2.4U vs 3.4U

WA Department of Fire and Emergency Services (6AR and 6IP) (Including the Fire Services, SES & VMRS) and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

Moderator: bogged

Post Reply
BuddahFRS
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:28 pm
Location: Armadale

2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by BuddahFRS »

i have noticed that there are 2.4U and 3.4U, wouldnt it be better if everyone got a 3.4U as more water and the same gear?
----BUDDAH VFRS----
WPXZBP

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by WPXZBP »

Sometimes economics comes to mind (more expensive for a 3.4) as does mobility - 3.4s have a larger mass therefore may not be as nimble on the fire ground.
Fastlane
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6FLMZ

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by Fastlane »

3.4U is a MUCH larger truck chassis. I don't believe many of these get built anymore due to the size and weight.
SamW

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by SamW »

As soon as our 3.4 sees sand it gets bogged. And it is very tight getting down fire breaks, but the 3000L of water is very handy, we often get called in to put out stags.
Helitak_670
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1056
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by Helitak_670 »

Try 2600L on the 3.4 Sam. Hardly a 3.4 really. Try NSW with their cat 1 tankers, 3600-3800lts on the same truck! Go figure.
BFB LT1
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: In this weeks Zoo mag 13/04/09.

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by BFB LT1 »

a turn out time speed wise would be better in a 2.4 rather than a 3.4 with a tonne weight difference as well as mobility could be better aswell. power to wieght ratio..
Crippled
blackduck
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by blackduck »

As soon as our 3.4 sees sand it gets bogged
not always true just depends who's driving & Tyre pressures. we take our 3.4 into sand all the time but it does go down quicker then the old 2.4
observer
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:14 am

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by observer »

BFB LT1 wrote:a turn out time speed wise would be better in a 2.4 rather than a 3.4 with a tonne weight difference as well as mobility could be better aswell. power to wieght ratio..
I believe the 3.4 is on a diffent cab/chassis than the 2.4. Looking at the vehicle specs the 2.4 is loaded to 92-93% of its GVM, while the 3.4 is loaded to 90.5% of its GVM. Not sure of the power of each vehicle, but it could be possible that the 3.4 has a higher power to weight ratio than the 2.4.

Source

2.4 http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/?Men ... tentID=254
3.4 http://www.fesa.wa.gov.au/internet/?Men ... tentID=259
dlcat1
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by dlcat1 »

Helitak_670 wrote:Try 2600L on the 3.4 Sam. Hardly a 3.4 really. Try NSW with their cat 1 tankers, 3600-3800lts on the same truck! Go figure.

Ever wondered were I got the inspiration for my username?

Yep, we had 3300 or 3500 on the crew cab CAT1 and 3800? on the single cab CAT1. There were other differences with the crew cabs being specialised for forests and peri-urban with heaps of hose, extra handtools and chainsaws, portable and "draggable" pumps, overhaul equipment etc, and the singles were specialised for grassland with a full length run around fighting platform and less hose and tools. (things might've changed since I was there)

We topped out at 100km/h flat in 6th for the old 700 series crew cabs and up to 115km/h bouncing off the limiter with a tailwind with the newer plastic trucks. Some preferred the off road performance of the 700s but whether this was because they where smaller or had better suspension was a point of debate. Uphill was a joke in both. We got overtaken by B-double grocery trucks, full. I think GVM for our crew cab was 13500kg?

NSW RFS also has CAT 2s (2200 or 2500L 4WD), CAT 7 (Mitsu Canter or Isuzu 1200 or 1500L 4WD), CAT 9 (2p Cruiser or Patrol or 4p Landrover 500L 4WD) CAT 11 (CAT 1 modified for urban interface with bigger pump, rescue lights, gen sets, flaked hose, 35mm * 60 live reel, caba, etc and often with 2wd), PC (Troopie Personnel Carrier) other units like boats, catering, airsupport, ICV and forward ICV, logistics etc. You might also hear BULK which is anything from a 10KL converted army fuel tanker or slip on to a 55KL B Double water tanker. These get used anywhere you have supply problems from urban interface blow ups to supplying helos in the sticks.
chrissss

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by chrissss »

2.4U is on 550 cab chassis
3.4U is on a 750 cab chassis
Fastlane
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:24 pm
Amateur callsign: VK6FLMZ

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by Fastlane »

chrissss wrote:2.4U is on 550 cab chassis
3.4U is on a 750 cab chassis
The current 750's at least, have a turbo as well.
dlcat1
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:54 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by dlcat1 »

Back when I was in NSW (2001 or so) we were told that the trucks would not be fitted with turbos (something to do with maintenance or run in hours?) but they fitted an electric boost fan to some to help them get up hills.
newbie
150+ posts
150+ posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:09 am

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by newbie »

you'll probably find that in WA they put turbos in so they can downgrade to a smaller engine, which makes the trucks cheaper, not really an issue untill you get a hill or sand, the trick is to keep the revs up so the turbo doesn't cut out, once it cuts out your screwed because then the smaller engine on its own just doesn't have the power you need.
Helitak_670
WARSUG top poster
WARSUG top poster
Posts: 1056
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm
Location: Everywhere

Re: 2.4U vs 3.4U

Post by Helitak_670 »

On the new trucks for the NSW RFS the trucks have turbo's fitted.
Post Reply