The Alternative

[Marty too]

George: I’ll try to answer your question that you asked in the first posting. Frankly, I don’t know how I would go if I had the financial ability to do so. If Workhorse had a reliable brake system that I could trust, whether it be to 5 miles or 105,000 miles with out the hassle of flushing brake fluid on a yearly basis, I’d probably would go with Workhorse because I like the engine/transmission combination. But as it is now, I would have to get one heck of a deal to trade out to another Workhorse. Otherwise, I’d probably would look into the Ford system. But as is, I’m stuck with a brake system that I do not trust having already experienced a hot brake incident even though the fluid had been changed the month before. Just to qualify why------you blame right I worked those brakes finding my self on a 4 mile long, 9 percent grade trying to keep the coach’s speed down to a safe speed well below 45MPH even with a down shifted transmission.

Marty

[bsinmich]

My problem is with the "don't care" attitude of WCC. I had a '89 Ford E350 with a 27' Jamboree on top. I had a brake problem when a front caliper hung up and overheated. I went through a red light with no brakes. My mechanic said there was no problem but it was probably a bit of rust hanging up the caliper and the fluid boiled because of the heat. Ever since then I have flushed brake fluid yearly. As far as I could find back then ('91) my problem was not a common problem so I never filed a complaint and just fixed it myself. The Ford did give me some problems with catalytic converters and Ford did the job for me there with no problems.

[jdsr]

Originally Posted by bsinmich

Ford did the job for me there with no problems.

Thats what the problem with wh is. If they would have done the right thing I think most, if not all of us would buy another. I understand things break and mfg can make mistakes when they design things. But when wh and their reps here fight us tooth and nail on this issue and wh supports this, it make me wonder. Ford or dp. No second thought.

[EngineerMike]

As to alternatives, stopped for a break on way back from deep in Baja, along I-5 near Magic Mtn. There was a Rexall Aerbus on UFO gas chassis on display. First time I saw the UFO up close. I was excited as I have always thought the concept of UFO was clever. Not sure if this one was typical, but if so I would never own one. House was useful, but basement storage sucked so bad I was amazed.
The main fore-aft frame rail runs thru the basement at about the upper 1/3 point of basement height, so a some of the storage volume is over the rails, and the balance is under chopping up the storage height & pinching it off on the under side. Then to add insult to injury, the Rexall has basement doors that only open to 45° so you can't install a joey bed as it won't clear a door when you pull it out.

I'm sure there is a reason for the mid-height frame rail, but it is a stupid reason in my book if it kills the utility of my tool & junk storage. I needs my junk man. I'm guessing it was to make the chassis cheap, cheap, cheap to make, as it eliminates the drop rail sections for fitting front & rear suspension, etc. Still a startling compromise, unless you want a low coach with very limited storage (the Aerbus is 12'-8" so its a full height coach w/limited storage).

[George Z]

Originally Posted by EngineerMike

As to alternatives, stopped for a break on way back from deep in Baja, along I-5 near Magic Mtn. There was a Rexall Aerbus on UFO gas chassis on display. First time I saw the UFO up close. I was excited as I have always thought the concept of UFO was clever. Not sure if this one was typical, but if so I would never own one. House was useful, but basement storage sucked so bad I was amazed.
The main fore-aft frame rail runs thru the basement at about the upper 1/3 point of basement height, so a some of the storage volume is over the rails, and the balance is under chopping up the storage height & pinching it off on the under side. Then to add insult to injury, the Rexall has basement doors that only open to 45° so you can't install a joey bed as it won't clear a door when you pull it out.

I'm sure there is a reason for the mid-height frame rail, but it is a stupid reason in my book if it kills the utility of my tool & junk storage. I needs my junk man. I'm guessing it was to make the chassis cheap, cheap, cheap to make, as it eliminates the drop rail sections for fitting front & rear suspension, etc. Still a startling compromise, unless you want a low coach with very limited storage (the Aerbus is 12'-8" so its a full height coach w/limited storage).

Thanks for the observation Mike, I will have to look closely if given the opportunity.

George

[gbs2320]

Originally Posted by EngineerMike

As to alternatives, stopped for a break on way back from deep in Baja, along I-5 near Magic Mtn. There was a Rexall Aerbus on UFO gas chassis on display. First time I saw the UFO up close. I was excited as I have always thought the concept of UFO was clever. Not sure if this one was typical, but if so I would never own one. House was useful, but basement storage sucked so bad I was amazed.
The main fore-aft frame rail runs thru the basement at about the upper 1/3 point of basement height, so a some of the storage volume is over the rails, and the balance is under chopping up the storage height & pinching it off on the under side. Then to add insult to injury, the Rexall has basement doors that only open to 45° so you can't install a joey bed as it won't clear a door when you pull it out.

I'm sure there is a reason for the mid-height frame rail, but it is a stupid reason in my book if it kills the utility of my tool & junk storage. I needs my junk man. I'm guessing it was to make the chassis cheap, cheap, cheap to make, as it eliminates the drop rail sections for fitting front & rear suspension, etc. Still a startling compromise, unless you want a low coach with very limited storage (the Aerbus is 12'-8" so its a full height coach w/limited storage).

