Community Forums

wazone2 · 03-21-2005, 12:58 PM

No one mentions the $4000/$5000 premium for the Workhorse chassis. Why not go another $10,000 and get a good diesel pusher? As you might guess I am a very happy Ford F53 owner. The CCC of my Winnebago Adventurer 35U in over 3600#, the V-10 is very adequate to pull the coach and a Honda CRV. Yes, I've driven it in the mountains, and no, I'm not setting any speed records.

Easyrider · 03-21-2005, 04:17 PM

All this talk about WH vs Ford made me want to go look at the weight information on our motorhome. We recently purchased a 2005 Itasca 33' Sunrise on a Workhorse chassis. According to the information supplied by the sales brochure the GCWR is 26000lbs on either chassis ( Workhorse or Ford). GVWR is 20500lbs on a Ford or 20700lbs on a Workhorse. GAWR-Front is 7000lbs on a Ford and 7500lbs on a Workhorse.GAWR-Rear is 13500lbs on either chassis. Winnebago goes on to state in the weight information supplied with the motorhome that the UVW is 17325lbs, the SCWR is 616lbs( 4 people X 154lbs-they obviously don't grow people as big in Iowa as we do in Wisconsin) and the CCC is 1949lbs. Now if I understand correctly the Workhorse is rated for more weight than the Ford, though not by a huge margin. And the CCC rating is really dependent on what and how much the coach manufacturer puts on the chassis. It could be argued that for the extra money all I gained was 200lbs in GVWR, but I like to think I also gained the advantage of more horsepower and torque at lower rpms, a Allison 5 speed transmission instead of a Ford 4 speed, a 145 amp alternator instead of 130 amps and a widetrack frontend with a low height engine cover. Someone stated that the workhorse frame wasn't strong enough for certain MH models and actually didn't have any CCC in certain configurations. It seems to me that if the same MH had been built on the equivalent Ford chassis the results would have been the same only exaggerated by 200lbs. This is when comparing chassis choices available when we were looking. What I'm really trying to say is isn't the CCC dependant more on what the MH manufacturer puts on the chassis than who made the chassis?
And when is this snow going to go away?

DriVer · 03-21-2005, 04:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Easyrider:
Someone stated that the workhorse frame "wasn't strong enough" for certain MH models and actually didn't have any CCC in certain configurations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Did you know that the frame rails that you have in your W-20 are the same rails that are used in the W-24? I wouldn't put much stock in "someone" telling you that a 10.13 cu. in. section modulus of 9.625 inches of 50,000 psi steel rail that has 506,500 Resistive Bending Movement (RBM) isn't strong enough.

These very same attributes can be found on most all diesel pusher frames. Don't worry about your frame not being strong enough.

On the other hand the OEMs determine how much weight they hang on the chassis and we the buying public are insatiable. As long as we keep buying the floorplans that make us happy the manufactures will keep delivering them. CCC, well it's a number that "you" have to live with. Just know what it is before you sign on the line.

Rick Jay · 03-23-2005, 04:20 PM

Kirk,

You said:
"An example was the Allegro 36' that has less than 600# of CCC when on the Workhorse and over 2300# for the exact same coach when on the Ford."

Do you have the model numbers and specs for each of those? The only way I can see that there would be that much different is if the Ford was on a 22,000 lbs. chassis and the Workhorse was on the W-20 20,700 lb. chassis.

wazone2,

You said:
"No one mentions the $4000/$5000 premium for the Workhorse chassis."

Not sure where those numbers are coming from, but when we bought ours, the W-22 was exactly $2,214 more than the 22,000 lb. F-53. Seeing as my wife liked the lower doghouse and I liked the Allison tranny, I figure I kept my wife happy for $2,213 and got an Allison transmission for a buck! What a deal!!!

In my opinion, I liked the WH chassis better than the Ford when we bought ours. I haven't seen or driven one on the new Ford chassis, so I don't have anything substantive on which to compare it. Certainly from the specs, it looks like a better competitor than the previous chassis.

In my opinion, it's more than "just specs". When you test drive each chassis, you'll probably notice differences between them. If you do, go with the one you like better. If you don't...then go with either one.
~Rick

ISLAPP · 03-23-2005, 04:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rick Jay:

In my opinion, it's more than "just specs". When you test drive each chassis, you'll probably notice differences between them. If you do, go with the one you like better. If you don't...then go with either one.
~Rick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be the best argument between the two chassis'. Bottom line is they are both good, suitable chassis', at least for double slide models. When I test drove both, I just liked the feel of the Ford over the Workhorse. I liked the Allison tranny, but that was all.
You need to drive both and go with your "gut".
Mike

minnie26a · 03-31-2005, 12:53 AM

Regardless of what anyone says, I have now owned both Workhorse and Ford. I had a Ford V10, switched to a WH (W22) and have now moved back to a Ford, albeit a class C. It also has the new Ford 5-speed trans.

