Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: 2007 Engines

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Easton,Pa
    Posts
    368

    Default 2007 Engines

    For those of you whose departments were scheduled to purchase a new truck in 2007 and have now moved that date up to this year in order to avoid a 2007 engine I have a question.

    If you are unable to get a 2006 engine will you then wait until 2008 to avoid any potential problems or just go ahead with the purchase and take a 2007 engine?

    I'm not saying there are going to be problems, I am just curious.


  2. #2
    Forum Member IronsMan53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    652

    Default

    That is a very good question. We are getting a few new rigs and I don't think that admin is either speeding up or delaying it because of the engines.

    I do imagine that there has been pretty extensive testing that has resolved the majority of any issues. You may get a visit to update the software in the first year or two as they find problems that didn't arise in testing.
    I can't believe they actually pay me to do this!!!

    One friend noted yesterday that a fire officer only carries a flashlight, sometimes prompting grumbling from firefighters who have to lug tools and hoses.
    "The old saying is you never know how heavy that flashlight can become," the friend said.
    -from a tragic story posted on firefighterclosecalls.com

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Penn Valley, Ca
    Posts
    571

    Default

    According to Fleet Maintenance magazine, the 2007 engines have undergone roughly 10 times the testing that the 2002 engines did. But that is not saying much. The 2002 engines were rushed to market extremely, mind-bogglingly fast and they basically had only two changes, EGR and variable geometry turbos. The testing miles bascially amounted to running exactly two OTR trucks for their lifetime. Not very impressive. Now they want to add a flame-cleaned particulate trap and who knows what internal technology to the engines and they have tested the equivalent of roughly 20 trucks for a lifetime. My guess is it will not be much better. Even the EGR engines since 2002 are still not reliable at all after 3-1/2 years

    Birken

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    1,012

    Default 1984

    Here we go with the usual government interference trying to meet requirements that I may not totally disagree with but they test the OTR rigs but fail to figure out that emergency service equipment just does not operate in the same manner.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Penn Valley, Ca
    Posts
    571

    Default

    What I worry about is what happens when that particulate trap gets full when an engine is pumping a fire on an all-nighter and needs a burn-out, will the pump continue to function while this is going on or what?

    Birken

  6. #6
    Forum Member Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    Birken, do you know if they are going to use a purge type trap or a continuos burn like a catylitic converter? I would hope its continuous as the purge type will gradually loose power as crap builds up.

    lvwrench, its not that the Gov't is actively ignoring us, the fact is at we are far less than 1% of the heavy truck market, we just don't matter.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  7. #7
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BirkenVogt
    What I worry about is what happens when that particulate trap gets full when an engine is pumping a fire on an all-nighter and needs a burn-out, will the pump continue to function while this is going on or what? Birken
    The particulate filter will burn itself off when it needs to as long as the engine is running and the filter can reach the 1200 degress needed to do the burn. GM is setting up a series of lights to warn the driver when the burn is needed and I'm sure all other manufacturers will do the same. If the light turns yellow and the engine is running you can throw a switch to activate it.

    If the light goes on while you're out driving you will need to find a highway or somewhere you can do at least 40 mph for 20 minutes to complete the burn off process.

    There will be more of a problem for landscapers and inner-city delivery trucks where the engines get short runs with constant on and off routes. They might have a problem finding somewhere to get a good run.

    Just remember that this round of emissions is nothing compared to what's coming in 2010.

    Also, no manufacturer has announced their price increase for the systems yet. Rumors have it anywhere from $4,000 up to $8,000. GM has said between $4,000 & $5,000 which is on the low side as I've heard Ford/International will be over $5,000 and Mack has hinted at $7,000. GM has a slight edge since Isuzu has been using the system in Japan for a year and they know it will work.

    If you are looking into getting a new truck for 2007 make sure you budget for the increase.
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  8. #8
    Forum Member Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    There will be more of a problem for landscapers and inner-city delivery trucks where the engines get short runs with constant on and off routes. They might have a problem finding somewhere to get a good run.
    I have a feeling that those guys will find a screw driver and a pair of pliers to "fix" the particulate trap.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  9. #9
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire304
    I have a feeling that those guys will find a screw driver and a pair of pliers to "fix" the particulate trap.
    3 Words: "Void the Warranty"

    Most engines have a fixed time (months) and unlimited mileage warranty do I don't think they will want to "screw" with that.
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The North East
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    There will be more of a problem for landscapers and inner-city delivery trucks where the engines get short runs with constant on and off routes. They might have a problem finding somewhere to get a good run.
    I hope that engaging and running a pump will accomplish this? Then what about an aerial? I'd like to see how most cities will send their apparatus to the highway to conduct this "burn off".

