Overheating eng ?

[1OLDTIMER]

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...

[FWDbuff]

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.

[FireEngOpr]

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

[rickyr]

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

[1OLDTIMER]

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...

[FWDbuff]

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.

[1OLDTIMER]

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...

[FWDbuff]

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,

[kuh shise]

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???

[fireinfo10]

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.

[1OLDTIMER]

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.

[Takfour]

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

[FWDbuff]

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.

[fireinfo10]

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.

[CaptOldTimer]

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.

[Rescue101]

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.

[Rescue101]

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.

[Rescue101]

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.