My UFO has plenty of storage. Yes the frame rails are there but I have a large passthrough over them that is about 14 inches high. My side compartments are just as large as my diesel pusher friends. The doors on my compartments open all the way. The UFO chassis does not fully controll storage. The builder of the box on top has more to do with the issue. Greg

[-Gramps-]

I have plenty of storage and I happen to like the upper part of the basement being unobstructed pass through. It actually works out quite well for ladders, fishing rods, shuffleboard sticks, mats and all kinds of things. My doors open all the way as well.

[DriVer]

I've seen the basement storage options on the Winnebago Adventurer LE UFO and I think it's great. The doors open wide and there's plenty of room. I'd be thrilled if I could buy one but being retired has taken the fun out of shopping for us.

[-Gramps-]

Mike I have said it before, there is an LE sitting at TomJohnson's Camping Center. It has been there for a long time....I bet they would make a great deal on it!

[edgray]

[QUOTE=EngineerMike;565797]......There was a Rexall Aerbus on UFO gas chassis on display. First time I saw the UFO up close. I was excited as I have always thought the concept of UFO was clever....... Not sure if this one was typical, but if so I would never own one. House was useful, but basement storage sucked so bad I was amazed.
The main fore-aft frame rail runs thru the basement at about the upper 1/3 point of basement height,......... Then to add insult to injury, the Rexall has basement doors that only open to 45°.....

I'm sure there is a reason for the mid-height frame rail, but it is a stupid reason in my book if it kills the utility of my tool & junk storage........I'm guessing it was to make the chassis cheap, cheap, cheap to make, as it eliminates the drop rail sections for fitting front & rear suspension, etc....../QUOTE]

EngineerMike:
Thanks for your post regarding "alternatives". In fairness, are you not making these judgements based on comparison to the premium, air ride, Raised Rail Peak chassis you enjoy? I understand your comment about you never owning a UFO .......but, how 'bout a little consideration for those of us who have not "graduated" to the much bigger equipment?

Surely you understand that the UFO is a much less costly straight rail spring mounted chassis which has a 26,000 GVWR and is not meant to be compared to "most" DPs, which are typically 32,000+ GVWR raised rail designs.

The UFO was designed (and functions quite well, IMO) to be a lower cost alternative that provides a flat floor, rear GAS engine- talk about quiet!! Most of us front engine gassers - we all have straight rail chassis - would LOVE to have the extra storage space provided by the UFO due to its lack of drive shaft running back to the driven axle!

As for the space utilazation by Rexhall, I think they have created about as much as any of the other coachs built on the UFO. I KNOW they have fixed the side hinged compartment door issue you mention on later production units, (they now open fully straight out) and I also saw how they provide for easy access to both sides of the engine compartment with "swing away" side and rear cap panels that "meet" in the middle of the rear "bumper". I believe that feature is exclusive to Rexhall UFOs, and frankly, I'm not sure why they thought it is needed.

Again, all I'm suggesting here is that I think your comments are not based on an apples to apples comparision, and I hope we can agree on that. ED

[EngineerMike]

Ed- we can always agree to disagree, never an issue.

The coach in question is a 37 footer (more or less the marketing schmaltz). The coach I drive is a 37 footer. In looking for the same space I now have, and a cheaper entry point (boy if I could have some of that money back today...), I was thinking the UFO would be a better alternative than others (lower noise, no dog house...), and until I saw one fitted out I thought it was.

I had no idea there was such a thing as a "mid-rail" platform. Everybody in the business burned a lot of calories trying to buy back the storage space lost to driveshafts, too tall rails, you name it. A mid rail interruption of storage in my mind is such a egregious waste of space, that it parallels the idiocy of an electric car that only gets 40 total miles on its battery pack, i.e. is so wasteful that the concept needs to be fixed.

Now maybe that's nuts, but I think any chassis that ignores usable cargo volume as a customer necessity (i.e. fundamental selling point) is doomed.

Perhaps the problem is that Rexall is over-building on the UFO. I would accept that a lower profile coach (floor on top of the rail, and loose the upper storage) is a cheap entry point, and may have adherents. And at that I would agree that the UFO presents an interesting alternative. But if I'm dragging 37 feet of full height coach around, my junk better fit in the basement, and that mid rail concept is like a nose ring on Mona Lisa.

[edgray]

EM: you are correct, there isn't any such thing as a "mid-rail" chassis, they are usually either "straight" or "raised". There are some "drop rail" varients, but I digress. Granted the Rexhall coach design creates the effect to which you object, but to those of us who have the smaller compartments that "most" straight rail chassis allow, with little or no pass-thru even possible, the UFO enabled compartments look HUGE! If you get the chance, take a look at a Winnebago Destination or a Holiday Rambler 38PLT or a Georgie Boy Cruisemaster or any of the other coaches built on the UFO- I think you will see a similar rail & compartment set up.

Like I said originally, I don't think it is a fair to put the spring mounted UFO up against an air suspension raised rail chassis, but that is just my opinion.

[oldcrowlarry]

I fully agree. No matter what you are dealing with there is good and bad. No problems with my UFO chassis, and I hope it stays that way.
Oldcrowlarry 08 Adventurer Limited 37', gas pusher