Pierce - Ford Power Stroke

[Red Horse]

I find this a bit surprising;

http://www.piercemfg...fordpowerstroke

Ford was one of the gorillas in class 7 back in the old days before they sold out to Daimler.  The new Ford 750?  3.32% of class 7 market share and I say the reason is no one has any confidence in the  6.7 Ford Power Stroke/Ford built Torqueshift trans.  Might work well in an F-250, even a 550 at 19,500 pounds but in a 33,000  gvw dump truck??

 If this goes anywhere this is a real positive statement on this engines capability.

[kscarbel2]

Bob, I like the idea of an affordable piece of fire apparatus. You know it's geared low (high numerically). I think it will work fine.

[Red Horse]

1 hour ago, kscarbel2 said:

Bob, I like the idea of an affordable piece of fire apparatus. You know it's geared low (high numerically). I think it will work fine.

Kevin, 

Hope you are right.  Actually the fact that the 6.7 was included in BAE's unsuccessful bid for the Humvee replacement is also a positiver statement as to how others view this motor.  And as you have previously pointed out, with  AVL's fingerprints all over this motor's design there is good reason to be positive.

 as to Ford's miserable showing in class 7 sales, I still think  Ford is suffering from a perception problem associated with the old 6.0 and 6.4 Power Strokes.

[tjc transport]

i know quite a few people with 6.7 powered F-750's. and they love them. 

they say they are much better trucks than the mercedes powered sterlings. 

[bulldogboy]

That is different!! Pierce is the leader in custom fire apparatus and if it has confidence in the Ford diesel it says a lot. It will be interesting to see how well customers take to the Ford diesel.

bulldogboy

[cncFireman]

The 6.7 is a stout engine. It's now 6 years into production. They call the 6.7 another legendary engine as the old 7.3 is. The 6.0/6.4 debacle was why Ford kicked out International and built their own engine quite successfully so far. The transmissions are pretty stout as well. Ford has been making improvements to the engines internals to make them even stronger. Ford has been outselling the competition with the new superduty trucks. 

[fxfymn]

I'd have to see a power to weight ratio before I'd pass judgement, but it seems under powered for the application. 

In most fire service applications the key factor is the ability to accelerate rapidly with a still acceptable top end speed. Our overall response speed average was around 32 mph, with a lot of stop and start driving, but we also ran a bunch of interstate highways where you needed to at least be able to keep up with traffic. That made the option of just using a low rear end ratio to gain acceleration problematic, so we also used higher HP engines to overcome that.

My bet is that Pierce, a division of Oshkosh, is concerned with Cummins being the last independent engine supplier and that it makes them dependent on them. Maybe they want to put them on notice that they are willing to go elsewhere if need be. Then again maybe Oshkosh is using the 6.7 in their military applications and want to apply the cost savings of large purchases to their fire apparatus. Either way I don't think they will sell many 6.7's in fire service applications.

[kscarbel2]

So long as you calculate all the factors and get your startability right with the appropriate rear axle ratio, you'll never be underpowered. Top speed will be reduced, but it will certainly go fast enough for the infrequent interstate run.

I'd rather have a Cummins ISB, but apparently Ford was the low bidder.

[kevink1955]

Back around 1981 Pierce had a short wheelbase Dash Pumper that had an International 7.3 (I think the same as the Ford) we test drove 1 and it ran OK but they used a side mounted PTO for the pump that had a torque limit so the largest fire pump it would support was 1000 GPM. We needed 1250 min.

We went with a Detroit 6V92ta with an Alison tranny and a split shaft Waterious transfer case 1250GPM pump.

It was our first Non Mack truck, after being used to the low speed 4 stroke Mack the Detroit sounded like it was revving 5 grand. It was a good truck, We purchased another in 1985, same 6v92 but with DDEC electronic engine controls. It ran even better than the 81's.

NFPA killed both trucks with their inside seating rules, no longer could you hang off the back step.  All our pumpers are now 4 door cabs (pierce) and the last 3 do not even have back steps.

[fxfymn]

Quote

So long as you calculate all the factors and get your startability right with the appropriate rear axle ratio, you'll never be underpowered. Top speed will be reduced, but it will certainly go fast enough for the infrequent interstate run.

That depends on the area they operate in. We have companies responding on the interstates several times a day with some of our engines doing 30K miles a year, a very high number for fire apparatus. We learned that when an apparatus is under powered it will be a headache for as long as it is around. In the long run spending a little more for a higher hp that could do the job across all operating conditions was money well spent.

We also have the luxury of being able to replace apparatus pretty quickly compared to most places. Most front line engines are replaced every five to seven years which gives us the opportunity to experiment and find out what works best. And on a couple of occasions we realized that we screwed the pooch on a purchase and just dumped it before its service life was up.