    This emission regulation crap is clearly a place that Fire Apparatus needs to be waived. They're making it even more expensive for the taxpayers and not solving the problem. The percentage of fire apparatus to all others is miniscule. Why not give us a pass for the Greater Good? I guess those buying commercial chassis would not get the break as it isn;t likely that Sterling or Freightliner would make multiple engines or chassis in both configs given the small number used for Fire Apparatus.

  11. #11
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM
    I hope that engaging and running a pump will accomplish this? Then what about an aerial? I'd like to see how most cities will send their apparatus to the highway to conduct this "burn off".

    This emission regulation crap is clearly a place that Fire Apparatus needs to be waived. They're making it even more expensive for the taxpayers and not solving the problem. The percentage of fire apparatus to all others is miniscule. Why not give us a pass for the Greater Good? I guess those buying commercial chassis would not get the break as it isn;t likely that Sterling or Freightliner would make multiple engines or chassis in both configs given the small number used for Fire Apparatus.
    1) Running the pump should suffice if the manufacturer puts the switch in like GM is doing. Whether it's an aerial or pump if the engine is running for a sufficent period of time you should be able to do the burn.

    2) Emission regulations can't be waived and they are solving the problem. The 2007 emissions standards are reducing the particulate matter & NOx by 90% over the 2004 standards and the 2010 requirements will reduce it even further. The problem is getting all the older engines that had no kind of controls at all off the road. But since diesels run forever that will be a hard task.

    3) Sterling or Frieghtliner don't make engines they buy them from engine manufacturers who don't know where the engine will be going when they make it. Asking to have fire truck engines waived would be like asking for police cars to be waived from their standards. We all add to the pollution problem and taking the lead can help enhance our image to the public. Whining about it can only hurt as people might think, "well how do they think they are that they're better than us."

    4) Taxpayers are going to pay for it anyway in the municipal dump trucks, trash trucks, etc.

    5) We will all pay for it as truckers will have to raise their rates, landscapers will charge more for their work, mulch deliveries will be more, UPS and FEDEX will have to raise their rates just as they all did with the rising fuel costs.

    6) Consider gas engines as an alternative for some uses.
    Last edited by dragonfyre; 04-08-2006 at 12:05 PM.
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  12. #12
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Steve,#6.Like what? The ONLY current piece of equipment we run that is GAS is a portable pump or other portable equipment. With what I see in the shop,the ONLY way we would revert back to gas would be if we couldn't outsource a diesel. New diesels have reduced reliability but nothing compared to gas jobs as it relates to emergency services. Not to mention the cost of feeding the gassers. My opinion only,T.C.

  13. #13
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    GM still offers a gas engine in their trucks up to 52,000 gvwr. Don't know if the fire service would embrace it but I have several delivery trucks on state contract that use the gas engines since they do less than 25,000 miles per year in light duty use.

    It might be more viable in ambulance use. They still have great horsepower and torque ratings.
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Penn Valley, Ca
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    3 Words: "Void the Warranty"

