1. #1
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Question Overheating eng ?

    Maybe someone who had experience operating the older "Cinn.-Cab" models (Seagrave, Sutphen, ALF's) of the '60's and 70's, could tell me why they hardly ever overheated? If you recall, they did NOT have an OPENING in the front of the cab (like most all do today) directly in front of the radiator...just wondering, that's all...
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    If you recall, they did NOT have an OPENING in the front of the cab (like most all do today) directly in front of the radiator
    No, but they did have openings/vents on the sides of the cab, immediately behind the driver and officer's doors, which was enough in conjunction with the ducted airflow of the fan to keep the plant cool enough.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default

    The ones I drove were only naturally aspirated 250 to 350 hp compared to now 450 to 500 HP turbo engines. Also the smaller engines allowed more space for the air to get by the motor

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Spring Tx 77380
    Posts
    59

    Default

    And they operated at a cooler temperature back then before the EPA mandates.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    No, but they did have openings/vents on the sides of the cab, immediately behind the driver and officer's doors, which was enough in conjunction with the ducted airflow of the fan to keep the plant cool enough.
    Thanks 'Buff' and I know what you mean, but look at this '63 Sea. "Cinn-Cab." The mainstay of these Sea. models, used huge 817cu. Waukesha gas engines, and sitting for long periods 'pumping'...I don't recall ever seeing one 'overheat'.

    I cannot see any 'openings' or vents anywhere...
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by 1OLDTIMER; 08-20-2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason: corrections:
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    Thanks 'Buff' and I know what you mean, but look at this '63 Sea. "Cinn-Cab."
    I don't see any 'openings' or vents anywhere...
    Ya good point. The directed air flow (through the radiator and across the engine) kept them cool, especially during pumping ops.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickyr View Post
    And they operated at a cooler temperature back then before the EPA mandates.
    I never have understood how the (UNelected) bureacrats at the EPA, arrived at the brilliant decision, that a piece of fire apparatus, pumping at a major fire...with toxic smoke billowing hundreds of feet into the atmosphere, could polute the atmosphere more than the fire itself, and MANDATE those vehicles to be EPA emissions compliant ? They are not running the streets in any location on a regular basis like a commercial vehicle. The only answer I have arrived at is, someone's relation or friend of someone at the EPA, was in business of making polution controls, and what better way to sell them (along with raising the price of a rig thousand of dollars)...of which the buyer has absolutely no choice...
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1OLDTIMER View Post
    I never have understood how the (UNelected) bureacrats at the EPA, arrived at the brilliant decision, that a piece of fire apparatus, pumping at a major fire...with toxic smoke billowing hundreds of feet into the atmosphere, could polute the atmosphere more than the fire itself, and MANDATE those vehicles to be EPA emissions compliant ? They are not running the streets in any location on a regular basis like a commercial vehicle. The only answer I have arrived at is, someone's relation or friend of someone at the EPA, was in business of making polution controls, and what better way to sell them (along with raising the price of a rig thousand of dollars)...of which the buyer has absolutely no choice...
    If given the opportunity to apply for an exception, the EPA *might* grant Fire Apparatus said exception. However, it is the engine manufacturers that have a problem.....

    Detroit, Cat and Cummins all produce millions of units per year. The Fire Apparatus Industry accounts for a *very small* percentage of the total units built. It would cost more money for the engine builders to have to re-tool the production lines for this very small percentage, than it would be to just sell the EPA compliant units to fire apparatus manufacturers.

    It all comes down to the allmighty dollar, as usual,
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Well, let's see.... Intercooler hung ahead of the radiator to help stuff more air into the intake, Automatic Transmission cooler, and air conditioning. Add in a commercial chassis with standard radiator and a reliance on using an auxilery cooler. Then we have loads from lighting packages and the attendant 400 amp alternator, and an oil cooler for the hydraulic PTO generator. Do ya think there might just be a little more cooling requirements, and that's even before we let the EPA screw with the engine. How about the loss of btu in the low sulfur diesel that now requires more rpm to reach the required horsepower. Gee I wonder why???

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    If given the opportunity to apply for an exception, the EPA *might* grant Fire Apparatus said exception. However, it is the engine manufacturers that have a problem.....

    Detroit, Cat and Cummins all produce millions of units per year. The Fire Apparatus Industry accounts for a *very small* percentage of the total units built. It would cost more money for the engine builders to have to re-tool the production lines for this very small percentage, than it would be to just sell the EPA compliant units to fire apparatus manufacturers.

    It all comes down to the allmighty dollar, as usual,
    I discussed this issue with IH powerplant engineer (now in marketing) at FDIC this year. He said if we had an emergency vehicle exemption from the EPA BS would be no problem to supply bare engines. They already make export and marine versions of their engines without all the Truck Tier XYZ BS. Think of the $ you'd save on a new truck!

