UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

or

OR

Commission File Number 1-31371

(920) 235-9151
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code(920) 235-9151code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d)15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YesXNo  __

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YesXNo  __

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Common Stock Outstanding as of May 4,July 29, 2005: 36,361,96336,662,463

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q INDEX
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,JUNE 30, 2005

2

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL INFORMATIONSTATEMENTS
OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(Unaudited)(In thousands, except per share amounts; unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)(In thousands, except share and per share amounts; unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
SIXNINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,JUNE 30, 2005
(Unaudited)(In thousands, except per share amounts; unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)(In thousands; unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
MARCH 31, 2005
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
(Unaudited)amounts; unaudited)

1. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

TheIn the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included herein have been prepared by Oshkosh Truck Corporation (the “Company”) without audit. However, the foregoing financial statements contain all adjustments (which include normal recurring adjustments except as disclosed herein) that are, in the opinion of Company management, necessary to present fairly, the condensed consolidated financial statements. Operatingposition, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented may not be indicativepresented. The consolidated balance sheet as of the annual results.

September 30, 2004 was derived from audited financial statements. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidatedaudited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’sOshkosh Truck Corporation’s (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004. The interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

The Company recorded cumulative adjustments in each of the first twothree quarters of fiscal 2005 to increase the life-to-date margin recognized on its multi-year Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (“MTVR”) production contract, which is accounted for under the “percentage-of-completion” method, by a total of 2.32.5 percentage points for the sixnine months ended March 31,June 30, 2005, including 1.40.2 percentage points recognized in the three month period ended March 31,June 30, 2005. The adjustments resulted from negotiation with suppliers during the period of disputed pricing on two components of the MTVR truck, lower material costs as steel costscost increases were less than anticipated, improved overhead absorption under the contract due to increased overall defense segment production volume, lower warranty costs due to favorable field experience and other items. The cumulative life-to-date adjustments in fiscal 2005 increased the margin percentage recognized on the contract from 7.6% to 9.9%10.1%. These changes in estimate increased operating income for the three and sixnine months ended March 31,June 30, 2005 by $14,100$2,100 and $22,600,$24,700, net income by $8,700$1,200 and $13,900$15,100 and earnings per share by $0.24$0.03 and $0.38,$0.41, including amounts related to revenues recorded in prior periods of $13,500$1,700 and $21,500$23,100 in operating income, $8,300$1,000 and $13,200$14,200 in net income and $0.23$0.03 and $0.36$0.39 in earnings per share for the three and sixnine months ended March 31,June 30, 2005, respectively. The Company had recorded a cumulative, life-to-date adjustment inDuring the first quarterand third quarters of fiscal 2004, the Company recorded cumulative catch-up adjustments to increase the life-to-date margin percentage on thisthe MTVR contract from 5.5% to 6.3% which7.1%. The cumulative catch-up adjustments increased operating income for the six monthsthree and nine month periods ended March 31,June 30, 2004 by $6,500,$7,100 and $14,200, net income by $4,100$4,500 and $9,000 and earnings per share by $0.12.$0.12 and $0.25, respectively.

On May 3, 2005, a sufficient number of shareholders of unlisted Class A Common Stock converted their shares to New York Stock Exchange – listed Common Stock, on a share-for-share basis, which resulted in the remaining Class A shares automatically converting into Common Stock on the same basis. As a result of this conversion to a single class of stock, shares of Common Stock that previously had limited voting rights now carry full voting rights.

2. ACQUISITIONS

On March 9, 2005, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of London Machinery Inc. (“London”). London is based in Ontario, Canada and is a manufacturer and marketer of rear-discharge concrete mixers for the concrete placement market with sales throughout the Americas. The purchase price, including acquisition costs and net of cash acquired, of $11,185, was allocated based on the estimated fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition with any excess purchase price allocated to goodwill.

On November 1, 2004, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of the Concrete Equipment Company, Inc. (“CON-E-CO”). CON-E-CO is a leading manufacturer of portable and stationary concrete batch plants headquartered in Blair, Nebraska. The purchase price, including acquisition costs and net of cash acquired, of $20,117, was allocated based on the estimated fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the date of acquisition with any excess purchase price allocated to goodwill.

