Apparatus Cost

[Bulldog]

Which one was more dependable and did a better job putting out fires?  My guess would be that the Macks are probably more dependable and they both do about the same job putting out a fire.  Most of the extra money is for electronics and lots of fluff that really doesn't help putting out a fire!

 

[efd274]

What you said raybrag is very true - also chassis, suspension et al. - so agreed it is somewhat "apples" and "oranges". Electronics also play a big role in everything today as well as the Bulldog says.  Certainly they play an important role in communications.  I also agree that pound for pound and dollar for dollar virtually everyone liked those old Macks.


If memory serves gas was about 25 cents a gallon in 1962 - so currently (until the next oil crisis)the cost of gas has somewhat of a linear relationship with the price of cars. Conversely TV's are much less expensive today than in 1962 - and that is the result of electronics

 

[Bulldog]

Diesel emissions rules, safety standards and equipment, vehicle size, automatic transmissions, and other factors make up some of the reasons for the disparity, don't you think?

All of those things also changed in automobiles during the same time so really the comparison shows that fire apparatus costs have risen much faster than the General Automotive industry.  I really don't think vehicle size has changed that much especially for engine companies and if anything the older trucks may have weighed more.  I think possibly one of the major reason is a lot of the fire equipment manufacturers have quit manufacturing vehicles so there's less competition.