 

[bulldogboy]

In the 1960s, '70s, '80s, and early '90s, the Ford "C" model was probably the most used chassis for fire apparatus. Just about every manufacturer (except Mack and it did use the "N" model) used the "C" model.

Late in the 1980s, Pierce, in order to compete with the "C-8000" model and eventually replace it, introduced the Dash "D-8000" chassis. The "D-8000" used the same Caterpillar 3208 diesel engine and Allison transmission

that the "C-8000" used. Like the Mack "MB" model in the '70s, the Dash "D-8000" was a way for small departments to move up to an affordable custom chassis with components that they were familiar with.

                                      bulldogboy

 

[VaPatentman]

Fxfymn raises a good point on underpowered apparatus. Some the old the Ford “C’s with gas engines acted like turtles at times. The Cat equipped units ran better.

[kscarbel2]

With 330 horsepower and 725 lb/ft of torque, and a rear axle ratio chosen to achieve "12" startability, I imagine top speed easily reaching 65mph, and that's fast enough. Remember, it runs up to 2,800 rpm.

[fxfymn]

65 may seem fast, but you will have to turn off the emergency warning lights and siren as soon as you hit the interstate at 65. I know since we used to do that in some of our rigs that were woefully under powered. It's pretty embarrassing to either have Yugos flying by you or to look in the mirror and see a massive traffic jam behind you with drivers afraid to pass as you plod along with red lights and sirens wailing.

The C cab Fords with the 3208's were OK, but that was pretty much a different era when even OTR trucks were running 300 HP commonly. Unfortunately fire apparatus has gotten much bigger and heavier over the past 20 years and I'm sure if a 3208 was used in today's stuff it would be a slug.

Like I said in the earlier post it all comes down to power to weight ratio. Most new stuff is going upwards of 15 tons for a pumper and I just don't see 300 HP moving that very well. If they went to an all aluminum chassis and body it might work, but then the cost has risen so high you might as well just stick to a larger HP engine in a conventional chassis.

Quote

NFPA killed both trucks with their inside seating rules, no longer could you hang off the back step.  All our pumpers are now 4 door cabs (pierce) and the last 3 do not even have back steps.

NFPA didn't kill the back step; a lawsuit did. A member was killed when he fell off of a Pirsch apparatus equipped with a grab handle that ran across the roof of the cab. The deceased stood in the jump seat area and fell off to his death. The widow sued Pirsch alleging that the placement of the grab bar implied that the area was designed for a member to stand and ride in that area and she won a rather large settlement. This product liability suit made the builders realize that back step riding was unsafe and potentially costly to them so they started affixing labels to the back step warning against riding there. It wasn't long before four door cabs were prevalent and back steps, thankfully, disappeared. NFPA 1901 legislated the trend well after it had taken hold.

Quote

Back around 1981 Pierce had a short wheelbase Dash Pumper that had an International 7.3 (I think the same as the Ford) we test drove 1 and it ran OK but they used a side mounted PTO for the pump that had a torque limit so the largest fire pump it would support was 1000 GPM. We needed 1250 min.

I'm curious; why did your department need a 1250 pump?

[Maxidyne]

As far as acceleration and hill climbing go, even this derated 6.7 PowerStroke will have better than 20 HP/Ton in a 2 axle truck. Top speed will probably have to be governed down to the tire's ratings. Sure, they could put a 15 liter 600 HP engine in there, but it'll handle worse due to the couple thousand pounds additional weight and cost $20,000 more to boot!

[1958 F.W.D.]

DISCLAIMER: It is no secret among my friends that I do not like Pierce. I think that they build a good truck as long as they are building the truck that you want them to build and not the truck that they want to build for you (often the case as is evident in their bid proposals....) You also have to keep on top of their engineers during the design process. I do not like their "Our shit does not stink" attitude nor do I like their sales tactics and ideologies. 

That being said, I'm with Carl. I am not sold. I will have to dig into this a little deeper to form a better educated opinion. 

Fire pumps need torque, not horsepower. This engine does not have the torque needed to push anything more than a 1250 at best.

A wise old man (my father) once told me "if you want horsepower and torque you need CID." 

The first thing that came to mind when I read this story was that meme of the two Hondas drag racing- it says "This is not a Drag Race....This is two idiots seeing who's lawn mower is faster." 

Edited November 8, 2017 by 1958 F.W.D.

[fxfymn]

We went 100% Pierce after I retired after being 100% E-One for a while. The lads tell me that they are just like any other builder; some good, some bad and pretty consistent electronics gremlins. They have taken delivery of over 100 rigs from them, so I guess they are not all bad.

I ran into one of my ex-aids the other day who is now the driver of one of the 6 or 7 Mack Granite/Pierce 3000 gallon tankers they have. His comment was I love the Mack part, but the rest is Pierce so its not all good. MP7 engine and Allison auto and he claims it moves right along for what it is.