7

The Company has performed or engaged a third party business valuation appraiser to assist in the valuation of the assets of the acquired companies. The following is a summary of the recorded fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed of CON-E-CO and London as of the dates of acquisition based on preliminary information:

The valuation of intangible assets consists of $1,603 of assets subject to amortization and $3,898 assigned to tradenames not subject to amortization. The intangible assets subject to amortization consist of $996 in customer-related assets with a twenty-year average life and $607 of non-compete agreements with a five-year life.

The CON-E-CO and London acquisitions were accounted for using the purchase method of accounting and, accordingly, their operating results were included in the Company’s consolidated statements of income from the dates of acquisition. The allocation of the excess purchase price, including acquisition costs, of the CON-E-CO and London acquisitions over the estimated fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed amounted to $9,670 and has been recorded as goodwill. All the goodwill was assigned to the Company’s commercial segment and is not deductible for local income tax purposes. The allocations were tentative at June 30, 2005, pending finalization of appraisal valuations, which are expected to be finalized by September 30, 2005.

On July 8, 2004, the Company acquired 100% of the stock of JerrDan Corporation (“JerrDan”). JerrDan is a leading manufacturer of towing and recovery equipment headquartered in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. JerrDan sells light-, medium- and heavy-duty wreckers, as well as aluminum, steel and industrial carriers, to towing services and salvage companies.

On July 29, 2004, the Company completed the acquisition of 75% of BAI Brescia Antincendi International S.r.l. and BAI Tecnica S.r.l. (together “BAI”). The Company has the right to acquire the remaining 25% interest in BAI three years after the closing of the acquisition. BAI manufactures and markets municipal and airport fire trucks and firefighting equipment and is headquartered in Brescia, Italy. The 25% after-tax interest not owned by the Company in BAI’s reported operating results, before amortization of purchase accounting adjustments, has been reflected in the Company’s consolidated financial statements as minority interest.

8

The operating results of JerrDan, BAI, CON-E-CO and London have been included in the Company’s consolidated statements of income from the date of acquisition. JerrDan and BAI are included in the Company’s fire and emergency segment and CON-E-CO and London are included in the Company’s commercial segment. The purchase prices, including acquisition costs, were allocated based on the estimated fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at the dates of acquisition with any excess purchase price allocated to goodwill. Pro forma unaudited condensed consolidated operating results of the Company, assuming JerrDan, BAI, CON-E-CO and London had been acquired as of October 1, 2003, are summarized below:

2. NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS3. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION

In December 2004,The Company accounts for its stock options under the FASB issued Statementrecognition and measurement provisions of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment,”(“SFAS No. 123(R)”). SFAS No. 123(R) replaces SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” and supersedes Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.Employees,” and related interpretations. No stock-based employee compensation costs related to stock options have been reflected in earnings as all options granted under these plans had an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying Common Stock on the measurement date. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” to stock-based employee compensation:

9

During December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123(R)”), which requires that the cost resulting from share-based payment transactions be recognized in the financial statementscompanies to measure and recognize compensation expense for all stock-based payments at fair value. SFAS No. 123(R) also amends SFAS No 95, “StatementStock-based payments include stock option grants and certain transactions under other Company stock plans. The Company grants options to purchase Common Stock to some of Cash Flows,”its employees and directors under various plans at prices equal to require that excess tax benefits be reported as a financing cash inflow rather than as a reductionthe market value of taxes paid. Onthe stock on the dates the options were granted. In April 14, 2005, the SEC announcedSecurities and Exchange Commission amended the adoption of a rule which defers the required effective date of SFAS 123(R). to the first interim period of the first fiscal year beginning after June 15, 2005. The Company intends to adopt this new standard during the first quarter of fiscal 2006, as required, under the modified prospective method. The Company is currently assessing the impacteffect of adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) and considering the valuation models available.

In November 2004, the FASB issued SFAS 151, “Inventory Costs, an Amendment of ARB No. 43, Chapter 4” (“SFAS 151”). SFAS 151 clarifies that abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs, and wasted materials (spoilage) shouldis currently estimated to be recognized as current-period charges and requires the allocation of fixed production overhead$3,250 to inventory based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. SFAS 151 is effective$3,750 ($0.09 to $0.10 per share) after-tax for inventory costs incurred during fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2005. Adoption of SFAS 151 is not expected to have a material impact on2006. However, the Company’s financial condition, resultsactual share-based compensation expense in fiscal 2006 will depend on a number of operations or cash flows.

