Why not gasser rear enging?

a rear engine gasser would eliminate most of the issues (noise) of a front engine gasser.
To eliminate the rest would require air ride and air brakes, and at that point, cost would be too close to a DP chassis.

The old rear dodge 440 fmc's were cool as hell.

One thing that needs to be remembered is few companies are building chassis configurations just for RV's. If it can't be used in a bus or delivery truck, the economies of scale just are not there.

They DO have front engine diesels (currently) and rear engine gassers (in the past, at several different times, 1940's through 2008).

Each has to find its market, cost/price vs value. A front engine diesel is more expensive than a front engine gasser of comparable size, so buyer needs a reason to pay more (at present, that is fuel economy). A rear gasser is almost as expensive as a rear engine diesel using a small (6-7 liter) light-duty engine, so to pay the same price and not get a diesel, you need to find the buyer that wants the engine in the rear but really doesn't want diesel.

We've also been through front-engine, front-wheel-drive in motorhomes, diesel and gas, type A and type C. Market accepted some of these better than others, GMC motorhome was pretty successful for quite a while.

With no big chassis frame to sit the "house" on top of, the 8'10" overall height would give decent headroom inside the Special Interest rig. Lack of storage would be an issue for a lot of folks. I don't remember what the rig weighed, so maybe that low GVWR wouldn't be as big a problem as it seems, when compared to a regular "box on chassis" design.

We didn't pursue them as they're too limited in production numbers, don't have dealers and it's a long way to the factory from where we live. They show a lot of rebuilds because they often buy back the older 460-engined rigs, refurbish them, put a V-10 motor in and resell them.

With no big chassis frame to sit the "house" on top of, the 8'10" overall height would give decent headroom inside the Special Interest rig. Lack of storage would be an issue for a lot of folks. I don't remember what the rig weighed, so maybe that low GVWR wouldn't be as big a problem as it seems, when compared to a regular "box on chassis" design.

We didn't pursue them as they're too limited in production numbers, don't have dealers and it's a long way to the factory from where we live. They show a lot of rebuilds because they often buy back the older 460-engined rigs, refurbish them, put a V-10 motor in and resell them.

INADVERTENT DOUBLE POST. MODERATORS - PLEASE DELETE ONE.

I have to think the overheating with a rear gasser can't be that big of a deal. The old Flexible buses had a rear engine Packard I-8 and ran just fine...those puppies got a lot of miles on them.

JimM68 wrote:
a rear engine gasser would eliminate most of the issues (noise) of a front engine gasser.
To eliminate the rest would require air ride and air brakes, and at that point, cost would be too close to a DP chassis.

The old rear dodge 440 fmc's were cool as hell.

One thing that needs to be remembered is few companies are building chassis configurations just for RV's. If it can't be used in a bus or delivery truck, the economies of scale just are not there.

Why do people still insist gassers are so loud? Because they're not.

BTW Newmar was using a mid-engine diesel. Really awesome layouts available.

wny_pat wrote:

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.

My understanding is that the SIV vehicles were originally designed and manufactured by Winnebago, but apparently due to some issues they recalled them and sold everything to SIV. I don't know what if any changes SIV made after that.

bluwtr49 wrote:
I have to think the overheating with a rear gasser can't be that big of a deal. The old Flexible buses had a rear engine Packard I-8 and ran just fine...those puppies got a lot of miles on them.

Back in 1961 when I was in college a local guy had several of those old Flxible buses to service students from small towns in the adjacent areas.

I think he bought them from Greyhound or Trailways when they retired them from regular service. I was told they had straight-8 Buick engines, if I remember correctly.

I do remember a few beakdowns, but no telling how many miles those old classics had on them. I believe the owner used to buy engines from the junkyard when he needed them to keep costs down.

I drove one of them for a while. I didn't have to pay the $15 per month fee when I was a driver. He didn't require anything but a regular driver's license. I don't know if it was legal or not, but we got by.

Ah, the good ole days.

JimM68 wrote:

One thing that needs to be remembered is few companies are building chassis configurations just for RV's. If it can't be used in a bus or delivery truck, the economies of scale just are not there.

This is the answer.

cbeierl wrote:

wny_pat wrote:

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.

My understanding is that the SIV vehicles were originally designed and manufactured by Winnebago, but apparently due to some issues they recalled them and sold everything to SIV. I don't know what if any changes SIV made after that.

Chris, you are correct. They were called Spectrum 2000's and it was similar to an Elandan. As well as the over heating issue, the compartment doors used rubber hinges which dry rotted and failed.