    Most engines have a fixed time (months) and unlimited mileage warranty do I don't think they will want to "screw" with that.
    Warranty will only be void if the modification causes a failure. You can bet that lots of people will be tampering with these things when they fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    1) Running the pump should suffice if the manufacturer puts the switch in like GM is doing. Whether it's an aerial or pump if the engine is running for a sufficent period of time you should be able to do the burn.
    I can only speculate on how the system might work but I can tell you for certain that the only system that really works is for the driver to get into the truck and drive it to where he's going and operate it how he wants to operate it. Anything else will be a train wreck. One problem there might be with these is similar to catalytic convertors on gas engines, when the vehicle is not moving the lack of air flow and cooling might cause problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    2) Emission regulations can't be waived and they are solving the problem. The 2007 emissions standards are reducing the particulate matter & NOx by 90% over the 2004 standards and the 2010 requirements will reduce it even further. The problem is getting all the older engines that had no kind of controls at all off the road. But since diesels run forever that will be a hard task.
    Sure they can be waived, the same bureaucrats that come up with them can and do grant exemptions all the time. They might reduce problems in some places but I can tell you that around here air flow patterns are such that if everybody drove 1970s small cam Cummins and Detroits spewing black smoke nobody anywhere would breathe any harder because of it (except in the general vicinity of the trucks). And because of these new laws and these new $5000+ upgrades we are going to have to put off purchase of new equipment yet again because it will still be out of our reach. Our engines are 1982-2001 with most of the emphasis on the 80s/early 90s. They will continue to pollute the same they always have, that is a lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    3) Sterling or Frieghtliner don't make engines they buy them from engine manufacturers who don't know where the engine will be going when they make it. Asking to have fire truck engines waived would be like asking for police cars to be waived from their standards. We all add to the pollution problem and taking the lead can help enhance our image to the public. Whining about it can only hurt as people might think, "well how do they think they are that they're better than us."
    Maybe so but I doubt it. Nobody can see pollution anyway. And yes they engine manufacturers know exactly where their engines go, and they have different specs for city buses, fire apparatus, general trucks, and probably others.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    4) Taxpayers are going to pay for it anyway in the municipal dump trucks, trash trucks, etc.
    That is true but those trucks spend much more time moving than our trucks which spend a great deal stationary. That was the specific point of the last few posts. Our trucks are outside of the norm of trucking and are expected to be exceptionally reliable, though of late they have been exceptionally unreliable.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    5) We will all pay for it as truckers will have to raise their rates, landscapers will charge more for their work, mulch deliveries will be more, UPS and FEDEX will have to raise their rates just as they all did with the rising fuel costs.
    That is true but at least those applications will have been sufficiently tested in the field when the engines hit the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    6) Consider gas engines as an alternative for some uses.
    A terrible idea because they burn roughly twice the fuel and we are (at least saying we are) trying to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Plus the most promising technology (bio-diesel) does not work with them. Running them on ethanol, etc. means they burn roughly twice the fuel AGAIN. Plus the lack of power. And the complete lack of development in heavy truck gas engines since about 1970. Plus the tremendous underhood heat. I would say increased maintenance items but with all the new crap on diesels I am not sure that is accurate any more.

    But I am sure many rural and VFDs will be buying gas engines for at least the next 5 years in their commercial chassis. And they will become albatrosses too.

    Firemen and civilians will lose their lives over this and constituents will lose property, probably not spectacularly (as in "the soot trap couldn't purge so the pump stopped") but in ways that are not tangible such as apparatus out of service, unable to buy due to cost, etc.

    The amount of pollutants saved over the 100,000 or so mile life of a fire truck in know way add up to $5000 in value. Especially if being broken down because of it results in additional property or life loss at a structure fire, etc. This is a case of one item being placed far, far ahead of all the others (by people spending others' money) with no consideration to striking a balance.

    Birken

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    [QUOTE=2) Emission regulations can't be waived and they are solving the problem. The 2007 emissions standards are reducing the particulate matter & NOx by 90% over the 2004 standards and the 2010 requirements will reduce it even further. The problem is getting all the older engines that had no kind of controls at all off the road. But since diesels run forever that will be a hard task.

    3) Sterling or Frieghtliner don't make engines they buy them from engine manufacturers who don't know where the engine will be going when they make it. Asking to have fire truck engines waived would be like asking for police cars to be waived from their standards. We all add to the pollution problem and taking the lead can help enhance our image to the public. Whining about it can only hurt as people might think, "well how do they think they are that they're better than us."
    [/QUOTE]

    BS there is no "pollution problem" that needs solving. Air quality in the US is better now than at any time since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Just more pandering to the out of control environmental wackos.

    The EPA regs most certainly can be waived for any group that has the political muscle to force the issue.

  16. #16
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    I guess that Birken and neiowa are now selling trucks because they seem to know WAYYYYY more than I do and I've been selling trucks for 20 years.

    Diesel engine average mpg is 8, gas is 6. In a fire truck that's nothing.
    Vortec 8100 V-8 had 295 hp and 440 ft lbs torque, more than enough for some applications. (Field piece, ambulance). http://www.gmfleet.com/gmfleetjsp/us...7500_C8500.jsp

    neiowa must also be a scientist since he says "there is no pollution problem". I guess that anyone who thinks there is must be idiots especially those who are concerned about diesel emissions in the workplace. Guess all those Ply-mo-vent salesmen are nothing more than snake oil salesman.

