Why not gasser rear enging?
What is against rear engine gassers, and front engine diesels? Just wondering? Same goes for the common pickup truck diesels in the rear?
Forum Discussion
In todays market it would seem that the likely suppliers of a rear engine gas chassis would be Freightliner and Spartan.
Either could rather easily offer a gas engine chassis simply by installing said powerplant in their existing diesel chassis. The problem remains one of cost vs demand. For many years there were heavy duty trucks powered by gas engines that included air compressors for brakes, air ride, etc. so maintaining that feature would not be an issue. But simply repowering their diesel chassis would not reduce costs by any really significant amount.
If there was an option for this type of chassis I believe there would be owners or potential owners who would opt for the gas for the possibility of lower costs of operation. Of course that would have to be proven over time.
The remaining problem I see is the current lack of any proven engine of an appropriate size being readily available in today's marketplace.
Despite the cost factor, I can see a lot of benefit to potential owners who don't really travel a lot of miles annually or over the life of their coaches. The elimination of a long driveshaft allows for some savings as well as opening up added storage space. Losing the long exhaust system could only reduce heat input to the coach and cost marginally, but appears to be a benefit.
I may be in the minority, but I believe that there could be a market for a rear engine gas chassis coach in the 34-38 ft. range which would also have air brakes and air ride suspension. Unfortunately the lack of an available chassis and the price point of such a unit throws that idea into the dream category.
Either could rather easily offer a gas engine chassis simply by installing said powerplant in their existing diesel chassis. The problem remains one of cost vs demand. For many years there were heavy duty trucks powered by gas engines that included air compressors for brakes, air ride, etc. so maintaining that feature would not be an issue. But simply repowering their diesel chassis would not reduce costs by any really significant amount.
If there was an option for this type of chassis I believe there would be owners or potential owners who would opt for the gas for the possibility of lower costs of operation. Of course that would have to be proven over time.
The remaining problem I see is the current lack of any proven engine of an appropriate size being readily available in today's marketplace.
Despite the cost factor, I can see a lot of benefit to potential owners who don't really travel a lot of miles annually or over the life of their coaches. The elimination of a long driveshaft allows for some savings as well as opening up added storage space. Losing the long exhaust system could only reduce heat input to the coach and cost marginally, but appears to be a benefit.
I may be in the minority, but I believe that there could be a market for a rear engine gas chassis coach in the 34-38 ft. range which would also have air brakes and air ride suspension. Unfortunately the lack of an available chassis and the price point of such a unit throws that idea into the dream category.
