Go Back   iRV2 Forums > MOTORHOME FORUMS > Class A Motorhome Discussions
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
View Poll Results: I am in the process of buying my first Class A and would like some feedback or advice on which driv
workhorse 75 78.13%
Ford V-10 21 21.88%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2005, 07:37 PM   #57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 14
I drove the Southwind 32v with the Ford and Workhorse Chassis before making my choice. I selected the Workhorse because in my biased opinion the power and handling is better. The allison tranny has a stiffer shift pattern. The Ford tranny has a car like shift pattern. The Workhorse weighed more(approx 350lbs)and cost more, but I felt it was worth it.

Several friends have purchased motorhomes after me. Of the five that purchased motorhomes, four picked workhorse.

DriVer, keep giving your opinions and insight, they make for great reading. Maybe the Ford guys could start their own club and forum.

In closing I would like to say, I don't think the Ford Chassis is bad by any means. I just think the Workhorse is better. Just my biased opinion. Be Safe!!!
__________________

__________________
04 Southwind 32v, W-20

93 Wrangler, 20' Santek Trailer
SoCal Ed is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-12-2005, 08:08 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
max49's Avatar
 
Damon Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 3,102
I like the way my 05 Damon WH handles. It feels stable even at the "vehicle speed limit" when it's not windy. However since I bought mine , I saw another coach exactly like mine sitting next to another exact same model on the Ford Chassis, at another dealership. The Ford sits significantly higher off the ground and makes it look more expensive. My rear jacks ride 5" off the ground and the Ford's were about 8 or 9" off the ground. The doghouse was about the same.
I've never driven a Ford class A but I bet Ford has a lot better electrics and wiring setups than WH. I just never heard of "limp mode", burnt spark plug wires, electric parking brake problems on a Ford. The 8.1 engine seems ok but it is actually slower than my Minnie Winnie (460)over the Colorado Mtn passes . The Mini was lighter, but was pulling a boat in 1st gear 35mph . The 8.1 was pulling a couple of motorcycles the same passes in 1st gear at 30mph. Neither was floored but seemed to be reving high but safe.
It seems like limp mode should only be a warning to go slow or you might damage your own engine, I'd probably choose to get home.
__________________

__________________
Max
2018 Gulf Stream Conquest 6238 on Ford E-350 Super Duty
Parker, Colorado
max49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2005, 03:36 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
The Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern Ontario/Palmetto FL
Posts: 1,092
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DriVer:

On my 38 foot chassis I have a CCC of close to 1750 pounds. I believe that you were trying to point out that the F53 WFG38G carried more but the chassis weighs less and I do believe that the F53 only came in 19.5 inch rubber that year saving more weight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting - almost 1750 lbs CCC. DriVer, we've had thoughts about changing and we would NOT EVEN CONSIDER a MH with only 1750 lbs CCC. Now, to be fair, when we read the CCC label we make our own adjustments. Let me give you an example. Over the past two months we looked at an 05 Journey 39K - GVWR 27,910 lbs. It had CCC of 1722 lbs. Just not enough for us - our current 04 39W has almost 3900 lbs CCC. BUT, before rejecting it we added back 6 x 154 (for sleeping positions included in CCC calc), added back 900 lbs for full tank of water - and then deducted actual total weight of the 3 of us and an allowance for the water we would normally carry.

This Journey's CCC was way too low. On April 1 the Journey 39K production was shifted to a chassis with 29,410 lbs GVWR - and the 1500 lb increase was all at the back axle. That tells me that my thoughts about inadequate CCC were correct. I also seem to recall that one of the clubs/associations has found that the average couple packs 2000 lbs into their motorhome. Well, there are three of us in our unit so it is higher yet. When we returned from FLorida in April and took everything out (it went into the dealer for warranty work on May 11 and we don't have it back yet - but it looks like this time they may be fixing virtually all of the problems - as I sit here with fingers crossed) we were astounded what came out and I figure we were 2000 lbs +++ with ease.

We had a Triple E Commander for a year (used 2000 model - idea was to determine if we liked having a MH) and loaded we had a cushion of over 1500 lbs. Only negative was that the front axle was close to its limit and we had to fill the water tank to take weight off the front.