In November 2004,factors, including the FASB issued SFAS 153, “Exchangesamount of Nonmonetary Assets, an Amendment of APB No. 29” (“SFAS 153”). SFAS 153 requires that exchanges of productive assets for similar productive assets should be measured based onawards granted and the fair value of those awards at the assets exchanged except in those instances in which the exchangestime of nonmonetary assets do not have commercial substance. SFAS 153 is effective prospectively for nonmonetary asset exchanges occurring in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005. Adoption of SFAS 151 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.grant.

8

3. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

Total comprehensive income is as follows:

4. EARNINGS PER SHARE

On May 3, 2005, a sufficient number of shareholders of unlisted Class A Common Stock converted their shares to New York Stock Exchange – listed Common Stock, on a share-for-share basis, which resulted in the remaining Class A shares automatically converting into Common Stock on the same basis. As a result, earnings per share for Class A Common Stock is no longer presented.

The following table reconciles net income to net income available to respective classes of common stockCommon Stock holders for purposes of the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted weighted average shares used in the denominator of the per share calculations:

9Options to purchase 15,250 shares of Common Stock were outstanding during the nine months ended June 30, 2005, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the options’ exercise prices were greater than the average market price of the Common Stock and therefore, the effect would be anti-dilutive. Options to purchase 48,600 shares of Common Stock were outstanding during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2004, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share as the effect would be anti-dilutive.

10

5. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

Total comprehensive income is as follows:

The Company funded a portion of the BAI purchase price utilizing proceeds of a euro-denominated debt obligation. This debt obligation has been designated as a hedge of the Company’s net investment in BAI. To the extent that this debt obligation remains as an effective hedge, changes in value of the debt obligation due to changes in foreign currency are recorded within currency translation adjustments in other comprehensive income. Net gains of $1,275 and $398 have been recorded as part of the cumulative translation adjustment for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2005, respectively.

6. INVENTORIES

Inventories consistwere comprised of the following:

Title to all inventories related to government contracts, which provide for progress or performance-based payments, vests with the government to the extent of unliquidated progress or performance-based payments.

6.7. INVESTMENT IN UNCONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

The Company’s investment in unconsolidated affiliates consists primarily of an interest in Oshkosh/McNeliusMcNeilus Financial Services Partnership (“OMFSP”). The Company and an unaffiliated third party are general partners in OMFSP. OMFSP was formed in 1998 when each partner contributed existing lease assets (and in the case of the Company, related notes payable to third party lenders that were secured by such leases) to capitalize the partnership. OMFSP manages the contributed assets and liabilities and engages in new vendor lease business providing financing, primarily to customers of the Company. OMFSP purchases trucks, truck bodies and concrete batch plants from the Company, the Company’s affiliates and, occasionally, unrelated third parties for lease to user-lessees. Company sales to OMFSP were $25,467$49,977 and $20,563$31,298 for the sixnine months ended March 31,June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Banks and other third party financial institutions lend to OMFSP a portion of the purchase price, with recourse solely to OMFSP, secured by a pledge of lease payments due from the user-lessees. Each partner funds one-half of the approximate 8.0% equity portion of the cost of new equipment purchases. Customers typically provide a 2.0% down payment. Each partner is allocated its proportionate share of OMFSP’s cash flow and taxable income in accordance with the partnership agreement. Indebtedness of OMFSP is secured by the underlying leases and assets of, and is recourse to, OMFSP. However, all such OMFSP indebtedness is non-recourse to the Company and its partner. Each of the two general partners has identical voting, participating and protective rights and responsibilities, and each general partner materially participates in the activities of OMFSP. For these and other reasons, the Company has determined that OMFSP is a voting interest entity for purposes of Financial Interpretation No. 46 (“FIN 46”).Revised. Accordingly, the Company accounts for its equity interest in OMFSP under the equity method.

1011

Included in investments in unconsolidated affiliates in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31,June 30, 2005 was the Company’s investment in OMFSP of $18,611,$18,472, which represented the Company’s maximum exposure to loss as a result of the Company’s ownership interest in OMFSP. This exposure is a non-cash exposure. Further, the Company had recorded deferred income tax liabilities related to its investment in OMFSP of $21,845 at March 31,June 30, 2005 that were included in long-term deferred income tax liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. Should the Company’s investment in OMFSP be liquidated for any reason, this deferred income tax liabilityliabilities of $21,774 would reverse and result in an increase in the Company’s current income taxes payable by the Company.payable.

