Short Class A diesels

Tim, those are good points, but keep in mind that many of the shorter diesels coaches that are out there don't have air suspension.

Isaac-1 said:

Tim, those are good points, but keep in mind that many of the shorter diesels coaches that are out there don't have air suspension.

Click to expand...

Thanks Isaac, I was not aware of that.

Generally the diesel "pushers" (rear engine) will all have air suspension. Front diesels (FRED) are almost exclusively spring suspension.  Among the current new models, the shortest rear diesel I know of is the Tiffin Breeze 31 and it has air suspension.  Used, the Winnebago Journey 32 was a rear diesel with air suspension. Shorter Class C diesels, e.g. the MB Sprinter-based models, all have spring suspensions.

I just wonder if he's deluding himself in thinking that a diesel will be a better investment. Purchase price, operating costs and maintenance is higher, in some cases much higher. The slight improvement in fuel mileage vs overall operating costs just can't be justified if he's looking to save money.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely.  The diesel resale value will recover much of the additional upfront cost but the chances of any savings from operational differences are slim unless he travels many, many miles yearly.  The reasons for going with a diesel pusher are more along the lines of comfort & performance than economy.

    As has been said on many strings, if you are buying an RV thinking about cheap transportation, or buying one coach over another because you think it will be cheaper to operate, DON"T BUY.  Find the RV that best suits your needs and desires or you will never be satisfied.

Ed

Hfx_Cdn said:

    As has been said on many strings, if you are buying an RV thinking about cheap transportation, or buying one coach over another because you think it will be cheaper to operate, DON"T BUY.  Find the RV that best suits your needs and desires or you will never be satisfied.

Click to expand...

I did not suggest, nor do I believe, that any RV is "cheap transportation". RVs are, by their very nature, expensive and I consider them to be luxury items.

However the idea that one should not buy one RV over another because one is less expensive to operate or to maintain is, I believe, wrong. There are a lot of people who buy Ford transit chassis instead of the MB Sprinter specifically because they expect they will be less expensive to maintain. Further, there does not seem to me to be any reason to not consider operating expense when deciding to buy one RV over another. To a large extent I consider many RVs to be equivalent - that is, their floor plans are equally acceptable, the sizes roughly equivalent and their ride comparable. Given that, whether one is less expensive to operate than another seem to me to be a reasonable criteria in choosing between them. I am not suggesting that they are the only criteria, or even the most important one, but there is no reason to not consider that along with all of the other considerations.

Whether a gasser or diesel is less expensive to operate depends upon many things, including how far you drive each year, where you get your maintenance done, or whether you do it yourself, where you live (and hence the cost of fuel) and other factors. You may argue that a gasser is less expensive than a diesel, and in some cases that is true, in other cases it is not. But to argue that operating costs should not be factored into your decision means that they are probably an insignificant amount in your budget, and they are not in mine.

Mike I have not said that operating costs should not be considered, what I said is that fuel economy alone should not be a factor.  My point was that diesels on average get higher fuel economy, but that they also cost more to maintain, oil changes cost more (typically $300 for diesel pushers and around $100 for gasoline powered coaches at most shops, even if you do it yourself diesels take more oil, and tend to use larger and more expensive filters), parts are more expensive, etc.

In the end cost of ownership will be the total of fixed expenses (insurance, taxes, etc), repair and maintenance, and cost of operation either in traveling, or in staying in one place.  Don't get too hung up on fuel economy and loose track of the big picture.

Isaac-1 said:

Mike I have not said that operating costs should not be considered, what I said is that fuel economy alone should not be a factor.  My point was that diesels on average get higher fuel economy, but that they also cost more to maintain, oil changes cost more (typically $300 for diesel pushers and around $100 for gasoline powered coaches at most shops, even if you do it yourself diesels take more oil, and tend to use larger and more expensive filters), parts are more expensive, etc.

In the end cost of ownership will be the total of fixed expenses (insurance, taxes, etc), repair and maintenance, and cost of operation either in traveling, or in staying in one place.  Don't get too hung up on fuel economy and loose track of the big picture.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I completely agree and I was not responding to your post, but rather to that of @Hfx_Cdn. Specifically it was the comment: buying one coach over another because you think it will be cheaper to operate, DON"T BUY., which struck me as saying that operating costs should not be considered when buying.

My wife and I just bought a new Winnie Fuse (23T) and during the search we compared a lot of RVs - the Thor Compass, the Thor Axis, the Tiffin Wayfarer, The Winnie View, the Winnie Fuse and others, but decided we wanted specific features and the final decision came down between 3 equivalent Cs. All had roughly equivalent floor plans and features and, for us, the final decision came down largely to the Ford vs the Mercedes diesels. We chose the Fuse based on the expectation that maintenance would be easier and less expensive than with the MB diesel, and that seems like a reasonable consideration to me. We get our oil changes and maintenance at our local Ford dealer, as we did with our previous Class B RV, rather than at the RV dealer, and that is about half the cost of the same maintenance at the RV dealer as well as being much closer and easier to schedule.

