Thread: Pierce PUC

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default Pierce PUC

    I've seen the new Pierce PUC. In my opinion, they can say that they removed the pump house. But the pump still has to be somewhere. And so do the controls. So when you roll up the first compartment door and the control panel is there...it makes it kind of hard to stack tools in there. Thats just hiding the pump panel.

    I believe other companies have tried this idea. E-One comes to mind. Wasn't it called the Daytona? I think it was revealed at FDIC also. Where is it now? Who uses them?

    I guess I'm a fan of somewhat traditional fire apparatus. I've seen some pretty slick custom cab trucks which serve well as rescue apparatus also. Even one with an ALS transport capable custom cab. All without claiming to have done something off the charts such as Pierce and the PUC.

    I suppose if we eliminate the pump altogether...then we'd really have some room for rescue stuff. Fires still happen. And you'd better bring a fire truck. Just my opinion.
    Assistant Chief

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    243

    Default

    personally all I see is a shorter truck, which is not all bad.

    but the first compartment is mostly pump panel,
    like a rear pump, last compartment and rear is all pump panel.

    give and take I guess

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    92

    Default Pierce Puc/Various

    Just back from the fire expo in Harrisburg, Pa. Always a good day trip for checking-out the latest offerings. We bought a Pierce Dash rescue/pumper last year. We are due for another new engine or whatever we determine in the next three years. I think Pierce's cabs are getting more and more plastic, which I personally don't care for. To be fair, so are the Spartans and E-Ones.
    The velocity cab did have some additional leg room over our Dash in the jumpseats. The new mirrors they copied from the european trucks are very ugly. But super functional. Definately a function over form thing. The puc? I think it would be better suited with a much smaller pump panel in a compartment above the pump that fits under the rear seat. I agree, I don't see any additional compartment space with the pump panel taking-up the first compartment. I am now also seeing what many others here have posted in the past. Combos don't serve any function very well. Quints are terrible engines, okay ladder trucks; rescue engines are not good rescue trucks, or engines. The Quint combos are huge trucks now. American LaFrance's display was good. Their partnership with LTI is great in my opinion. Their chassis looked good as well. They had Philly's new tiller on display, neat piece. Metz had their new Raptor there on a Rosenbauer chassis. 102' ladder tower, with a wheel base as long as our foam/engine back at the station on a single rear axle. Pretty nice. I don't think they are at a good price point for trying to get started in a new market. They start at around 825K.

    Mark

    BTW: Get to Harrisburg an hour before the doors open and visit the Fire Museum. What a place. 3 million in building restoration, a working city pull box system, and many antiques. What a treat...

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    211

    Default Fire Expo

    Having looked at the Pierce PUC engine I got to say I was not all that inpressed.

    I guess the pump was under the cab! (One foot under the back of the Cab)

    Some what of a short wheeel base. Lost compartment space due to pump panel controls.

    Not sure I am sold on a shaft drive pump.

    I know I don't like the concept of having TAK-4 rammed down my throat!
    By try to tell me it reduces maintenance costs! It may in the short run, however when you need to tear every thing apart to get to the engine, I don't think it will reduce costs.

    More rambalings later!

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Its a good concept. I don't think its much more than what a good apparatus committee could come up with though. I remember checking fallon nevada's rigs. No real pump panel, just electronic switches set at a predetermined pressure. Now that got rid of the pump panel.

  6. #6
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    At the risk of sounding like a Kool Aid drinker, here are some other thoughts on the PUC, based around some of Chief1FF's comments (and for the record, the apparatus committee I'm chairperson of [at the volly station] is looking at ALL the manufacturers for our next pumper...).

    With 750 gallons of water, the wheelbase is 184". Additionally, there is 400CF of compartment space in this configuration. While 1/2 of the front compartment is taken up by the pump panel, the full-height, full-depth compartments on the officer's side make up for it. Futhermore, if you look at the split-depth compartments on the driver's side, you'll find that the "shallow" portion is not as shallow as you'd find on a normal "T" tank, and the split between the upper and lower sections is not as low on a conventional pumper. How much SF of compartment space do you have on your 184" WB pumper?

    The pump panel is partially mounted below the rear portion of the cab, but the pump itself is to the rear of the cab. I have photos documenting the pump location if anyone's interested.

    There's no doubt that it's unconventional, but people seem to forget that the Rear Mount pumps also cause you to lose valuable compartment space, PLUS, on the RM's, you don't have a rear compartment like you'll find on the PUC.

