The maturity of the 8.1L engine and its continued implementation is independent of whichever engine may be selected to power the UFO. The 2010 demise of the 8.1L however may be premature since it is the standard engine for GM in the MDT fleet. Given that 2010 is but 2 model years away, I haven't seen a suitable replacement candidate that would be up to the task of providing motive power as a standard powerplant for MDTs or the 10+ ton RVs that we drive.
What is as obvious as time itself is change. Will the 8.1L engine survive into the next decade? One would logically think not. What is more obvious to most people is that a higher performance gasoline engine in a smaller package is on the event horizon even if it is obscured by uncertainty. In my opinion gasoline powered RV chassis will remain a popular and logical choice among RV enthusiasts.
In my opinion the Cummins engine does not appear to be a logical choice to power the UFO given the current relationship with WCC's parent company. It is expected that the International MaxxForce7 will be chosen to be the alternative power plant for the UFO. Perhaps we will see this new offering in November at the RVIA dealer show in Louisville, KY. Workhorse has entered into a new partnership agreement with CAT for its rear diesel chassis, the R-Series, and perhaps there might be something in development that we don't know about. CAT's smallest RV engine is the C7 and at close to 1200 pounds in weight and the need for an Allison 3000 to handle all the torque it just doesn't seem to be a logical choice for the UFO as it would escalate the price of the chassis.
The concept of the UFO has always been, Universal Fuel Option. This concept or implementation has never been fielded by a competing RV chassis manufacturer other than Workhorse. Earlier the P Series had an option for both front gas and diesel however front diesel was not widely adopted for several excellent reasons other than the choice of engines.
For the same reasons that a front diesel wasn't popular earlier in the decade those customer concerns will again present themselves as regards FRED. Although FRED presents an alternative in front engine powered motorhomes driven by perceived infallibility or the vanity of owning a diesel by in large rear engine powered motorhomes more than overshadow the effort. It is my opinion and preference that a diesel engine belongs in the back of the RV chassis.
The creative team at Workhorse having learned this lesson has presented the RV buying public with a logical alternative that allows customers to specify which engine they prefer. What is key to this design effort is engine placement and I for one am convinced that the UFO will prove itself as being a viable and popular choice for RV enthusiasts that want to choose gasoline engine power. Aside from power plant issue, the UFO unquestionably delivers the performance that a potential RV customer would want in an RV chassis.
Rear gasoline engine powered RV chassis was initially popular however the execution of the effort was flawed due to technology limitations. The UFO has taken full advantage of modern design and computer control and its implementation of a rear powered RV chassis offers RV owners a flexible alternative. For those owners that demand gasoline power, "you can have your gasoline engine and use it too"!