Community Forums

dajudge · 05-19-2010, 03:19 PM

Tiffin has made small class A motorhomes for several years. One of my friends has a 2000 Allegro on a workhorse chassis with the chev 454. He likes it and has had it since new. You may have trouble finding one without a slide. His has two small slides and is a 30ft.

Bagger97 · 05-20-2010, 11:25 AM

2006 was a big year for Ford chassis upgrades in the frame, engine and transmission. There are also some ongoing issues with the Workhorse chassis. You might want to look into this before buying anything.

micd · 05-20-2010, 12:36 PM

This is all good information for us to have while looking!

I really appreciate your taking the time.

Best regards,
Michelle

micd · 05-23-2010, 01:09 PM

We test drove a 1997 34 ft Suncruiser yesterday and loved it (almost impulse bought it-yikes!) but in the cold light of the morning we realized most national/state park campgrounds wouldn't let us in and that is what we want to see. So back to the drawing board trying to find the elusive 27ft. Were going to see a 1993 one tomorrow.

If I can find the safety/testing info on the Safari Trek I'm becoming more open to the ceiling bed as I look as I'm starting to see how that could really be an advantage. Any links to their safety testing?

Thanks again!

Michelle

charlie43 · 05-23-2010, 01:24 PM

Why won't "most national/state parks" let you in with a '97 34 ft RV? I'm new to this site, and haven't bought my unit yet. Sounds like this might be some "VERY NICE TO KNOW" info before I purchase. Thanks, Charlie

micd · 05-23-2010, 01:36 PM

I suspect that they don't have parking facilities and/or roads that will accommodate them. I can see where having big lots with pull through spots wouldn't really be conducive to the natural atmosphere of a national park. For the roads, maybe they are too narrow, too steep or too many switch backs.

My husband spent the morning pursuing the various web sites and looking at the restrictions after I spoke to my Uncle this morning who is an experienced national park road tripper. He said no way we should get the 34 ft as it would put too many restrictions on where we would go and what we could see without towing a car. He also thought towing a car made it a pain to drive the whole unit so we would probably drive it less. I'm sure many people don't find this to be the case but for us it probably would be.

I think the longer units are great for folks who need the space and plan to live in them a long time or who plan to go someplace, park and stay but for the way we want to use it, which is to see all over the west, were probably better off with a shorter more maneuverable unit.

Were also new and in the pre-purchase information gathering stage. It's alot to take in!

Here is a link where to camp at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon there is a 30 ft length limit. We just purused through alot of our intended destinations and found that shorter would be better.
http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/cg-sr.htm

Cheers!
Michelle

charlie43 · 05-23-2010, 01:48 PM

Thanks for the info and the link. Hadn't even thought about having a unit too big to get into the parks with. Learning more every day...
Thanks again, Charlie

micd · 05-23-2010, 01:54 PM

Charlie,

We didn't either. And I'm sure you can work around it by camping outside the parks. Also towing a car for touring would help because you could probably see all the sites easier. I think were trying to hit a sweet spot with a short RV so we can get away without a tow car.

I'd be interested to hear from others with experience of how much a 27 ft restricts your access to the sites. I would still have to be able to park it at trail heads and such.

Another thing to consider is wide bodies. Apparently the new RVs are so wide as to be illegal on certain roads in certain states. I'm not an expert on this so do a search on your state. Since the RV makers are pretty much all wide bodies I don't think it is enforced much but it is worth knowing about. Especially if you live in a state with restrictions. A third thing to check is bridge height, especially if you live out in the country primarily in the east where there may be old bridges that your RV can't go under.

http://www.two-lane.com/widebody.html

http://rv-roadtrips.thefuntimesguide...07/rv_size.php

Cheers!
Michelle

Gary - K7GLD · 05-23-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micd

I suspect that they don't have parking facilities and/or roads that will accommodate them. I can see where having big lots with pull through spots wouldn't really be conducive to the natural atmosphere of a national park. For the roads, maybe they are too narrow, too steep or too many switch backs.

My husband spent the morning pursuing the various web sites and looking at the restrictions after I spoke to my Uncle this morning who is an experienced national park road tripper. He said no way we should get the 34 ft as it would put too many restrictions on where we would go and what we could see without towing a car. He also thought towing a car made it a pain to drive the whole unit so we would probably drive it less. I'm sure many people don't find this to be the case but for us it probably would be.

I think the longer units are great for folks who need the space and plan to live in them a long time or who plan to go someplace, park and stay but for the way we want to use it, which is to see all over the west, were probably better off with a shorter more maneuverable unit.