We also considered an 05 Vectra with 2200 lbs CCC - that would have been marginally possible to live with - but the dealer wanted such a huge difference there was no hope of doing a deal.

We started looking at HR products and found much better CCC's posted in Ambassadors and Endeavors - but they also required adjustment. All calculations were based on 2 x 154 so it came down for our actual weights - but they still had enough.

One of the worst I've seen recently was an 05 HR Navigator with 616 lbs CCC. I gave the dealer my thoughts on that. Last week we looked at it again - the sheet with the details that was posted on the inside of the medicene cabinet was gone. IMO putting out a unit like that with such minimal CCC borders on being (pick the word you like best - criminal, negligent, stupid, dishonest, unfair, absurd ...).

The same dealer just took an 04 Scepter in as a trade on a 06 Navigator. We really like that Sceptor - until we were told CCC was 1200 lbs. It sold in a shot though - clearly to someone who doesn't have enough knowledge to look at the specs.

So, I think I go along with the comment that Tyler Cody made that he got from a WH tech (it was not his conclusion it was given to him) - these gassers are stretched out as far as they can go for the chassis and engine and the builders are then overloading them. Little doubt in my mind as to the accuracy of that statement (paraphrased here). I observed this two years ago when our dealer got in a load of 10 HR Vactioners. Wow, some nice units including fireplaces. We got kind of worked up, and then deflated when I looked at the labels (all on W22). One as low as 440 lbs. All 10 were gone in no time at great sale prices.

As FMCA has found, there are a lot of MHs out there that are overloaded. Is it any wonder given some of the CCC's we see.
__________________
2011 Itasca Impulse 26QP Silver, 2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited V6 Active Drive II
The Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2005, 03:52 PM   #60
iRV2 Marketing
 
DriVer's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Coastal Campers
Carolina Campers
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Conway, SC
Posts: 23,304
Blog Entries: 70
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dleslie125:
Interesting - almost 1750 lbs CCC. DriVer, we've had thoughts about changing and we would NOT EVEN CONSIDER a MH with only 1750 lbs CCC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We are full timing in our unit the way it is and I manage carefully the weight that we haul. If the W24 were available (in 2003) on the 38G the CCC would increase by 1800 pounds to 3550 pounds. The 38G is still a popular floorplan and with a CCC of ~3500~ pounds this would give the owner of this model motorhome quite a lot of flexibility.

I did see where you supported Tyler Cody's post however in the subsequent posts we see where people write that they are satisfied with their motorhomes.

TC is justifying moving up to an RDP and that's OK. I wish him a lot of luck with his new motorhome.
__________________
03 Adventurer 38G, Workhorse W22
F&R Track Bars, Safety+ , Ultrapower, Taylor Extremes, SGII
TST 507, Blue Ox, SMI, Koni FSD, CrossFire
RV/MH Hall of Fame - Lifetime Member
DriVer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2005, 10:13 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Kirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Livingston, Tx., US
Posts: 162
The fact is that Workhorse came about because GM fell so far behind Ford that they could not catch up, and thus sold out to Workhorse. The on-going fight between Ford & GM, now Workhorse, is what knowledgable people call competition and it helps all of us, even those who are so blind as to only buy one manufacturer's product, even when they fall far behind. It was not Workhorse, but Ford who first made the chassis for a motorhome wider. True, Workhorse came back and bettered them at that idea, but is still copied from the Ford design.

As one who shops by quality, and not by name brand, I have previously owned a P-30 chassis motorhome as well as my present Ford. When I purchased my motorhome there were no major builders who used the P-30 for any of the larger gas powered rigs because the P-30 just could not cut it!

Today, I think that Workhorse has clearly been ahead in the competition, but that may well change with the new Ford. Still too early to tell. But the facts are that there are negatives to the WH that are behind the Ford evnen for the 2995 models. First, there are far fewer places to get the WH serviced particularly for warranty work and that is a big negative for a fulltimer. Second, they at present are haveing more porblems than the F-53, although not a major difference. But the big deal is the fact that the CCC on any coach that is built on both chassis will be significantly more, usually 1000+# than the exact same coach will have if on a Workhorse.