    As for the Tak-4, it's now standard on Pierce custom cabs, but can be deleted for a significant cost savings. Some people love the IFS, others hate it. As for your comment about having to tear the IFS apart for motor maintenance, I'm not sure I follow ... half of the 28 Pierce's (Quantums, Lances, and Dashs) we have at work have Tak-4, but our mechanics aren't forced to tear the suspension apart for routine motor maintenance. And some of our engine's are running 3000+ runs a year.

    Just some food for thought, corrections & comments welcome...

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Firefighter807's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    East (Right) Coast
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Content deleted by author.
    Last edited by Firefighter807; 07-08-2009 at 10:08 PM.

  8. #8
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    807,

    How long is it going to take for you to see that there ARE other manufacturer's out there besides Pierce that make a quality product? Why do I want to take the time to justify spending an additional $25k for the black oval name plate when I can get a vehicle of equal quality that meets the same specification? I'm not proposing always buy the low bid, rather, buy the lowest responsible bid.

    While your making your plans to become the mayor of Appleton, think about this: Why do our brothers in DC and NYC ride around on Seagraves? Why does the entire aerial fleet in Syracuse come out of the Sutphen factory? Why did Arlington County replace thier entire fleet with E-One's? Are the powers that be in all of these jurisdictions making bad decisions? If so, you better call 'em and find out the address to send your packets of Kool Aid - I'm sure they're thirsty.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Hunterdon County NJ
    Posts
    48

    Default Harrisburg

    I took a look at the PUC at Harrisburg and the only thing that came to mind was "WHY ??". Now I am sure to someone it seemed like a great option, but to me all they did was get rid of the pump panel, put half the pump under the cab and half in the 1st compartment. I just do not really see any great value in it other than a short wheelbase.

    I also did take the time to finally look over the Velocity chassis and I do like the interior of it. Exterior it did look better in red but it might take some time for it to grow on me !

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoxAlarm187 View Post
    807,

    How long is it going to take for you to see that there ARE other manufacturer's out there besides Pierce that make a quality product? Why do I want to take the time to justify spending an additional $25k for the black oval name plate when I can get a vehicle of equal quality that meets the same specification? I'm not proposing always buy the low bid, rather, buy the lowest responsible bid.

    While your making your plans to become the mayor of Appleton, think about this: Why do our brothers in DC and NYC ride around on Seagraves? Why does the entire aerial fleet in Syracuse come out of the Sutphen factory? Why did Arlington County replace thier entire fleet with E-One's? Are the powers that be in all of these jurisdictions making bad decisions? If so, you better call 'em and find out the address to send your packets of Kool Aid - I'm sure they're thirsty.
    I hear Matchbox and Hotwheels makes a nice truck these days. I just saw a nice Sutphen pumper the other day and was very impressed with it and I do believe but I'm not 100% sure, they said Pierce was 20 or 40,000 different in the price. I

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,331

    Default

    I heard the pump in these new trucks from Pierce have Darley pumps in them is that right?

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    466

    Default

    You are correct, the pump is made by Darley. To my knowledge, Darley will be the only offering in the PUC

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Is that such a bad thing, we have run Darley pumps for many many many many years and they seem to be a good reliable workhorse, they are probably the most popular pump here in Australia, apart from Rosenbauer, and they are very popular in New Zealand as well, so for reliablility they seem to be on the money. You don't often see them in the mainstream, Pierce, Seagrave, ALF, E-One etc etc any reason for that.

    Sorry if I am going off topic.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    466

    Default

    I reread my post and if you read into that I was saying Darley was a bad thing, then I probably need to reword it because that is not what I meant.

    Darley builds a great product and they back it up. I'm actually blown away with their recent marketing campaign. For those of you that haven't seen it, Paul Darley, the CEO has his direct office phone, home phone and cell phone listed in the ad in the event that a customer has problems, questions, concerns, etc.

    I personally think he's nuts for doing it, but it shows he believes in his product and nontheless the ad is a class act in my opinion.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    294

    Default

    I wasn't meaning you were bad mouthing it, I was anticipating the usual negative answers and saying, is it so bad.

    Our brush trucks has had the same Darley 1.5 AGE for the last 20 + years, and apart from gland packing and the usual service it has been faultless, have fought some decent fires with that truck and it holds a special place for those of us that have been around a while now.

    We also ran a Darley HM350 for some 20+ years, the only reason it was replaced was that it is to small for modern operations, our other larger brush truck runs a Darley HE500, again a good pump. although the department specced a single stage pump which isn't so good for running booster reels.

    The new pumper runs a Rosenbauer NH30, not our choosing, but a good pump.

    So I am saying that Darley make a good strong reliable pump.

    Good luck to those that get one.