I would not buy an RV based on operating and maintenance costs, but rather on the features what my wife and I feel are important - length, floor plan, features (both those we want and those we don't want), condition, warranty and, after everything else, maintenance and operating costs.

I owned a 32' Winnebago Meridian and it was a great coach. Most folks that parrot the "porpoise ride" have never driven one. The Meridian had a Cummins 5.9 in the rear, and an Onan 7500 diesel generator in the front. I never experienced bouncing in the front due to the weight being out of balance. I did have to replace the stock Sachs shocks, as I did on every Freightliner straight front axle coach I owned (3 of them, all different lengths). 

Also not mentioned thus far is a main reason for a diesel chassis is the heavier weight carrying ability, and larger tow rating.  I full timed in this coach, had it loaded to the max and pulled a 5000# Jeep all over the country.  It ran great.  The reason I traded up to a larger unit was that I wanted another slideout on the passenger side. I investigated a company that would add a slide to my Meridian, but I would have lost interior and exterior storage space so it didn't make sense for us.

Operating costs were also offset by my Cummins only requiring oil changes every 15,000 miles, not every 3000 miles as were most gassers of the day.  That meant a gasser would have been in the shop getting serviced 4 times more often than my Cummins. 

So making a blanket statement of diesel pushers don't ride well or don't make economic sense is just not true. But there are lots of reasons to buy diesel over gas, and those are just some of them.  And it all comes down to what you want, and what will best fit your needs.

      Sorry if my post put you off, but you seemed to be so fixated on fuel economy and I was trying to say that it should be the last thing to be considered.  As pointed out, operating and maintenance costs vary, and it is how the RV meets you personal needs that is so much more that needs to be considered.

Ed

MikeFromMesa said:

We just purchased a new Class C (2018 Winnebago Fuse, 23T) but during our search we also looked at short (that is, < 30 ft) Class A motorhomes thinking that perhaps a Class A might be preferable as it would give us more interior space. One thing that I noticed while looking is that every short Class A motorhome was a gasser and I wanted a diesel, thinking it might give us a bit better mileage on the road. I also looked online, but could find no new short diesel Class As, so I began to wonder if any manufacturer even makes a short diesel Class A any longer.

In all of my online searches I only found one < 30 ft diesel Class A and that was a 2017 Winnebago Via, but that model was no longer available in 2018 and the shortest available diesel Class A I could find was 33 feet (one model), the next 35 feet (one model) and then suddenly the 37 foot and longer models all seemed to be diesel. By now the question as to why we could not find a short diesel Class A is academic since we have our diesel 24 foot Fuse, but I still wonder why. I found plenty of short gasser Class As, but no diesel. Is it the extra cost of the diesel? Are short Class As all aimed at the budget market? Or is there some mechanical reason? Or are they available and just not at the dealers we looked at?

I am thinking about when we replace our Fuse in the future.

Click to expand...

I am wondering about this fascination with short class "A" diesel coaches. What benefit do you see in a 33' that you don't in a 38 or 40'?
Bill

WILDEBILL308 said:

I am wondering about this fascination with short class "A" diesel coaches. What benefit do you see in a 33' that you don't in a 38 or 40'?
Bill

Click to expand...

Because a whole lot of newbies are scared to drive a longer RV. They look imposing. They must be hard to drive and hard to find a parking place for. What they don't realize is that a longer RV is just as easy to drive as a shorter RV. In fact I personally prefer a longer RV. What the newbies don't understand is that the average RVer spends 95% of their time parked and 5% of the time driving so in my book it makes sense to maximize for living not driving. And of course many macho men blame it on the fact that their wife is afraid to drive a big rig. I encourage them to go to an RV dealer and take a big unit for a test drive.

Well, I can't speak as to what "newbies" might think as we have been RVing for more than 15 years and in 5 RVs, but our concern has nothing to do with fearing that the RV might be too long or too hard to drive. In fact, in my youth one of the jobs I had was driving propane and fuel oil trucks, and they were much longer than what I drive now. I had no problem with them then and I am sure I would have no problem with them now.

The issue for us is that my wife just does not want a big RV. We stay at a lot of campsites where big RVs are either not welcome or at which large sites are few in number and hard to reserve. Some of the places we have been do not allow any RV longer than 24 feet and others allow longer RVs, but the sites for them are not where my wife likes to camp. Thus we try to stay in smaller RVs. Of course they are less expensive to operate, and that is also a concern, but not the over-riding concern.

As for the comment "And of course many macho men", that just seems like a silly thing to say. As for us, my wife is not afraid to drive anything, but that does not mean that she likes driving at all and, if given the choice, she will always opt for me to drive as she just prefers to sit and admire the scenery. As for myself, I love to drive and love the isolation of the open highway, and that would be as true in a 40 foot RV as in our current 24 foot Fuse.

WILDEBILL308 said:

I am wondering about this fascination with short class "A" diesel coaches. What benefit do you see in a 33' that you don't in a 38 or 40'?

Click to expand...