DriVer is so biased that he will make excuses for his substitute GM product, no matter how bad. But my issue with him is the demeaning way that he deals with Ford owners and how he uses his position as an "administrator." If I were to buy a new gas powered motorhome today, I would look at the Workhorse and the Ford both. Based upon what I know of the 2005, I would probably favor the Workhorse, if I could get the needed CCC. But that is a big IF. Motorhome magazine reviewed an Allegro last year that was 36' with two slides and had 623# of CCC on the Workhorse, while that exact coach had over 2000# when built on a Ford. Even Worhorse does not claim to overcome the weight limits that their designers set. Say all that you want about comparing the Wh frame rails to those of a diesel chassis, but the diesel chassis has at least 3000# more GVWR than does the WH that ways the same amount when bare.

Opinions are fine and everyone has a right to theirs, but when you wave the "administrator" flag, you have some obligation to being humble in your opinions as well as tolerant of those who disagree.

I joined this forum in Jan. of 2000, after receiving a direct email from one of the founders of this site. I don't have his address any longer, so there is no other place to go with my issue, but I will probably not return, as is the case with several other Ford owners that I know. Owning a Ford does not make you a stupid person.
__________________
Good travelin! ......Kirk
URL: www.1tree.net/adventure/
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 06:55 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Kirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Livingston, Tx., US
Posts: 162
If that is what it is, then quit lying to the public by calling IRV2, as most of us do,and be just a little bit honest and call the forum what you all say that it is:

Workhorse Chassis Motorhome Club Forum

Perhaps it might be more honest to even state that it is for Workhorse onwers only! That is not how it is billed. But, if that is true then my only issue is that the operators be honest enough to sell it in that way.

What DriVer said was origionally was that Workhorse was a sponcer, which means advertiser. That is very different. But if it is a Workhorse forum, I have no problem with that, as long as you promote is honestly.
__________________
Good travelin! ......Kirk
URL: www.1tree.net/adventure/
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 07:46 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
RVRon's Avatar


 
Newmar Owners Club
Nor'easters Club
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newburgh, NY, USA
Posts: 935
From what I can ascertain, the vote for chassis is roughly what the percentage of market share has been lately for both brands. Other than that, it's personal preference.
__________________
Ron & Kathy FMCA F327322
2015 Newmar Dutch Star 4369
2014 Ford Explorer Sport
RVRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 10:54 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
edgray's Avatar


 
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Entegra Owners Club
Spartan Chassis
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Madison, MS
Posts: 7,556
Originally posted by KIRK; <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and be just a little bit honest and call the forum what you all say that it is: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kirk, please allow me to point out that, PERHAPS, the source of this confusion is a function on iRV2.com called "linking". Posts which MAY have interest by members who frequent different SECTIONS here are linked and therefore APPEAR in more than one section. In this case, the always hotly debated issue of "Chevy vs. Ford" appears in both the MH-General Discussion section AND in the Workhorse Chassis Motorhome Club Section. So, maybe now you can see how a misunderstanding may have created harsh comments about someones "turf". Speaking of harsh comments, I think your assertions about iRV2.com being dishonest is a little over the top. It is a free service to the RVing community, staffed by unpaid volunteers who try to "Support the Thoughtful Exchange of Knowledge,Values,and Experiences among RV Enthusiasts". We welcome your participation.
__________________
2016 EC Aspire 42RBQ / 2014 CR-V
edgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 12:28 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
YosemiteBobR's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 788
Kirt, please allow me to withdraw my comment about you being on the Workhourse forum and making these comments. I have just learned how forums are linked together. I reacted too quickly with my comments. I should be more observant. But as I said I don't mind reading both sides.
__________________
2015 Four Winds Super C 33SW, w 6.7 Diesel 300HP - 660 lbs of torque
2011 Jeep Wrangler Sport as towed vehicle
Good Sam Club Life Member
YosemiteBobR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2005, 04:45 PM   #66
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Hitchhiker's Avatar


 
Appalachian Campers
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Buladean, NC
Posts: 8,127
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgray:

"In this case, the always hotly debated issue of "Chevy vs. Ford" appears in both the MH-General Discussion section AND in the Workhorse Chassis Motorhome Club Section." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


At 6:25 PM EDT today, the "shortcut" or "link" referred to by our moderator "edgray" was removed as an administrative effort to avoid farther confusion by members on this thread's multiple location. Upon removal of that "Shortcut", the thread reverted back to where the original topic starter placed it, the MH-General Discussion Forum.

All members are welcome and encouraged to post in any forum, there are no forums on iRV2 reserved for the exclusive use of any particular group of members with the exception of those forums used by Administrators and Moderators for administrative purposes.

Hopefully, this thread can now revert back to a thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values, and experiences among the RV enthusiasts who are knowledgeable and informed regarding the attributes or shortcomings of these two brands without the personal affronts and accusations of dishonesty.

"Hitchhiker"
Administrator, iRV2.com
__________________
'11 GMC Acadia SLT AWD
'11 GMC Sierra 1500 4x4 Extended Cab
Hitchhiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2005, 04:34 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
RVRon's Avatar


 
Newmar Owners Club
Nor'easters Club
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newburgh, NY, USA
Posts: 935
What he said..........
__________________
Ron & Kathy FMCA F327322
2015 Newmar Dutch Star 4369
2014 Ford Explorer Sport
RVRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2005, 04:57 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Kirk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Livingston, Tx., US
Posts: 162
Hitchiker,

I guess that some of us did not know about, or understand, the linking thing. In looking over the thread now that it has gone, the agressive issue does seem to have disappeared! That is good and I will publicly state that it does seem to have been the cause of my complaint.

edgray , The comment about the site being dishonest was in response to a quote in another post that stated that this is a Worhorse user's forun. Since I knew nothing of any "linking", I took that to mean that DriVer was saying that the eintire site was for Worhorse. Reading the rest of the thread, I wasn't the only person here who had no idea of this linking. Thanks be, it is not gone!

DriVer, I have to say that with no link the agressive attitude that I complained of does not seem to be here. I did not realize that there were any "links" and regret that I did not understand that.

And to YosemiteBobR , no appology needed as we were in the same boat! I do love a hot debate, but now I think I understand why this degraded to what it did.

At no time was I ever aware that I had posted anything on a Workhorse user forum, nor was I aware that some of the responses came from there.

I still do not believe that the lead is as clear as many here seem to. Workhorse clearly does have the lead at least through 2005. But they also have a price problem and they have a weight problem. As long as manufacturers offer the same coach on each chassis, there will be many of them the have too little CCC on the Workhorse, as compaired to the Ford. But Ford needs to do some work too, unless the new 2006 chassis proves to be the answer.

I do have some reservations about the new Ford but I haven't tested either for a while and the reviews are just begining to come in. I would love to see Ford solve all of their problems, because then we would see Workhorse engineers get back to work. I still believe that competition is what is best for the industry!
__________________
Good travelin! ......Kirk
URL: www.1tree.net/adventure/
Kirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2005, 06:17 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
YosemiteBobR's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: So Cal
Posts: 788
I have just read in GS Highways mag., that the Ford has a wooping 362hp as compared to WH 340. So far that is all the comparisons I have seen to date, outside of WH comparisons. I'm sure they will be coming in soon.
__________________
2015 Four Winds Super C 33SW, w 6.7 Diesel 300HP - 660 lbs of torque
2011 Jeep Wrangler Sport as towed vehicle
Good Sam Club Life Member
YosemiteBobR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2005, 04:46 AM   #70
Senior Member
 
RVRon's Avatar


 
Newmar Owners Club
Nor'easters Club
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Newburgh, NY, USA
Posts: 935
Having owned both powerplants, I'll wait to see the RPM that the V-10 makes that 362 HP at. If it's not a screamer, like mine was @ 310HP then it's certainly going to give the 496" Chevy a run for it.
__________________

__________________
Ron & Kathy FMCA F327322
2015 Newmar Dutch Star 4369
2014 Ford Explorer Sport
RVRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ford and Workhorse horatio54 Class A Motorhome Discussions 38 12-25-2008 05:01 AM
Bounder: Ford vs workhorse sandra Fleetwood Products Owner's Forum 7 05-04-2008 03:26 AM
Bounder: Ford chassie vs workhorse sandra Fleetwood Products Owner's Forum 9 04-10-2008 08:17 AM
Workhorse vs Ford Chassis sandra Fleetwood Products Owner's Forum 9 01-06-2008 11:32 AM
workhorse vs new ford larry r Workhorse and Chevrolet Chassis Motorhome Forum 32 03-06-2006 04:31 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.