    Back to your regular programming

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Fire304's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    At the Helm
    Posts
    1,174

    Default

    So it looks to me like the drive train for the pump is hydraulic, anyone know if this is correct? If so, does that mean they have pump-n-roll?
    ________________________________________________
    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

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief1FF View Post
    I know I don't like the concept of having TAK-4 rammed down my throat! By try to tell me it reduces maintenance costs! It may in the short run, however when you need to tear every thing apart to get to the engine, I don't think it will reduce costs.
    You lost me here as well. We have a pumper with the TAK4 and Ive assisted our mechanic with repairs on occasion, a busted alternator belt not to long ago. Didnt have any problem at all getting to things. Now, Im not a mechanic, but to me it looks like there is plenty of room to work around the front end. Acctually, due to the fact it doesnt have the solid axle under it, I think you would have better access.

    As for the reduced maintenance costs, bet on it. Our pumper is pushing 40k miles and has not yet required front brakes. Not only reduced costs, but its a dream to drive, stops on a dime and is the most comfortable apparatus Ive riden in. My FD will never buy another rig without independent front suspenssion.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Oh, about the PUC...We are going to look seriously at it when its time for our next pumper. We run ALS engines and bout 70% EMS calls, so the super short wheel base is great. I like the PUC set up better then a rear mount as with the rear mount, you lose both part of a side compartment and the rear compartment. And the access to the pump is great for maintenance. I printed the info off of Pierces website and gave it to our mechanic. He had the look of a kid on Christmas morning.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    66

    Default

    No offense to those who have them...but the rear of an apparatus is the last place I want to be standing when operating a pump. 9 out of 10 times I'd in the street. And the last place I want to be is standing in front of the rear bumper when a drunk driver decides to park his/her car into the apparatus. I know proper vehicle positioning and vehicle blocking procedures can be used...but not all the time. Especially in the initial minutes when you're the only rig on scene before the traffic is shut down.

    Likewise I also do not like standing in front of an apparatus (front mount) when I am staring at the engine operating at 2000 rpm. I can't help but picture the truck jumping into road gear. Unlikely...but weird things happen.

    The best design I've seen was a Pierce sidemount with identical panels on both sides as a custom design by a customer. Or topmount.

    At least the PUC isn't rearmount.
    Assistant Chief

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,221

    Default

    Its all subjective. Much like anything else - you either hate or love them. I run off a rear mount, with the panel at the rear - and I like it. I can position myself to see the fire and what's coming up behind us. Visibility of the scene is good, on a street I really don't need to be staring at the panel for the single line going for a car fire or MVC, etc. To me - a top mount you can see the scene well, but can you really see what's behind you? To me - if you get hit hard while operating a top mount, you aren't going to fare well standing up on the panel. I like my odds knowing I can watch behind me and run like hell if necessary.

    But - I'm grown up enough to know that what I like isn't what you like. And I can respect that. The other three engines we run are top mounts, and I can see the positives of that as well - but for me - I like the rear mount the best.

    I say potatOH you say poTAHtoe.
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave1983 View Post
    You lost me here as well. We have a pumper with the TAK4 and Ive assisted our mechanic with repairs on occasion, a busted alternator belt not to long ago. Didnt have any problem at all getting to things. Now, Im not a mechanic, but to me it looks like there is plenty of room to work around the front end. Acctually, due to the fact it doesnt have the solid axle under it, I think you would have better access.

    As for the reduced maintenance costs, bet on it. Our pumper is pushing 40k miles and has not yet required front brakes. Not only reduced costs, but its a dream to drive, stops on a dime and is the most comfortable apparatus Ive riden in. My FD will never buy another rig without independent front suspenssion.
    Dave,

    Not saying that independent front suspension is bad. After all cars have had them for years.

    At the show where I looked at the PUC the sales people where basically saying that Pierce's TAK4 was the only front suspension worth using, in so may words every body else's front suspension was junk! When I asked if I could get a regular suspension they began a 1/2 hour pitch on why standard front suspensions where junk. (Does that mean all current apparatus including all the Pierce's out there are junk? When I asked that they shut up!)That's what I ment by having it rammed down my throat.

    If you read my post I agree with you in the short run like brakes, it does help reduce costs, However in my department we keep our equipment a minimum of twenty years. So we always end up replacing oil pan gaskets and the like.
    In order to replace and oil pan gasket on a TAK4 the suspension must be dropped out of the way. I have also talked to some EVT's who have told me that even oil changes on TAK4's are some what a major pain in the back side(Keeping post clean) and take much longer then on a conventional front suspension. Since we change the oil three times a year on all our apparatus, that is additional maintenance costs. Not to memtion front end aliginments are costly on trucks.