Summarized financial information of OMFSP is as follows:

11

7. PURCHASED INTANGIBLE ASSETS8. PROPERTY, PLANT AND GOODWILLEQUIPMENT

The following tables presenttable presents details of the Company’s purchased intangible assets:

Amortization expense recorded for the six months ended March 31, 2005property, plant and 2004 was $3,722 and $3,332, respectively. The estimated future amortization expense of purchased intangible assets as of March 31, 2005 was as follows:equipment:

12

9. GOODWILL AND PURCHASED INTANGIBLE ASSETS

The following table presents the changes in goodwill during the sixnine months ended March 31,June 30, 2005:

The adjustments includedTranslation and other includes a $6,665 increase$2,969 decrease resulting from currency translation adjustments and $7,406$6,504 related to adjustments of preliminary valuations of tangible and intangible assets related to the acquisitions of JerrDan Corporation (“JerrDan”) and BAI Brescia Antincendi International S.r.l. and BAI Tecnica S.r.l. (together “BAI”).BAI.

The Company is required to perform goodwill impairment tests on an annual basis and between annual tests in certain circumstances. The Company performs its annual impairment test in the fourth quarter of its fiscal year. In conjunction with the Company’s fiscal 2004 review for potential impairment of goodwill, the Company considered the operating loss of the Geesink Norba Group in fiscal 2004 to be a possible indicator of an impairment. The Company determined that the fair value of the Company’s interest in the Geesink Norba Group exceeded its carrying value at September 30, 2004. The Company’s calculations of fair value reflected the Company’s estimates of the benefits of fiscal 2004 initiatives to upgrade the Geesink Norba Group product lines and improve its manufacturing efficiencies, as well as assumptions regarding an assumed economic recovery in European refuse markets beginning in fiscal 2006.

In the first quarter of fiscal 2005, the Company reduced its estimate of the earnings of the Geesink Norba Group for fiscal year 2005 from operating income of $3,000 (€2,500) to an operating loss of $4,500 (€3,500). Through the first sixnine months of fiscal 2005, the Geesink Norba Group incurred ana larger operating loss than estimated of $4,156$9,300 (€3,176).7,700) due in large part to a workforce reduction charge of $4,300 (€3,500) in the third quarter of fiscal 2005. The Company expects minimalmarginal operating lossesincome in the remaining two quartersquarter of fiscal 2005, resulting in an operating loss of $4,500$9,000 (€3,500) for the full year7,500) for fiscal 2005. During the first sixnine months of fiscal 2005, the Company made a number of management changes at the Geesink Norba Group, and in January 2005 the Company assigned a team of Company representatives to support the turnaround activities of the business. The Company presently believes that it will be able to return the business to acceptable profitability over a nine to eighteenfifteen month period as it seeks to reduce its Geesink-branded rear loader product costs, strengthen its European branch operations and implement price increases. The Company also believes that European refuse market volumes are improving. The Company updatedreviewed its valuation model for the Geesink Norba Group and estimates that the fair value of the Company’s interest in the business continues to exceed its carrying value.value at June 30, 2005. Accordingly, no impairment of the goodwill has been recorded to date. The Company will continue to monitor its turnaround activities at the Geesink Norba Group and their impact on the Company’s valuation of this investment.

13

The following tables present details of the Company’s purchased intangible assets:

Excluding the impact of any future acquisitions, the Company anticipates amortization of purchased intangible assets for the next five years as follows:

8.10. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Historically, the Company has used forward foreign exchange contracts to reduce the exchange rate risk of specific foreign currency transactions. These contracts require the exchange of a foreign currency for U.S. dollars at a fixed rate at a future date.

To protect against a reduction in value of certain forecasted foreign currency cash receipts from export sales from AprilJuly 2005 through December 2006 that will be denominated in British Sterling, and to protect against increases in costs of purchases of certain components from AprilJuly 2005 through October 2006 that are payable in British Sterling or euros, all in connection with the Company’s contract to provide certain tactical military truck systems to the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, the Company has instituted a foreign currency cash flow hedging program. The Company has hedged a significant portion of its estimated foreign currency cash flows in connection with this contract.