    And engine manufacturers only know to what factory they are sending their product (GM, Ford, Freightliner, Sterling). That's who knows where the final product is going. They don't make anything different for different uses. It's the transmissions that have different models based on their use.
    http://www.allisontransmission.com/p...ions/index.jsp That's why Allison makes an Rugged and Emergency services model.

    But what do I know, I'm just a salesman!
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ocala, Florida
    Posts
    222

    Default Gasoline powered ambulances

    Although the "triple KKK" specs does allow for a gasoline engine in an ambulance, Ford won't supply a gas engine as part of their ambulance prep package. When you get away from the class 6 chassis I'm not sure there is anyone who at this is selling a chassis for ambulance use except Ford.
    That pretty much limits ambulances to diesel engines.

  18. #18
    Forum Member Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    As for getting away from diesel, there sure seem to be an awful lot of natural gas powered city busses showing up in my neck of the woods, you would think these stop-n-go plants would work, at least in smaller apparatus.

    Can we be waivered? I don't see why not, considering the implications of equipment failure due to new modifications alone should validate a waiver. When you consider that most FD's don't run their trucks enough to even warm them up (and emision controls don't work until operating temp is reached) on the vast majority of calls, we can't comply even if we had the equipment.

    BUT, the problem is that we make up far less than 1% of the heavy engine market, no manufacturer is going to build a special engine just for us, so a waiver would be useless once the current stock of engines run out.

    If the EPA was serious about cleaning up diesel engines they'd require fuel processors to stop putting crap into the fuel. Fact is the emmisions from 100% bio-diesel is extremely clean and safe, because the fuel is not loaded with sulfur and other stuff that the refieries are trying to dispose of. (I know there are lots of issues with 100%, I'm just saying its clean).

    I think there is a place for gas engines in the fire service, especially in the class 3-5 market. The Ford V-10 is every bit as powerful as the older 7.3l powerstroke and is much cheaper to purchase. Considering that we never wear an engine out (body always rots or is beat to a pulp before engines reach their service life) there is no longevity advantage to the diesel. Again, with the mileage issue, most of the time we run our engines cold, a gas warms up and stays warmer when idling, which increases efficiency and decreases emisions. Gas engines are also quieter which may be an advantage for ambulances. When being used as a brush truck, it allows common fuel between the truck and the gas powered pump.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

  19. #19
    Forum Member dragonfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Birdsboro, PA
    Posts
    967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire304
    [If the EPA was serious about cleaning up diesel engines they'd require fuel processors to stop putting crap into the fuel. Fact is the emmisions from 100% bio-diesel is extremely clean and safe, because the fuel is not loaded with sulfur and other stuff that the refieries are trying to dispose of. (I know there are lots of issues with 100%, I'm just saying its clean).
    Diesel fuel has to be low sulpher and diesel oil has to be low ash starting in September 2006. As far as bio-diesel goes the jury is still out on how it will affect the engine. No manufacturer will warrant the engine if you use anything over 5% bio at this point.

    GM is running a test fleet of trucks on B-20 to see how they will do in the long run. I'm sure that some other manufacturer(s) are testing it also. Once that's done we'll see what happens.
    Steve Dragon
    FFII, Fire Instructor II, Fire Officer I, Fire Appartus Driver Operator Certified
    Volunteers are never "off duty".
    http://www.bufd7.org

  20. #20
    Forum Member Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonfyre
    Diesel fuel has to be low sulpher and diesel oil has to be low ash starting in September 2006.
    Home heating oil (#2, same as diesel) also had to be low sulfur by 2001 (I may be off by a year or so) nation wide except the north east, 2005 there, but due to the "emergency" created by Katrina the EPA has allowed fuel processors to go back to high sulfur content in the entire country. They've been trying for years to clean up the fuel, but the fact is big-oil has a lot of friends in congress so its one step forward two steps back. I'll believe it when I see it.
    ______________________________ __________________
    If you are new to posting please CLICK HERE for an essential lesson
    ______________________________ __________________
    A bad day in the boat is better than a good day in the office. And in my case the office is a boat!

    IACOJ Fire Boat 1

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 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
  2. World Of Fire Report: 07-13-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 08:31 AM
  3. Indiana -Antique Fire Engines
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2003, 01:20 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 12-18-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-2001, 10:34 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 11-23-01
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2001, 07:15 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