    We put around 7,000 to 9,000 miles a year on our 4 major rigs and usually get around 40+ thousand miles before we replace brakes. This is because we take the time to spec out the right size brakes and suspension componets when the apparatus is designed. This is a major thing that a lot of departments over look when going through the spec process.

    My department had a 1980 Pierce which we sold in 2003. It was a great rig! The only reason we sold it over our 1990 E-One was it was a semi open cab where the E-One was fully enclosed. If the Pierce was fully enclosed the 1990 E-one would have been the one that was sold.

    I am the Chairman of my departments apparatus committe and we are looking at all manufacturers with the exception of two of the major builders, and Pierce is not one of those two.

    Chief1ff
    Last edited by Chief1FF; 05-30-2007 at 08:38 AM.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    211

    Default

    "As for the Tak-4, it's now standard on Pierce custom cabs, but can be deleted for a significant cost savings. Some people love the IFS, others hate it. As for your comment about having to tear the IFS apart for motor maintenance, I'm not sure I follow ... half of the 28 Pierce's (Quantums, Lances, and Dashs) we have at work have Tak-4, but our mechanics aren't forced to tear the suspension apart for routine motor maintenance. And some of our engine's are running 3000+ runs a year"

    BA187,

    Read my last post! In my original post I did not expand like I should have, I was short on time.

    My departments current 2nd engine has a 172" wheel base with a 1000 gallons of water and a top mount pump! It does not have the compartment space that the PUC has due to the fact that it has ground ladders and hard suction hanging off either side. It also carries the following in the hose bed:
    250 ft of 2 1/2" preconnected
    1550 ft. of 5"
    400 ft. of 3" preconnected
    200 ft. of 1 3/4" preconnected for our foam line.
    Along with 3 cross-lays and a front bumper jump line with 150 ft. of 1 3/4.
    The PUC I looked at would not even come close to carring that much hose! It also has 11 compartments on it. Granted the 6 high side compartments are very small because of the ladders and hard suction, however this engine was bought to carry hose not a lot of equipment.

    It all in how you spec out the rig and if you can find some body to build it for you!

    Chief1ff

  23. #23
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    Chief,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I have to agree that the PUC might not offer the quite the same hose carrying-carrying ability that the pumper you described does. The PUC probably isn't the answer for every department in the US, but then again, what single vehicle is.

    At work, the PUC would probably work well at some stations, and not as well at others. At my vollie house, the PUC would work great. Our engine is running more MVA's than fires on probably a 10:1 average ... in fact, although we train on it regularly, the last time we had to drop cotton for a supply line was about 3 months ago. We've probably run 50 MVA's since then. From the CF standpoint, the compartment area on the PUC would be more beneficial for us.

    Comments welcome...

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    18

    Default

    There is an article in this month's Fire Apparatus Magazine (Sorry FireHouse) about the PUC. The pump is made by Darley for Pierce which Pierce is calling proprietary. It is driven by a hydraulic motor which Pierce is again calling proprietary. It also has a pump controller that is manufactured by FRC for Pierce, which again Pierce is calling, you guessed it, proprietary. Also, as soon as you set the parking brake, the transmission goes into neutral.

    Now I don't know about the rest of you, but having to go back to Pierce for any maintenance at all seems like a real bad idea. Not having the abitily to have a local fire apparatus mechanic do any work on it is not something that floats our boat! They already have us tied up with the Command Zone (Yea, its proprietary). There are some really good mechanics in our area that are there for us 24/7, and we look at maintenace down the road on any apparatus we buy. Because regardless if it is a Pierce, Seagrave, E-One, KME, etc., they will need work. Our neighboring department runs Pierce and they have waited days until a mechanic can get to them to get a truck back on the road. Pierce trucks are over priced to begin with (My thoughts only), and having to give them more money ... well enough said.

    Also, the idea of counting on the parking brake putting the trans into neutral seems like a real bad idea.

    We'll stick with tried and true mid mount pumps, something we can fix.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Don't quote me on this but the tranny going into neutral when setting the park brake is an Allison option. You could probably spec that into any truck if you thought it was needed, but why? Actually I just thought of it, because it's not a split-shaft transfer case, you could forget to put it in neutral and have a run-away. Ah ha!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Pierce (Appleton) vs Pierce (Bradenton / Contender)
    By gefd901 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 01:04 PM
  2. Why Pierce is the Best Choice
    By Firefighter807 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 270
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 07:38 PM
  3. Pierce Failure
    By ff43065 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-07-2005, 03:50 PM
  4. Pierce Ė The Innovator of the Fire Apparatus Industry
    By BlitzfireSolo in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-12-2004, 03:54 PM
  5. Just Curious
    By firechiefkev in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-25-2002, 12:07 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