The quality of the Ford components and assemblies appears to me to be better than WH. The WH failed by stalling twice on me and I had trouble with the parking prawl gizmo at times. So far I have had no problems with the Fords. I don't have to worry about spark plug wires burning and things like that anymore. Plus, I like the more advanced technology of the V10, including its high revving power!!

Catdave · 03-31-2005, 03:55 PM

I chose Workhorse when I bought last year for several reasons- it rode and handled better and felt like it had less chassis flex, it had a much quieter ride, lower doghouse, and the engine made a lot less noise and a lot more power. The transmission also seemed to be able to handle the load better- the 4-speed in the Ford was constantly hunting for the right gear and the engine was buzzy and always seemed to be revving high to get the job done. The 8.1L seemed more at ease pulling the weight of the motorhome and the Allison tranny was always in the right gear.

The clincher for me came when researching the powertrains. The V10 and it's tranny are a light-duty pickup truck combination. The heaviest GVWR the V10 is used in is a motorhome at 22,000 lbs. In Ford's bigger trucks it can be had in a F-550 with a GVWR of only 19,000 lbs. Anything bigger (F-650 and larger) requires a diesel engine and an Allison transmission. This tells me that at 22k lbs. the V10 is pushing the envelope for what it was designed for.

The 8.1L on the other hand is a true medium-duty engine. While it too is available in a pickup truck, the same engine (in various HP ratings) is available in Class 7 medium-duty trucks up to a GVWR of 42,600 lbs. with a rated service life in these applications of 200,000 miles.
Needless to say it didn't take long for me to figure out which chassis I wanted my motorhome riding on.

No brand bias here- when doing my pre-purchase research I got all my information straight from the GM and Ford websites. I like both manufacturers and my daily driver is a Ford, but brand loyalty goes out the window when you're dealing with a vehicle costing well over $100,000+!

Just my .02

DriVer · 03-31-2005, 04:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by minnie26a:
Regardless of what anyone says, I have now owned both Workhorse and Ford. I had a Ford V10, switched to a WH (W22) and have now moved back to a Ford, albeit a class C. It also has the new Ford 5-speed trans!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Congratulations on the purchase of your new motorhome!

LVJ58 · 04-01-2005, 06:46 PM

And the debate goes on ad infinitum, but I'll still hang on and enjoy my old 2000 Ford v10.

Happy travels to all, Jim

P.S. I would consider the 8.1L v8 set up, if and when they would change to an overhead cam engine with coil over each plug.

Catdave · 04-01-2005, 08:30 PM

Well, the 8.1 already has the coil-on-wire setup for each plug, but no OHC.

An overhead cam engine would definitely be cool- especially with 32 valves!

DriVer · 04-02-2005, 06:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Catdave:
An overhead cam engine would definitely be cool- especially with 32 valves! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm a believer of less is more some of the times.

"32 valves", Heavens to Murphy's Law!

I would be nice to see a mill like that some day!

LVJ58 · 04-02-2005, 10:58 AM

Hi Catdave, Not to dwell too much on the plug issue, but, I've read where some folks have had burnt plug wires on the 8.1, It's my understanding the 8.1 has a bank of 4 coils on each side of the engine with high voltage plug wires leading from the coil to each plug. That's not quite the same as the "coil over plug" configuration. The v10 has low voltage wires connected to each coil over each plug. No high voltage plug wires to burn or leak.

If my understanding is wrong, I will gladly stand corrected.

Best regards, Jim

LVJ58 · 04-02-2005, 11:07 AM

Hi Driver, Most of the new engine technology employs OHC's and DOHC's along with an increase in the number of valves per cylinder. It appears they're on to something, as this new technology renders engines more efficient and capable of developing more HP and torque with smaller displacement engines. I, like you, tend to lean toward the old school where the motto was "there's no substitute for cubic inches." Hate to say it, but I think we're slowly being proved wrong--LOL

Best Regards, Jim

Catdave · 04-02-2005, 02:59 PM

You're right Cactus Jim- Workhorse describes the 8.1's ignition system thus: "...All electronic ignition system (coil-near/per-plug) provides 50% more spark with more accuracy..."
My error- thanks for the clarification.