14

At March 31,June 30, 2005, outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts totaled $276,723$236,875 in notional amounts, including $200,446$172,612 in contracts to sell British Sterling, $3,011$3,000 in contracts to sell euros $169 in contracts to purchase British Sterling and $73,097$61,263 in contracts to purchase euros. Net unrealized losses (net of related tax effect of $12,660)$9,047) on outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts at March 31,June 30, 2005 totaled $21,556$15,404 and have been included in accumulated other comprehensive income.

As of March 31,June 30, 2005, the Company expects to reclassify $17,985$14,790 of net losses on derivative instruments from accumulated other comprehensive income to earnings during the next twelve months due to actual export sales denominated in foreign currencies and sales of product whose underlying costs contain purchases denominated in foreign currencies.

9. LONG-TERM DEBT11. CREDIT AGREEMENTS

Short-term borrowings consisted of the following:

The Company has a $500,000 revolving credit facility with $64,324 in borrowings outstanding at March 31, 2005.of $500,000. The Company may increase the revolving credit facility up to an aggregate maximum outstanding amount of $750,000 at the Company’s discretion, unless the Company is in default under the revolving credit facility.

At March 31,June 30, 2005, bank borrowings of $64,324, including$18,099, related to €15,000 ($19,374) incurred to finance the BAI acquisition, and outstanding letters of credit of $19,159,$20,519, reduced available capacity under the Company’s revolving credit facility to $416,517.$461,382.

Interest rates on the borrowings under the Company’s revolving credit facility are variable and are equal to the “Base Rate” (which is equal to the higher of a bank’s reference rate and the federal funds rate plus 0.50%) or the “Offshore Rate” (which is the bank’s inter-bank offered rate for U.S. dollars in off-shore markets) plus a margin of 0.70% for Offshore Rate loans under the Company’s revolving credit facility as of March 31,June 30, 2005. The margins are subject to adjustment, up or down, based on whether certain financial criteria are met. The average interest rate on bank borrowings outstanding at March 31,June 30, 2005 was 4.38%2.81%.

14

The Company is charged a 0.125% to 0.300% annual commitment fee with respect to any unused balance under its revolving credit facility, and a 0.525% to 1.500% annual fee with respect to commercial letters of credit issued under the revolving credit facility, based on the Company’s leverage ratio as defined under the terms of the Company’s revolving credit facility.

Restrictions and covenants under the revolving credit facility include: (1) requirements that the Company maintain certain financial ratios at prescribed levels; and (2) restrictions on the ability of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries to consolidate or merge, or create liens, incur additional indebtedness and dispose of assets. The Company believes that such limitations should not impair its future operating activities.

The Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary in The Netherlands, Geesink Group B.V., and certain of its affiliates are party to a €2,500 bank credit facility (the “euro facility”), which supports a cross-border cash pooling arrangement. There were no borrowings outstanding under the euro facility at June 30, 2005.

London had a $6,107 (CAD 7,500) credit facility with $776 (CAD 953) in borrowings outstanding at June 30, 2005, which bears interest at a variable rate based on a bank’s prime rate plus 0.50% (4.75% at June 30, 2005).

15

Long-term borrowings consisted of the following:

At March 31,June 30, 2005, BAI had outstanding mortgage loans of €2,267 ($2,928)$2,570 (€2,130), which bear interest at a variable rate based on the three-month Euribor rate plus a margin of between 0.75% and 1.50%. The average interest rate on outstanding mortgage loans at March 31,June 30, 2005 was 3.13%. London Machinery Inc. (“London”) had a CAD 7,500 ($6,165) credit facility with CAD 961 ($790) in borrowings outstanding at March 31, 2005 which bears interest at a variable rate

12. WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ARRANGEMENTS

The Company’s products generally carry explicit warranties that extend from six months to two years, based on a bank’s prime rate plus 0.50% ($4.75% at March 31, 2005).

Other unsecured debt outstanding at March 31, 2005 totaled $1,316 payable at varying interest rates.

10. STOCK-BASED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLANS

At March 31, 2005,terms that are generally accepted in the Company had two stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described more fully in Note 10 to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statementsmarketplace. Selected components (such as engines, transmissions, tires, etc.) included in the Company’s Annual Reportend products may include manufacturers’ warranties. These manufacturers’ warranties are generally passed on Form 10-Kto the end customer of the Company’s products, and the customer would generally deal directly with the component manufacturer.