Were also new and in the pre-purchase information gathering stage. It's alot to take in!

Here is a link where to camp at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon there is a 30 ft length limit. We just purused through alot of our intended destinations and found that shorter would be better.
Grand Canyon National Park - Campgrounds - South Rim (U.S. National Park Service)

Cheers!
Michelle

Absolutely!

And EXACTLY the reason we chose our older '88 Winnie 27 foot Super Chief - it has all the features needed for comfortable extended stays for my wife and I - and FEW of the handicaps. We have MANY times visited the Oregon coast's fine old CG's - and also, many times seen the newer and fancier "Queen Mary's" being turned away from being too long/wide for the available campsites, while our shorter 24 foot Kit 5er was waved right on thru!

When it came time to consider a MH, needed primarily to pull our fishing boat on fishing outings, the need for something under 30 feet was our main requirement. We've had no need to regret our decision and final choice - the '88 Winnie was cheap enough in purchase price to not make us uncomfortable if we leave it unused for extended periods of time, and yet excellent enough in quality and features to not be intimidated by the later and glitzier stuff - some of which can't even get into places we frequently like to stay.

The downside to older stuff, regardless of condition, is that the "entry standards" of some plusher parks prevent older units from being accepted,

Bigger/newer isn't ALWAYS better, you pay your money, and take your choice!

micd · 05-23-2010, 03:25 PM

Hi Gary,

I'm landing where you have already landed. I just looked up the specs. on a 27 ft 1994 that were viewing tomorrow. It is only 96" wide so it is not a widebody that means even if we go back east we should be able to go about as we please. I don't mind getting an older version and then upgrading as we go along if it means it is more maneuverable.

We have alot on the market from the late 80's but so far not much of the shorter stuff. But were keeping our eyes open.

Best regards,
Michelle

mkgearhead · 05-23-2010, 11:30 PM

Too bad the 1994 Flair didn't work out. I have a 1994 Flair 22' and it's great. I bought it 3 years ago with 35,000 miles on it. The only issue I have with it is we always have more people than we planned on having in it when we bought it. When we got it, we figured it would just be me, my wife and our 2 girls. But every time we pull it out of the driveway, my son (24) or my mother-in-law or both are right there with their bags packed. We didn't have that problem with the '70 Winnebago we had before. Nobody wanted to get near that thing. Too bad we're not ready to sell ours yet. In about 2 or 3 years, we're probably going to get something with more beds. Anyway, good luck on the search. Just remember, you might find your new motorhome when you least expect it. I found mine when I was shopping for a newer car and wasn't even in the market for a new motorhome.

micd · 05-23-2010, 11:38 PM

Another Flair has come on the market, a 22 ft, 1993. I haven't gone to see it yet since most of my research has been around the Winnebago/Itasca line. Could you tell me how reliable it has been, what I should look out for and most importantly what safety features are built into the chassis to protect the people in an accident?

Thanks!
Michelle

mkgearhead · 05-24-2010, 12:21 PM

With anything that old, I'd get up and check the condition of the roof. I'd also check underneath for excessive rust and corrosion. I've only had to do a few things to mine (tune up, change fluids, normal maintenance stuff). I also had to replace the control board on the refrigerator and I still need to replace the skylight over the shower. It was the victim of a recent hail storm. Comfort wise, I just replaced the very firm mattress with a memory foam one and replaced the 13" TV up front with a 22" flat screen with a DVD player. As far as safety features, it has seat belts for all seating (4 at the dinette and 2 for the front captains chairs). The front frame assembly looks very sturdy and it has a very solid steel rear bumper. Other than that, I think there's a thread on here somewhere that has a pre-purchase inspection list. It's good to have one because there are many things that can be overlooked. Good luck with the search.

SteveLevin · 05-24-2010, 01:40 PM

One thing to keep in mind is the wheelbase of the underlying chassis.

For the F53 of the early 90s I think you had 158"/178"/208" options or thereabouts. I bet the Chevy's had similar options...

I don't think you can go much longer than 30' on a 178" (like I have)...but you can go shorter... it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of 27' units are also on the 178" wheelbase. Now, certainly, they will handle crosswinds a bit better, but they won't be much more maneuverable (as far as turning radius, it would be the same).

I don't know how wide my coach is... I am going to check that out tonight. It looks about identical to Gary's 27' (in fact, our entire floorplan is similar except we've got a dinette as well as a couch).

Steve