    Every commerical chassis that comes down the production line is a custom unit anyhow. The fire apparatus mfg certainly would have no problems.

    So the next time you see a lib dem US Senator ask them when they are going to save the tax payer some $ by passing an emergency vehicle exemption from EPA regs.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    1OLDTIMER's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    USAF 389th SAC
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireinfo10 View Post
    I discussed this issue with IH powerplant engineer (now in marketing) at FDIC this year. He said if we had an emergency vehicle exemption from the EPA BS would be no problem to supply bare engines. They already make export and marine versions of their engines without all the Truck Tier XYZ BS. Think of the $ you'd save on a new truck!

    Every commerical chassis that comes down the production line is a custom unit anyhow. The fire apparatus mfg certainly would have no problems.

    So the next time you see a lib dem US Senator, ask them when they are going to save the tax payer some $ by passing an emergency vehicle exemption from EPA regs.
    Maybe it is time to start a 'grass roots, Tea-Party, common sense movement, to make the (no common sense whatsoever, F/M A.Gore type ) 'tree-huggers' aware of this rediclous, archiac mandate.

    However, I do feel much safer as a bystander now...standing across the street of a 'major' (behind the yellow tape), knowing that the 'working fire apparatus' is not emitting any toxic, hazardous, cancer causing, second hand emissions...nevermind the plume of toxic, hazardous, cancer causing, second-hand smoke rising 200ft in the atmosphere.
    "we will bankrupt ourselves in the vain attempt at absolute security"
    Pres. / General Dwight D. Eisenhower

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Also, older trucks did not have temp clutch driven fans or air actuated fan clutches. Just direct fan belt drive all the time.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireinfo10 View Post
    I discussed this issue with IH powerplant engineer (now in marketing) at FDIC this year. He said if we had an emergency vehicle exemption from the EPA BS would be no problem to supply bare engines. They already make export and marine versions of their engines without all the Truck Tier XYZ BS. Think of the $ you'd save on a new truck!

    Every commerical chassis that comes down the production line is a custom unit anyhow. The fire apparatus mfg certainly would have no problems.

    So the next time you see a lib dem US Senator ask them when they are going to save the tax payer some $ by passing an emergency vehicle exemption from EPA regs.
    And that's International. Compare their total powerplant production numbers to DD, Cat and Cummins and I bet the numbers dont even come close, in other words IH can afford to re-tool the assembly line for a limited production run.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    And that's International. Compare their total powerplant production numbers to DD, Cat and Cummins and I bet the numbers dont even come close, in other words IH can afford to re-tool the assembly line for a limited production run.
    Do some research on truck and engine production volume before you throw out nonsense.

    Note that CAT quit the hghway truck engine business. DD is a minor player.
    Last edited by fireinfo10; 09-29-2011 at 11:47 AM.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    We had a 1963 Oren on a TMC style cab with a 817cu. Waukesha gas engine.

    This thing was a work horse.

    It did heat up and several times looked like an old steamer pumping it full load of over 1500 GPM.

    The engine covers had to be opened and the engine cooler was in operation.

    Several times it had to be shut down and the shop guys thought she was going to blow.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    And that's International. Compare their total powerplant production numbers to DD, Cat and Cummins and I bet the numbers dont even come close, in other words IH can afford to re-tool the assembly line for a limited production run.
    Don't HAVE to retool, at least on a Cummins. EPA schit is all add-on that fairly easily could be LEFT OFF with said exemption. fairly sure DD is the same.Cat might have a little more work to do. T.C.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireinfo10 View Post
    Do some research on truck and engine production volume before you throw out nonsense.

    Note that CAT quit the hghway truck engine business. DD is a minor player.
    Cat and navistar(Int) are sleeping together on several engine platforms,notably a 15 liter version that shows some promise. time will tell. T.C.

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptOldTimer View Post
    We had a 1963 Oren on a TMC style cab with a 817cu. Waukesha gas engine.

    This thing was a work horse.

    It did heat up and several times looked like an old steamer pumping it full load of over 1500 GPM.

    The engine covers had to be opened and the engine cooler was in operation.

    Several times it had to be shut down and the shop guys thought she was going to blow.
    817 walky. TOUGH engine. Don't BREAK it,your backside will hurt for MONTHS(expensive).Keep the gas cans full and coming if you're working it hard at a fire. BEAUTIFUL "bark" if set up and operating correctly. T.c.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 21m
    By Shrek7 in forum Federal & Military Firehouse Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 06:39 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 01-24-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 07:26 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 01-17-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2004, 12:47 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 01-10-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-12-2004, 11:12 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 12-20-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2003, 10:17 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

Log in

Click here to log in or register