The Company’s policy is to record a provision for the year ended September 30, 2004.expected cost of warranty-related claims at the time of the sale, and periodically adjust the provision to reflect actual experience. The amount of warranty liability accrued reflects management’s best estimate of the expected future cost of honoring Company accounts for these stock-based plansobligations under the recognitionwarranty plans. Historically, the cost of fulfilling the Company’s warranty obligations has principally involved replacement parts, labor and measurement principles of APB Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations. Except for restricted stock awards granted in February 2005 and September 2002 and 2004, no stock-based employee compensation cost was reflected in previously reported resultssometimes travel for any period,field retrofit campaigns. The Company’s estimates are based on historical experience, the extent of pre-production testing, the number of units involved and the extent of features/components included in product models. In addition, the Company reviews actual warranty claims experience each quarter to determine if there are systemic defects that would require a field campaign.

Changes in the Company’s warranty liability were as all options granted under these plans had an exercise price equalfollows:

In the fire and emergency segment, the Company provides guarantees of lease payments by customer-lessees to a third-party lessor of equipment purchased from the marketCompany. The guarantee is limited to $1,000 per year in total and is supported by the residual value of the underlying Common Stockrelated equipment. The Company’s actual losses under these guarantees over the last ten years have been negligible. In accordance with Financial Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others,” no liabilities for pre-January 1, 2003 guarantees have been recorded. For all such guarantees issued after January 1, 2003, the Company has recorded the fair value of the guarantee as a liability and a reduction of the initial revenue recognized on the measurement date. Beginningsale of equipment. Amounts recorded since January 1, 2003 were not significant.

16

13. RETIREMENT PLANS

Components of net periodic pension benefit cost were as follows:

The Company made a $12,000 contribution to its pension plans in the firstsecond quarter of fiscal 2005 and may make a further contribution of up to $10,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2005. The Company estimates that its contributions to its pension plans in fiscal 2006 the Company expects to adopt SFAS No. 123(R). See Note 2.will approximate fiscal 2005 contribution levels.

Components of net periodic other post-employment benefit costs were as follows:

The following table illustratesCompany made contributions to fund benefit payments of $176 and $141 for the effect on net incomethree month periods and earnings per share if$552 and $461 for the nine month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, under its other post-employment benefit plans. The Company had appliedestimates additional contributions of approximately $200 will be made under these other post-employment plans prior to the fair value recognition provisionsend of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” to stock-based employee compensation:fiscal 2005.

15

11.14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

As part of its routine business operations, the Company disposes of and recycles or reclaims certain industrial waste materials, chemicals and solvents at third party disposal and recycling facilities, which are licensed by appropriate governmental agencies. In some instances, these facilities have been andor may be designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or a state environmental agency for remediation. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (the “Superfund” law) and similar state laws, each potentially responsible party (“PRP”) that contributed hazardous substances may be jointly and severally liable for the costs associated with cleaning up these sites. Typically, PRPs negotiate a resolution with the EPA and/or the state environmental agencies. PRPs also negotiate with each other regarding allocation of the cleanup cost.

As to one such Superfund site, the Company’s Pierce Manufacturing Inc. (“Pierce”) subsidiary is one of 338 PRPs participating in the costs of addressing the site and has been assigned an allocation share of approximately 0.04%. At March 31,June 30, 2005, a reportthe PRP project coordinator is seeking approval of the remedial recommendation was being completed, and as such, an estimate formajority of the total338 PRPs to proceed with a proposed site remediation plan. Based on the estimated cost of the site remediation plan of this site has not been made$13.5 million to date. However, based on estimates$18.0 million and the assigned allocations, the Company believes its liability at the site willis not be material and its share is adequately covered through reserves established by the Company at March 31,June 30, 2005. Actual liability could vary based on results of the study, the resources of other PRPs, and the Company’s final share of liability.

1617

In March 2003, the Company and Pierce were each named as one of 52 PRPs participating in the cost of addressing a Superfund site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In October 2003, the Company and Pierce, along with 47 other PRPs, entered into buyout agreements with the two PRPs who sent the largest volume of waste to the site. Settlement payments made by the Company and Pierce were insignificant in amount and were based on the amounts and types of waste each company sent to the site. The buyout agreements protect the Company and Pierce from any additional costs associated with the EPA’s requirement for the removal of certain buildings, waste drums, underground storage tanks and contaminated soil at the site. The buyout agreements do not cover any future costs that may be necessary to address groundwater contamination and remediation, if required. The Company believes that any potential remaining liability with respect to this site will not be material and that it is adequately covered through reserves established by the Company.

The Company is addressing a regional trichloroethylene (“TCE”) groundwater plume on the south side of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The Company believes there may be multiple sources in the area. TCE was detected at the Company’s North Plant facility with testing showing the highest concentrations in a monitoring well located near the upgradient property line. Because the investigation process is still ongoing, it is not possible for the Company to estimate its long-term total liability associated with this issue at this time. Also, as part of the regional TCE groundwater investigation, the Company conducted a groundwater investigation of a former landfill located on Company property. The landfill, acquired by the Company in 1972, is approximately 2.0 acres in size and is believed to have been used for the disposal of household waste. Based on the investigation, the Company does not believe the landfill is one of the sources of the TCE contamination. Based upon current knowledge, the Company believes its liability associated with the TCE issue will not be material and is adequately covered through reserves established by the Company. However, this may change as investigations proceed by the Company, other unrelated property owners, and the government.

In connection with the acquisition of the Geesink Norba Group, the Company identified potential soil and groundwater contamination impacts from solvents and metals at one of its manufacturing sites. The Company is conducting a study to identify the remediation options available. Based on current estimates, the Company believes its liability at this site will not be material and any responsibility of the Company is adequately covered through reserves established by the Company.

In connection with the recent acquisition of a manufacturing facility in northeast Oshkosh, the Company identified low-level soil and groundwater contamination from solvents and petroleum products in localized, relatively small areas of the site. The Company believes that the contamination is limited to the property and is in the process of preparing monitoring and project closure plans for the identified areas. Based on current estimates, the Company believes its liability at this site will not be material and any responsibility of the Company is adequately covered through reserves established by the Company.

At March 31,June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2004, the Company had reserves for environmental matters of $5,974$5,999 and $5,884, respectively.

The Company is also contingently liable under bid, performance and specialty bonds totaling approximately $204,486$194,688 and open standby letters of credit issued by the Company’s bank in favor of third parties totaling approximately $19,159$20,519 at March 31,June 30, 2005.

17

Product and general liability claims arise against the Company from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company is generally self-insured for future claims up to $1,000 per claim. Accordingly, a reserve is maintained for the estimated costs of such claims. At March 31,June 30, 2005 and September 30, 2004, the reserve for product and general liability claims was $10,500$10,805 and $17,203, respectively, based on available information. There is inherent uncertainty as to the eventual resolution of unsettled claims. Management, however, believes that any losses in excess of established reserves will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company is subject to other environmental matters and legal proceedings and claims, including patent, antitrust, product liability and state dealership regulation compliance proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. Although the final results of all such matters and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution of all such matters and claims, after taking into account the liabilities accrued with respect to such matters and claims, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Actual results could vary, among other things, due to the uncertainties involved in litigation.

12. WARRANTY AND GUARANTEE ARRANGEMENTS

The Company’s products generally carry explicit warranties that extend from six months to two years, based on terms that are generally accepted in the marketplace. Selected components (such as engines, transmissions, tires, etc.) included in the Company’s end products may include manufacturers’ warranties. These manufacturers’ warranties are generally passed on to the end customer of the Company’s products, and the customer would generally deal directly with the component manufacturer.

The Company’s policy is to record a provision for the expected cost of warranty-related claims at the time of the sale, and periodically adjust the provision to reflect actual experience. The amount of warranty liability accrued reflects management’s best estimate of the expected future cost of honoring Company obligations under the warranty plans. Historically, the cost of fulfilling the Company’s warranty obligations has principally involved replacement parts, labor and sometimes travel for any field retrofit campaigns. The Company’s estimates are based on historical experience, the extent of pre-production testing, the number of units involved and the extent of features/components included in product models. Also, each quarter, the Company reviews actual warranty claims experience to determine if there are systemic defects that would require a field campaign.

18

Changes in the Company’s warranty liability were as follows: