Community Forums

Jim Stewart · 09-03-2009, 02:04 PM

He is lying! The steel was not the original problem, they only thought it was. It was the design of the mounting plate that causes a heat riser and over time fatigues the metal. The replacements did the same as the original, only it took a few more miles to weaken the better steel.

I am sorry to be so outspoken, but in the picture of the rear jacks on the above unit, you can see the very end of the trailing arms. They are the style that was used for the recall. Maybe I am not making myself clear. There was the original part, that failed and was recalled. There is the recall replacement part that was better steel, but the same design and is currently failing on units with 15K-20K miles after the recall replacement was performed.

The Safari Sahara has the same weight and weight rating (32K) as most all other Coaches that are failing. This same part is failing on 2006 and 2007 Coaches, ask him about that and see if he stutters. Or better yet, show him this web-site.

Jim Stewart · 09-03-2009, 02:21 PM

If it's worth that to you, it's worth it. It seems like a fair price based on current market conditions. You will have to put the money into the trailing arms sooner or latter, so add that to your price. You do need to check the date code on the tires, with that mileage, you would normally expect original tires. They look newer and may have a good date code.

Sorry to be so anal on this, but the Monaco people are dancing on this one. Good luck and I think you enjoy your coach. Your just South of me PM me and we can talk.

Jim

nplenzick · 09-05-2009, 12:45 PM

I have now put a few hundred miles on my coach since the replacement trailing arms. There is no doubt now that this MH rides better, in fact this was even a bigger improvement then when I put my Koni FSD's on. I was so impressed with the ride improvement that I called Scott at Source MFG. He mentioned I was the third person that reported this. The thought was the old design was acting like a life spring, not allowing the airbags to do their thing. After a period of time metal fatigue set in and the arms broke. It's nice to know that after all of this aggravation I at least have a vastly improved motorhome.

Flagelpater · 09-05-2009, 12:54 PM

When both Arms on my 04 Knight failed at the same time, the truck repair facility that put the new Arms on told me that the Trucking Industry had the same problem a few years prior to that! He also said that they had to replace it with an I beam design to properly fix the Arm. That is why I moved up to the RR8 chassis. Looks like it was a good move for me. I feel very sorry for those of you that got stuck with this problem. It looks like Monaco used a design that had already proved to be in problems.

Jim Stewart · 09-05-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nplenzick

I have now put a few hundred miles on my coach since the replacement trailing arms. There is no doubt now that this MH rides better, in fact this was even a bigger improvement then when I put my Koni FSD's on. I was so impressed with the ride improvement that I called Scott at Source MFG. He mentioned I was the third person that reported this. The thought was the old design was acting like a life spring, not allowing the airbags to do their thing. After a period of time metal fatigue set in and the arms broke. It's nice to know that after all of this aggravation I at least have a vastly improved motorhome.

Mine road significantly better also, and my arms were not broken. I attributed the improvement to the Super Steer MCUs that I had installed at the same time as the upgrade. Maybe part of the improvement was the new arms.

I can tell you that my previous Coach had a Spartan Chassis and my RR4R rides as good or better than that Chassis did.

DocUSAF · 09-06-2009, 02:48 PM

Jim/Ed,,, wow just think this thread has had over 3 thousand views, so that would stand for dozens of owners who care about their rear axle trailer arms safety. That's a lot of coaches out there, so hopefully those effected will now have better knowledge due to this thread...Can't see how anyone at Monaco especially Roadmaster was not concerned...wonder how many actually got re-call letters. I think all (former monaco owners), got a letter about Monaco going bust....so much for honoring "building quality from the ground up"....
I really hope you continue to keep RV LLC feet to the fire when it comes to owners' safety... This all happened and was OK'ed under somebody's watch...who was in charge?

Jim Stewart · 09-14-2009, 03:07 PM

Here is a new list of Stocking Authorized Dealers for the Source Engineering trailing arms for the Roadmaster RR4R. Sorry for the format, it came to me as an excel spreadsheet and I could not figure out how to format it to fit the message box, so it is in notepad, you should be able to figure it out.