My original question had to do with why short Class A RVs are all gassers rather than diesel. It was simple curiosity as we had seen multiple short Class A RVs when we were looking for a new RV, but all were gassers and I wondered why. It had nothing to do with fascination with short Class A diesel coaches.

My guess would be simple economics. Smaller usually means lighter weight, which means the chassis can be lighter and powered easily with a smaller, lighter motor. So less cost to build keeps the price point down.

"The issue for us is that my wife just does not want a big RV. We stay at a lot of campsites where big RVs are either not welcome or at which large sites are few in number and hard to reserve. Some of the places we have been do not allow any RV longer than 24 feet and others allow longer RVs, but the sites for them are not where my wife likes to camp. Thus we try to stay in smaller RVs. Of course they are less expensive to operate, and that is also a concern, but not the over-riding concern."

I can't help you with your wife's fears and phobias.
Where are all these parks? I have never had a problem finding a place to stay.
Just so you know. I have driven the coach 5600 miles, been in 26 states and stayed in 36 campgrounds this year. I have never had a problem being near where I want to be.
Your fantasy that a smaller diesel say a 33' is cheaper to operate than say a 40' just doesn't hold up to reality. The driver and the conditions have way more to do with what it cost to operate a given rig.
Bill

WILDEBILL308 said:

"The issue for us is that my wife just does not want a big RV. We stay at a lot of campsites where big RVs are either not welcome or at which large sites are few in number and hard to reserve. Some of the places we have been do not allow any RV longer than 24 feet and others allow longer RVs, but the sites for them are not where my wife likes to camp. Thus we try to stay in smaller RVs. Of course they are less expensive to operate, and that is also a concern, but not the over-riding concern."

I can't help you with your wife's fears and phobias.
Where are all these parks? I have never had a problem finding a place to stay.
Just so you know. I have driven the coach 5600 miles, been in 26 states and stayed in 36 campgrounds this year. I have never had a problem being near where I want to be.
Your fantasy that a smaller diesel say a 33' is cheaper to operate than say a 40' just doesn't hold up to reality. The driver and the conditions have way more to do with what it cost to operate a given rig.
Bill

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Bill. I went all over the country in a 39 foot DP and never had problems finding a place to stay. And it is a fantasy that a 33 footer is cheaper than a 40 footer.

WILDEBILL308 said:

I can't help you with your wife's fears and phobias.

Click to expand...

I don't actually understand what sounds like scorn in your reply. It is not a case of fears and phobias. It has more to do with where we can get into and where we can camp.

WILDEBILL308 said:

Where are all these parks?

Click to expand...

I don't know where "all" of them are, but here are some examples:

1) Chiricahua National Monument

The campsites are very small and the longest RV allowable, according to the posted rules, is 24 feet, and there are only perhaps 2 of those sites. The rest max out at about 18-20 feet.

2) Bryce Canon North Campground

There are a few sites that will take longer RVs, but the closest sites to the Rim, where we like to stay, are for shorter RVs with a recommended length of no more than 20 feet. We stay there frequently, and manage with 24 feet, but are a bit cramped.

3) Arches National Park Campground

The sites are very small. There are perhaps 2 sites that allow RVs up to 25 or 30 feet, but the rest are for much smaller RVs.

4) Lake Jennings Campground in California

The campground takes all sizes, but the most appealing sites are those on the high ground and those do not have space for RVs longer than about 24 feet. At that length we are close to sticking out into the drive.

5) El Dorado Hot Springs

This is a place we stay at frequently, and all of the spaces are short. There is one space that can take a 35 foot RV, but the rest of the spaces are really for short campers or RVs, 24 feet or less.

There are more, but you asked me to list some and these are places we go frequently. Are there other places nearby where you can camp with a larger RV? Of course, but these are places we wish to camp.

WILDEBILL308 said:

Your fantasy that a smaller diesel say a 33' is cheaper to operate than say a 40' just doesn't hold up to reality.

Click to expand...

First, I did not say a 33' RV is less expensive to operate than a 40' RV. I was talking about a 24' RV being less expensive to operate, and that is no fantasy. Our 24' RV gives us about 16-18 mpg while larger RVs get nowhere near that kind of mileage.

Second, the suggestion that this is my "fantasy" sounds as though it is intended as a mocking reply. Fine. If you feel the way to discuss something is to mock someone's ideas and concerns, then you go ahead. I will continue to try to be polite and treat people and their ideas with respect. I thought that was one of the rules on this forum.

SeilerBird said:

And it is a fantasy that a 33 footer is cheaper than a 40 footer.

Click to expand...

As I said in my other reply, I was comparing operating costs of our 24' Class C with the larger Class A RVs, but the same thing holds true for smaller and lighter Class As. Our shorter Class A got 8-9 mpg while my neighbor's 40 footer gets about 5-6.

I too have had to eliminate some campgrounds due to my 40' rig. One was my favorite, Crystal Cove State Beach, in Laguna, Ca.  Their regulations are no RV's over 38', primarily do the max turn radius of the interior roads.  They are so adamant that there are lines painted on the ground at the check in booth.

Many of the others seem to be beach campgrounds with tight spaces and turns.