, is not exactly npfd801's flatland. So while the Chrysler hemis blew the Hudson Hornets off of the race track, I don't think one would handle a large CF in that first due. Mack's engineers were known for being particular about what they would approve. I doubt if they would have held still for that one.

    My guess is that if it's gas, it's a 707. Too bad we don't have a picture of the right side so we could see the size of the tailpipe. That would provide a clue. I expect to see Harvey Eckart next month at a wintertime monthly gathering of us apparatus nuts. I'll try to remember to ask him. If he doesn't have it in his memory, he'll have it in his records.
    That's NO Chrysler,look at the engine cover. You could put TWO Hemi's under there. 707. T.C.

  17. #37
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Have you seen Spartan Motor's stock price? Rosenbauer is probably building their own chassis because Spartan is about to bite the bullet. They relied on military business too much. Rosenbauer is probably 1/2 of Spartans fire chassis business. When they leave, BOOOYAAAAHHH!!!! Kramer says sell Spartan Motors!!!!!!

  18. #38
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANCISBRUCE View Post
    Have you seen Spartan Motor's stock price? Rosenbauer is probably building their own chassis because Spartan is about to bite the bullet. They relied on military business too much. Rosenbauer is probably 1/2 of Spartans fire chassis business. When they leave, BOOOYAAAAHHH!!!! Kramer says sell Spartan Motors!!!!!!
    Rosenbauer buys from Spartan Chassis. What percentage of the chassis buisness is fire truck chassis?

    Rosy is made up of General and Central. Central seems to do more buisness, but Genral seems to have the happiest customers.

    Either way the split wouldn't benefit anyone nor would it take place overnight. Wouldn't hold my breath. Sounds like all the groups need each other to stay in buisness.

  19. #39
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default Spartan

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANCISBRUCE View Post
    Have you seen Spartan Motor's stock price? Rosenbauer is probably building their own chassis because Spartan is about to bite the bullet. They relied on military business too much. Rosenbauer is probably 1/2 of Spartans fire chassis business. When they leave, BOOOYAAAAHHH!!!! Kramer says sell Spartan Motors!!!!!!
    I'd suggest you be careful with your statement "about to bite the bullet" you like many on the forum make statements you can't back up or substantiate... Have you seen where Oshkosh (Pierce's Parent) was a few months ago.

    FYI Rosenbauer is NOT about 1/2 of Spartan's business either as Smeal buy about as many if not more than Rosenbauer % wise of Customs as many of Central States orders are on Commercial chassis's. As well there a a great number of regional builders who use Spartan.

    I know the stock not where it should be and have their stock too but many forget it's had some splits etc over the last few years where we made some very handsome profits! No it's not a real performer now but I had some Las Vegas Casino stock that was $56 before the crash and went to $1.62 and now about $34 so you never say never...

  20. #40
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANCISBRUCE View Post
    Have you seen Spartan Motor's stock price? Rosenbauer is probably building their own chassis because Spartan is about to bite the bullet. They relied on military business too much. Rosenbauer is probably 1/2 of Spartans fire chassis business. When they leave, BOOOYAAAAHHH!!!! Kramer says sell Spartan Motors!!!!!!
    Don't know much about Spartan OR the Fire business do you? Rosie is just a small part of Spartan's business. A good number of Americas Fire truck builders build on Spartan, along with HME and others. Rosie DOES NOT make up 50% of their customer base,NOT EVEN CLOSE. BTW you were mistaken on Ehprata too. T.C.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chassis Info Request
    By zfdtruckman in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 06:44 PM
  2. Chassis purchase
    By neiowa in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 08:12 AM
  3. Rosenbauer Earns Best New Apparatus Award
    By toddmcbr in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2006, 01:12 PM
  4. "General" brand apparatus - experiences?
    By Dudley in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-24-2004, 09:18 AM
  5. Medium duty 4x4 chassis
    By npfd801 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-20-2003, 01:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts