Spotted at the KME plant . . .

[Guest]

York Township's new Rescue is on the production line at KME and it is a two door cab with a walk-in box and after looking at their facebook page it is their cab

[fyreline]

. . . . And there you have it. Thanks, Steamer2336.

[Rob Pryor]

Just saw on the KME Facebook page that they have an order for 5 engines and 1 TDA for Honolulu and 2 engines for Hawaii County. 

 

Commish, thanks for your insight into what your department considered making an apparatus spec and purchase.  I can honestly say, my department purchased several KMEs in the late 90's and early 2000's.  For the beatings that they took, they held up quite well.  Yes, they had their problems, but, in truth; all manufacturers have their problems.  The KMEs were basic, bare bones, urban engines that served their jobs well.  We are still using 2 engines, a ladder, and a rescue in reserve.  I can't see the current crop of front line apparatus we are using holding up as long, given some of the issues we are having already with them, especially the 2 new engines/squads that are less than a year old.

[chief60]

When I was at Pierce a couple of weeks ago they still had 7 engines for Honolulu sitting there they were building them when I was there in April as well. Not sure what the hold up is?? I did some checking and KME was $108,767 cheaper PER engine than Pierce and $104,100 for the aerial! That is enough to make you change manufacturers!

[drfeelgood]

When I was at Pierce a couple of weeks ago they still had 7 engines for Honolulu sitting there they were building them when I was there in April as well. Not sure what the hold up is?? I did some checking and KME was $108,767 cheaper PER engine than Pierce and $104,100 for the aerial! That is enough to make you change manufacturers!

 

I just received a few quotes for two more Engines and KME is still cheaper than anyone in the area. 

[chief60]

How are your KMEs holding up? They were low bid on the engine I just bought but their dealer is in Alabama about 7 hours away. So I went with Pierce as they have a mechanic and service truck about 20 minutes away.

[GA_Dave]

When I was at Pierce a couple of weeks ago they still had 7 engines for Honolulu sitting there they were building them when I was there in April as well. Not sure what the hold up is?? I did some checking and KME was $108,767 cheaper PER engine than Pierce and $104,100 for the aerial! That is enough to make you change manufacturers!

It might be for some people.  Grumman was cheaper than everyone back in the early 1990's.  They were low bid everywhere.  By 1993, they were gone.

[drfeelgood]

How are your KMEs holding up? They were low bid on the engine I just bought but their dealer is in Alabama about 7 hours away. So I went with Pierce as they have a mechanic and service truck about 20 minutes away.

I forgot the Heavy Rescue we have was low bid as well. I should clarify the lowest bidder that met the specs.The ones we have in service are holding up well so far. We do have IFS issue on the Rescue which it will be going back to Pa. to get resolved soon but considering the factory is only 4 hrs away it isn't that bad. Our KME dealer is about an hour away but most repairs are done in our shop.  

[drfeelgood]

It might be for some people.  Grumman was cheaper than everyone back in the early 1990's.  They were low bid everywhere.  By 1993, they were gone.

Interesting thought process. If this were true in all cases Pierce should have been gone considering they were the lowest priced rigs in my region until 3-4 years ago. 

[Roto-Ray]

It might be for some people.  Grumman was cheaper than everyone back in the early 1990's.  They were low bid everywhere.  By 1993, they were gone.

 

 

Interesting thought.  That being said, the 23-year-old front-line HME/Grumman engine has given us zero problems and we'd buy another one today if they were still around.

 

The question is - is KME low-balling to get the sales, or is the Pierce product able to sell itself so well that they can charge whatever they want because people will buy them regardless of price?

[FireMedic049]

 

The question is - is KME low-balling to get the sales, or is the Pierce product able to sell itself so well that they can charge whatever they want because people will buy them regardless of price?

There's probably some of both going on.

[GA_Dave]

Interesting thought process. If this were true in all cases Pierce should have been gone considering they were the lowest priced rigs in my region until 3-4 years ago. 

Pierce may have been low priced in your area, but not everywhere.  They are typically higher.  A lot of pricing can be related to the specs.  Pierce can usually build a rig cheaper than others when it is a Pierce-based spec.  If Pierce has a good dealership in the area, which your area did, they will sell a lot of rigs, many of which will be spec'd as a Pierce.  Grumman low-bid everything the last couple years they were in business, just to keep the factory open and people working.  Corporate had already decided to pull the plug.

 

 

 

Interesting thought.  That being said, the 23-year-old front-line HME/Grumman engine has given us zero problems and we'd buy another one today if they were still around.

 

The question is - is KME low-balling to get the sales, or is the Pierce product able to sell itself so well that they can charge whatever they want because people will buy them regardless of price?

I never said that Grumman built an inferior product.  Most that I have seen over the years were solid, dependable rigs.  I also believe that KME builds a much better product than they did years ago.  Remember, in many cases, the dealer sets the price, not the factory.  Some dealers choose to make money by volume sales rather than on only a few customers.  And yes, some of us will only buy Pierce!

 

There's probably some of both going on.

I agree!  Such is the nature of the apparatus industry.  Nothing is carved in stone.

[fyreline]

Having been involved with fire apparatus for well over 40 years (and winding down with my retirement in 9 days), I have seen some pretty significant changes in the industry. I recall the days of touring the American LaFrance factory in Elmira, and it's pretty clear that any vehicle not built in that sprawling, decrepit old factory complex isn't really an American LaFrance, whether it carries the name or not. Yes, some of the Eagles are very nice and Syracuse owns a bunch of them, but they are mere shadows of the Elmira legacy. The chapters in between are best forgotten, and the future for them unfortunately seems uncertain. I wish them well, and hope they can survive, if for no better reason than a selfish desire to be able to get parts and support for ours!


We established a close working relationship with Sutphen starting in 1972, a lot of it driven by the dynamic personalities of two kindred spirits - our Chief of Fire, Thomas F. Hanlon III, and Tom Sutphen. Tom Sutphen believed in his product 100%, and made Tom Hanlon into a believer as well. We had experienced a tragic and fatal failure of a 90-foot snorkel at a major fire in 1971 (I was there that night, as a member of Syracuse's Fire Explorer Post). Chief Hanlon vowed that there would never be another articulating-boom truck in the Syracuse fleet, and there never has been. He liked the "back door" from the bucket, and the escape ladder straight down the Sutphen tower's sturdy box boom. Nearly everyone in the industry - except, notably, Aerialscope - told Tom Sutphen he was crazy and that there was no meaningful market for mid-mount aerial towers. Oh, really? Guess things have changed. We quickly standardized on the Sutphen 85-foot (and later 90-foot) tower, and to this day every Syracuse truck company runs nothing else. Every time we have a new truck purchase in the Capital Improvements Plan, I invite all other manufacturers to show me their newest and best. If I ever find one that can do everything a Sutphen tower can do, in the same places, for the same price, We will certainly consider it. So far, no sale. For many, many years Tom Sutphen wanted to put Sutphen engines in Syracuse firehouses as well, but our insistence on a rear-mounted 50 to 55-foot telescoping boom put them out of the running. A few years ago, a budgetary crisis dictated that if we wanted any new engines during those years, the booms had to go. This led directly to three Sutphen engines in the fleet, which have proven to be entirely satisfactory . . . But as a fireground commander, that telescoping boom is a nice tool to have in your box. Some creative thinking has enabled us to get it back in our engine specifications, which once again puts Sutphen out of the Syracuse Engine picture for now. We also found that Sutphen's close relationship with SVI in Colorado for large heavy rescue and command vehicles opened up the possibility of putting our Rescue 1 and HazMat 1 on the Sutphen chassis. We liked the SVI philosophy of building stainless steel rescues in the old Saulsbury style which had served Syracuse so well over the years. Having them on the same familiar chassis as our towers is a huge plus.


At one time in the 1970's, every Syracuse engine company ran a Pierce engine and a Pierce mini-pumper. We bought them six or seven at a time, and they helped set the pattern for subsequent Syracuse engines . . . 1500 and later 2000 gpm Hale pumps, 4 crosslays, 50 or 55-foot telescoping booms, Diesel engines, Allison automatic transmissions, foam systems, Rapid Water systems, and all-wheel-drive. These last two features were eventually phased out. The Pierce rigs were on Hendrickson chassis and gave many, many years of good service. Over the years many manufacturers bid these units, including local manufacturers Sanford and Saulsbury, E\-One and KME. Some were better than others, but all of them did the job. The five KME units, acquired from 1989 to 1991, were not highly regarded due to poor build quality - which I'm sure will come as no surprise to most of you. The reality, though, is these "built in the dark on an anvil" rigs pretty much always got you there, pumped, and brought you back. They weren't pretty and they shed parts like a dog sheds hair, but they worked.


As the industry has moved on, every so many years there is another shake-out at the corporate level leading to mergers, acquisitions and closures. Many old and proud names are unfortunately no longer with us, some long-time industry leaders have fallen on lean times, and a few new players are flexing their muscles. I feel that any one of the current major manufactures (and there are a lot fewer of them than there used to be) is capable of building your department a quality, reliable rig. As always, a lot depends on the written specifications and the expertise & knowledge of your apparatus committee. No manufacturer sets out to build a bad rig, especially not today. They build what you told them you wanted. It's incumbent upon you to know what that might be, and then to ensure that you got it. It's a daunting job to get right, and that's why so many departments have bad experiences. In the current scenario of KME building a couple new Syracuse engines, it would have been easy to say"Well, the last KME's we had weren't that great, so we don't want them". In reality, those earlier KME rigs were built before our current Apparatus Advisory Committee existed, and I think part of the fault with those KME rigs was ours. Not comprehensive enough specifications, not enough due diligence, not enough accountability. We left too much to chance - always a bad plan. But that was then, and this is now. I believe in a God of second chances, I've certainly needed enough myself over the years. So when these specs were put out to bid, we had enough faith in them to let the bids come in and to assess them for compliance, then award the bid to whichever manufacturer was most closely 100% compliant at the lowest cost. And here we are.


On my way to beautiful downtown Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday for the final inspection on the first unit. This will be my last factory trip of nearly 100, and I can't say I expected it to be to KME, but it is what it is. So far the rig looks great, and the KME folks have been cooperative and helpful. Times change, my friends, and you either change with them or you get left behind. And on we go. Sorry to be so long-winded.

[Marc]

Congratulations on your retirement. I hope you get another 40+ years out of it!

[Roto-Ray]

Pierce may have been low priced in your area, but not everywhere.  They are typically higher.  A lot of pricing can be related to the specs.  Pierce can usually build a rig cheaper than others when it is a Pierce-based spec.  If Pierce has a good dealership in the area, which your area did, they will sell a lot of rigs, many of which will be spec'd as a Pierce.  Grumman low-bid everything the last couple years they were in business, just to keep the factory open and people working.  Corporate had already decided to pull the plug.

 

I never said that Grumman built an inferior product.  Most that I have seen over the years were solid, dependable rigs.  I also believe that KME builds a much better product than they did years ago.  Remember, in many cases, the dealer sets the price, not the factory.  Some dealers choose to make money by volume sales rather than on only a few customers.  And yes, some of us will only buy Pierce!

 

 

Dave, you bring up some interesting comments.

 

One of the things that I've seen turn a lot of customers away from Pierce (at least in our area) is their sales/marketing strategy and tactics.  Few people will disagree that the Pierce marketing machine is one of the best out there.  However, I find it frustrating when I run into firefighters who will to poke fun at, or assume that a poor choice was made, when a customer chooses to purchase a rig from someone other than Pierce (not grouping you with these folks, Dave).  They think that no one can build a rig that will withstand the rigors of firefighting as well as a Pierce can - in spite of the longevity of many other manufacturers out there such as Seagave, Sutphen, KME, E\-One, and a number of the smaller regional manufacturers.

 

I've also reminded a lot of people that apparatus pricing has to be relevant to the area that's being sold in.  Someone from Alabama or Louisiana shouldn't look at the cost of of Pierce on Long Island to get an idea of what a Pierce might cost.  The sales staff has to know their area and customers in order to competitively bid their product.

 

Dave, can you explain your statement about the CPFD only purchasing Pierce?  Are you loyal to them based on quality, dealer support, pricing, or some other factor?

 

The comments posted by Chief Reeves are spot-on.  So many things have changed, and at the same time, so many things have stayed the same in this industry over the past 40-50 years.  However, longevity of the vehicle often depends on the specifications, and the customer assuring that the vehicle conforms to the specifications.  The question is, how does a customer who might only purchase a vehicle once every two decades have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that the vehicle was constructed to meet the specs?  Or, more importantly, that the specifications given to him by the sales rep were adequate to meet the demands that the customer will put upon the vehicle.

 

I know of areas of the US where the customer doesn't even do a final inspection at the factory.  Instead, they send the salesman out to do it on their behalf, and then they give the rig a cursory review at the dealership prior to delivery.  To me, this is ludicrous, but it's an accepted means of acceptance to those guys.  The fact that the customer is relying on the salesman to correctly interpret the specs and solely check the vehicle for compliance is a recipe for long-term trouble if you ask me.

 

On a somewhat related note, we recently sought proposals from three different manufacturers for new pumpers at work using the HGAC pricing schedule.  Our specifications were purposefully written to encourage competitive pricing amongst the vendors.   Each of the manufacturers were VERY responsive with their proposals - a couple even offered "extras" such as 3/16" bodies in place of the specified 1/8", etc.  When all was said and done, there was only a 1.3% spread from the lowest to the highest vendor.  I considered this to a success story as we purchase a quality rig that is also fiscally responsible to the taxpayers funding the vehicle.

[rlukas1]

When I was at Pierce a couple of weeks ago they still had 7 engines for Honolulu sitting there they were building them when I was there in April as well. Not sure what the hold up is?? I did some checking and KME was $108,767 cheaper PER engine than Pierce and $104,100 for the aerial! That is enough to make you change manufacturers!

While I was vacationing on Oahu last month I was surprised to find out that the new Pierce Arrows were still not on island.  A firefighter would only say "that there was a problem with the build" and the seven pumpers would not be delivered until sometime in 2014.

[fyreline]

The issue of Pierce's sales & marketing strategy (and I will include Dealer Network in the mix) sometimes costing them potential sales in certain areas could not be more true.


And, the question concerning the problem (and it's a real one) of " . . . how does a customer who might only purchase a vehicle once every two decades have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that the vehicle was constructed to meet the specs? Or, more importantly, that the specifications given to him by the sales rep were adequate to meet the demands that the customer will put upon the vehicle?" Is answerable by one word: Consultant. I know that's often a dirty word to many, but the fact remains that as long as every single fire department, large, small or in-between is convinced that they are ALL experts, and that they know more than the engineering departments of the manufacturers, and as long as the gap between this delusion and reality continues to grow, there is a fertile and lucrative field available for knowledgeable and credible fire apparatus consultants. You need someone working for YOU and your department, not the dealer and/or manufacturer. I have done this for a few departments (and no, I'm not looking for business) and I have saved them a lot of money and trouble, and assisted them in acquiring apparatus that actually suits their needs, fits their budget (and their fire station!), and that should provide them with years of functional, reliable service. The delivered rig came in on time, within or under budget, and compliant to the department's specifications. How many horror stories have YOU heard about rigs coming in built incorrectly, missing equipment, over budget, oversized, or that "weren't what they expected"? There is no viable reason or excuse for any of that in this day and age . . . And particularly in light of the spiraling cost of fire apparatus. Your department has not only the right, but the duty to see that these huge sums of money are spent wisely. Bear in mind that for some rigs purchased via grant money, the cost of a consultant can be included in the grant. To make a long story short, get your money's worth. Do the homework, invest the time, and get it right. Get help if you have to. Your brother and sister firefighters, and the citizens you are sworn to protect, deserve no less.

[Roto-Ray]

And, the question concerning the problem (and it's a real one) of " . . . how does a customer who might only purchase a vehicle once every two decades have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to ensure that the vehicle was constructed to meet the specs? Or, more importantly, that the specifications given to him by the sales rep were adequate to meet the demands that the customer will put upon the vehicle?" Is answerable by one word: Consultant. 

 

Chief, you're exactly right about this.  I was just discussing this with a mutual friend of ours yesterday while we were out getting some photos.  Unfortunately, even with one of the best consultants in the business, there are still some departments that are convinced they know how to do it better than the industry experts.

 

I'm sure we could all share stories, and here's one of mine:  a fire department needs to buy some new pumpers, and they send out a 100% Brand P spec.  They get five responses back, and a regional manufacturer is WELL below Brand P's price for their own product, so they elect to go with  the low bidder even though they're non-compliant.  As you would expect, Brand P protests, and they're successful.  After this debacle, they reach out to a consultant to help them create less proprietary specifications.  The chief says he'll send the consultant sections of the spec that he's not that familiar with (pump module, body construction, electrical wiring, etc).  The consultant quickly sees that the chief is using a manufacturer's specification again, this time from Brand S.  The consultant offers A LOT of suggestions to make the specifications less proprietary, but most suggestions go ignored.  When the spec his the streets, they're still 100% proprietary towards brand S.  In a strange turn of events, the dealer they got the specs from lost the dealership for brand S, so they ended up purchasing a higher-priced vehicle from a Brand S competitor that wasn't as compliant with the specs.

 

What a tangled web we weave...

[fyreline]

An all-too-common story, I'm afraid. It's no crime not to know everything, but when you start spending your taxpayer's or fire district's money to buy expensive fire apparatus, ignorance is inexcusable. And unnecessary.

[ACPD227]

I was on a truck committee for my former Volunteer department which covers 5 townships and 2 towns  We were specking a new 75' ladder Quint to replace a 1989 Pierce 105 rm ladder we got used and a 1989 Ford C FMC Pumper. The chief was not on the committee selected by the department board of directors but quickly stuck his nose and fingers in it. The truck committee looked at several mfgs demo rigs and quickly got a list of likes and dislikes along with must haves. Our truck committee attended FDIC and got more information on trucks and equipment. Our committee met 4 to 6 times a month. For almost a year. The committee decided to wait on a mfg to have Help us wright the specs until we decided what mfgs we liked and felt good with no sales pressure. The next meeting we attended the Chief was at and he had gotten word on how we planned to wright a spec that all mfgs could bid on. With him was the sales rep for brand p who lives in our response area. The chief demanded we spec with brand p and we start tonight. Since the other truck committee on our department was specking a new 4000 gal tanker with brand p. The specs were written after a year and a half of planning and were slanted to brand p all the way. When the specs were sent out for bids 7 mfgs responded and proposed trucks. Brand p was $200,000.00 more than the next bid. The committee threw out brand E and R because they didn't meet spec and brand P because they were too high and out of budget. It was down to brand F and S.  Brand S was still in because we didn't specify a rear mount. The committee felt that brand F met out needs the best and had a final meeting with brand F to go over the specs and make sure they met out needs and they could answer questions if we had any. The meeting ended and the committee felt that we would go to the board of directors then the body and recommend brand F build our new truck. Settled correct almost 2 years of hard work is about to become a truck we will have 20 years.

 

Wrong

 

Our Chief went behind the departments back and goes to the township trustee and got the trustee to buy a brand p demo rig with 30,000 miles on it. The truck we were replacing was a 1989 with 18,000 miles on it. After this happened we found out that this deal had been signed 2 weeks before we even met with the brand F rep. Our committee had 6 members on it not including the chief. Of the committee 5 of us quiet the department over this straw that broke the camels back and 2 years of time wasted for a demo rig.