Why not gasser rear enging?

Gas in the rear had heating issues. Diesels up front are around but they have noise issues. Diesels in the rear are just right as the story goes. I would not have an issue with a front diesel but a rear gasser would. Foretravel built a few in early days (70s) and they still have issues with overheating for the owners remodeling them.

There was a really well-engineered rear-engined gasser on the market for a while, made by an outfit called "Special Interest Vehicles" if I remember correctly. It had a space-frame combination body/chassis of their proprietary design, with automotive industry (Dodge, I think) suspension and a ZF transmission. The engines were Fords, the 460 in early versions and V-10 in later ones.

I think the company is still in business, but not making RVs any more.

frankdamp wrote:
There was a really well-engineered rear-engined gasser on the market for a while, made by an outfit called "Special Interest Vehicles" if I remember correctly. It had a space-frame combination body/chassis of their proprietary design, with automotive industry (Dodge, I think) suspension and a ZF transmission. The engines were Fords, the 460 in early versions and V-10 in later ones.

I think the company is still in business, but not making RVs any more.

They still have an active web site and are based in ElDorado, Arkansas.

And front engine diesels are noisy and hot. Some companies have done well to insulate the engine compartment and others haven't. Tiffin built a Fred for a while.

If you can cool a rear engine diesel, you can cool a rear engine gasser.

In the end, it is cost and the marketplace that determines what is offered. The least expensive way to build a MH (at least under about 38') is with a gas engine in the front. Cost/price is very important to a lot of people for something they will often only use 4-6 weeks out of the year and only drive it 5-7,000 miles.

With a little tweaking (rear air bags, a good alignment, Koni FSD shocks, and $150 worth of sound damping material under the dog house), our old gasser handles and rides fine and is quiet at cruising speeds and quit acceptable when climbing hills. I love the dividends and appreciation the $40,000 gives me that didn't go into a DP (and the reduced depreciation of the gasser).

hipower wrote:

frankdamp wrote:
There was a really well-engineered rear-engined gasser on the market for a while, made by an outfit called "Special Interest Vehicles" if I remember correctly. It had a space-frame combination body/chassis of their proprietary design, with automotive industry (Dodge, I think) suspension and a ZF transmission. The engines were Fords, the 460 in early versions and V-10 in later ones.

I think the company is still in business, but not making RVs any more.

They still have an active web site and are based in ElDorado, Arkansas.

http://www.special-interest-veh.com/
And that is one nice looking coach. But very low at only 8' 10 1/2" tall. And the GVWR is only 15,000 pounds. And these are some type of conversions, and not new builds??? The basement storage really appears lacking to say the least! Interior layout is very similar to a 1990s Foretravel.

The chassis is a monocoque chassis riding on a rear axle/tag Velvet Ride torsional rubber independent suspension, supplied by B.F. Goodrich. Now I was under the impression that B. F. Goodrich had quit building that suspension. Interesting to find out that they might be still building it. Have to check that out in case I ever need parts for mine. It is said that the Velvet Ride torsion rubber suspension is a million mile suspension and will never wear out. The front suspension is fully independent and features coil springs with double transverse link design.

While historically there are cooling issues such as with Foretravel and FMC, those problems are not insurmountable. Of course the problem is, that any new idea takes awhile to be trusted, especially when it has a history of problems. Workhorse was obviously keenly aware of the problem, but felt like the gas engine and the industry as a whole, had come of age, where it was practical to do it right. Half the heat problem is the fact that in the 70s through the 90s, gas engines where very underpowered to handle a large coach. Between that and coach builders being very careless about air flow design didn't help. In contrast to history, the 8.1 has plenty of power for the size coach. The piece volume is great enough for the chassis builder to specify to the coach builders what must be done. So, the UFO came out. Workhorse built 3 chassis to run tests in the AZ desert. 1000's of miles were put on those engines to prove out the reliability. As it turned out, the engine had no trouble operating in those conditions, and as a matter of fact, when those test engines were removed from the test chassis, they were sold on Ebay and at least one I know is still going strong. I almost bought one of those test engines, but decided I didn't want to mess with the more complicated ECM.

Yes, the UFO was a great idea, and hopefully will come back. Even though the RV market tanked, which caused the chassis to die, in the end, it may not be all bad. As time wears on, the chassis has opportunity to prove its self, as well as create a demand for something that is not available. From a marketing standpoint, demand with no supply is a great opportunity. There is a revamped version of the 8.1 that has been developed to meet pollution requirements and is targeted to the RV industry. It has even more power, so the possibility for the reintroduction of the UFO chassis is wide open.

interesting thread. we have a 2008 rear engine gas, Winnebago, destination 37 feet. we have a workhorse chassis, with a chevy engine and never any heating issues.. or other issues. I would be hard pressed to change what we have. fyi 7-8 miles per gallon, better going down hill of course!

My brother was looking at a 38' 1986 Elite Coach and that had a rear gas engine. I don't know if the owner had an overheating problems though.