Ryan@P.R.T.C · 09-14-2009, 08:53 PM

As I was reading through this thread I couldnt help but think someone needed to take the time to thank you Mr. Stewart. I think I counted something like 25 of the 77 post's in this thread were contributed by you and everything I see is good verifiable technical information backed up with documentation from both Monaco and Source Manufacturing that coach owners can use to keep from having this failure while driving. There are two coaches that I know of that have had this failure and both of them were while in route. I strongly believe that if either one of the owners of the vehicles had known that there was an issue involving the safety of themselves or there family's that they would have been proactive in replacing the control arms before it caused an accident. Luckily neither one resulted in any injuries but was an eye opening experience for both. One is still in my yard on a holding pattern because of parts pricing and availability problems. The other failed once and received the recall update after they broke driving down the interstate and now that he knows that there is a good possibility that this can and probably will happen again he has decided to order the Source Manufacturing control arms. I understand that it has been mentioned here that some coaches have been driven with the broken arms to the nearest repair facility but I have seen first hand the damage that can happen when these fail while driving and I cant help but recommend that nobody take the chance and risk it. On that note ill mention that these coaches are not designed to be rear towed and the only safe way to move them after the control arms have failed is to put them on a low enough trailer to haul them legally. I apologize for the length of this post and if im out of line in my comments I am truly sorry but I feel that the gravity of the situation may have not been properly portrayed. Thanks again Mr Stewart I think that you have provided a great service to your fellow RVers in this thread!

Jim Stewart · 09-19-2009, 05:49 AM

Thank you for your kind words, my Wife and the Psychiatrist say I am COD.

Just a small follow-up, it is important to go back to the installer of the trailing arms to get the torque checked after a thousand miles or so. I went back and mine needed a slight re-torque (if there is such a word).

It also seems that the arms are failing at a pretty good clip. I believe that the problem may exist on as many as 5,000 Coaches. I will e-mail Scott from Source Engineering to see how many they have shipped over the past several months.

Jim Stewart · 09-19-2009, 11:02 AM

Here is a recent message I received from Scott at Source Engineering.

"Hi, Jim we have shipped just over 100 sets since the beginning of June; 17 are in dealer inventory and about 6 were for replacement of parts that had not yet failed.

The average mileage to failure is 24,000 the lowest we have seen is 13000 (failed in Fairbanks, AK)

Roughly 20% of the failures result in some collateral damage ranging from punctured airbags and broken shocks to bay door damage, paint work ect. We shipped a set for a coach that had damaged the transmission, destroyed the bags, shocks, driveline, broke both side motor mounts and pushed the engine side ways and the cooling fan into the radiator, the shocks went up into the floor causing damage to the interior flooring, what a mess.

Do to numerous requests from installing shops we have introduced the TRA-1003 kit which includes a new bottom plate and the spacers cut to the exact length. This eliminates the need to shim to the correct length and drill the old lower plates out for the larger U-bolts this saves installation time (about 2 hours / Jim's estimation added).

We finished the initial ride development work last week we plan to start offering this suspension upgrade in conjunction with our trailing arms starting in a couple weeks at a very competitive cost.

Thanks again for all your help
Scott"

My Comments:

The numbers show 73 or more failures of the trailing arms since June of this year. That does not include the unlucky souls that had a failure and did not have the Source Engineering information and have received the old style arms from Monaco. I have no idea how many that may be. At any case, this is a high failure rate and from an engineering standpoint, could be predictable during the life of the Coaches.

Hope this information helps all of you RR4R Chassis owners

Jim Stewart

mythplaced · 09-20-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Stewart

Thank you for your kind words, my Wife and the Psychiatrist say I am COD.

Yea Jim,

I knew there was something "FISHY" about you..

Jim Stewart · 09-20-2009, 03:42 PM

See what I mean, OCD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

The 60s were very good to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DocUSAF · 09-20-2009, 05:24 PM

Jim/one might think within the RV comunity that there is a historian somewhere tracking the failure rate on those trailing arms by Monaco...
If you are right with the estimated 5,000 possible failures waiting to happen across America, I can see why Monaco dropped roadmaster chassis w/chapter 7 like a bad habit...and to think I almost drive away with one...wow lucky me!
Wonder if the new RV/LLC is "only producing tag axles"...

Jim Stewart · 09-20-2009, 05:41 PM

5,000 RR4R Chassis times $3,000.00/Chassis=$15,000,000.00. With recall costs and collateral damage, it could well have hit $20,000,000.00.

Had they stayed in business, a recall would have surely been forced and they would have incurred the cost.

You can bet they did the math and the result affected their decision. I understand that no RR4R Chassis have been or will be built by the New Monaco LLC. Boy, am I surprised!

I have one last devious comment:

If Monaco did know, which they probably did and informed Navistar, which they probably did and this influenced how Navistar fashioned their offer, there could be collusion and a potential class action suit possibility!