[cstaples]

I feel another strong argument for "real" motors in fire apparatus is brake HP. We have three midsize engines ie: 8.3, ISL9, and that god forsaken KME Maxxforce thing. Being completely unimpressed with any of their ability to hold back, especially at low RPM, we now are buying larger displacement motors with real Jacobs compression brakes. We have been running the DD13 @ 515hp in our #42,000 engine flawlessly for a little over a year. It stops consistently without using the brakes. We will take delivery of our 2nd DD13 in a couple months.

 

I agree FWD lots of smoke and mirrors, but honestly, no one out there currently is even in the same ballpark as the big "P". Our rig is designed by us top to bottom. Even when their engineers said "why" we answered "it's what WE need to operate"!!!

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by cstaples

[fxfymn]

Quote

that god forsaken KME Maxxforce thing

I always say that most Jakes just consider whatever rig they have to just be a ride to the fire, but you always remember the very slow, very fast, and very unreliable rigs.

[1958 F.W.D.]

11 hours ago, cstaples said:

I agree FWD lots of smoke and mirrors, but honestly, no one out there currently is even in the same ballpark as the big "P". Our rig is designed by us top to bottom. Even when their engineers said "why" we answered "it's what WE need to operate"!!!

One of my bitches with the Apple(ton) Kool-Aid. When you ask their engineers to think outside of their cookie-cutter box, they go into vapor lock. 

[ff6cav]

On 11/8/2017 at 11:01 PM, cstaples said:

I feel another strong argument for "real" motors in fire apparatus is brake HP. We have three midsize engines ie: 8.3, ISL9, and that god forsaken KME Maxxforce thing. Being completely unimpressed with any of their ability to hold back, especially at low RPM, we now are buying larger displacement motors with real Jacobs compression brakes. We have been running the DD13 @ 515hp in our #42,000 engine flawlessly for a little over a year. It stops consistently without using the brakes. We will take delivery of our 2nd DD13 in a couple months.

 

I agree FWD lots of smoke and mirrors, but honestly, no one out there currently is even in the same ballpark as the big "P". Our rig is designed by us top to bottom. Even when their engineers said "why" we answered "it's what WE need to operate"!!!

 

I have to agree, Pierce is killing the rest of the apparatus manufacturers, at least here in southcentral PA.  Most of that is due to an excellent salesman and service shop, who are willing to work with and accommodate the customers.  I actually disliked Pierce until my former department bought one.  There are many departments in this area who have been heavily leaning towards Seagrave, but the salesman wouldn't even talk to them.  Same with Sutphen, who basically wants customers to pick a rig out of a book of pre-designed specs.  That Keene rig looks great, I have in-laws (wife's grandparents) who live in Keene, and we visit usually at least once a year.  I might have to finally stop in at the firehouse one of these days!

[Lmackattack]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:08 PM, fxfymn said:

We went 100% Pierce after I retired after being 100% E-One for a while. The lads tell me that they are just like any other builder; some good, some bad and pretty consistent electronics gremlins. They have taken delivery of over 100 rigs from them, so I guess they are not all bad.

I ran into one of my ex-aids the other day who is now the driver of one of the 6 or 7 Mack Granite/Pierce 3000 gallon tankers they have. His comment was I love the Mack part, but the rest is Pierce so its not all good. MP7 engine and Allison auto and he claims it moves right along for what it is.

It likely moves along well because it has no emission crap bolted to it. ?? I don't think military or emergency trucks come with EPA crap on them?

 

[Nobody454]

ford 6.7 is JUNK. And I'm a Ford guy.  68000 miles on a 2011, needs high pressure fuel pump, and new injectors, to the tune of $9000. GM uses the same junk fuel pump. I guess there is no good choice any more with emissions 

 

[ff6cav]

47 minutes ago, Lmackattack said:

It likely moves along well because it has no emission crap bolted to it. ?? I don't think military or emergency trucks come with EPA crap on them?

 

Fire apparatus are not exempt from emissions rules, unfortunately.

[kscarbel2]

30 minutes ago, Nobody454 said:

ford 6.7 is JUNK. And I'm a Ford guy.  68000 miles on a 2011, needs high pressure fuel pump, and new injectors, to the tune of $9000. GM uses the same junk fuel pump. I guess there is no good choice any more with emissions

Particularly compared with the problematic 6.0-litre Powerstroke (Navistar VT365 with HEUI fuel injection), the current AVL-designed 6.7 has delivered good service for most operators.

That said, I'd rather have the 6.7L Cummins ISB.

As I said before, if one could order a Ford pickup with the Cummins ISB and Allison 1000 Series transmission, you'd be good to go.