Coachman Warranty to Non-First Owners

You know I had the same fear. But I realize this was the same thing builders were spreading in late 70s when HUD cam along. Was this a fear tactic or was this a reluctance to change and do the right thing?

We think $250,000 RV in future if HUD is followed. I would argue that it will be cheaper.

RV manufactures are already over charging us. The coachman we have comes with a spring driven thermostat. Replacement cost of this piece of junk is $70. A HUD approved digital unit costs $20. It does the job better and does more.

Refrigerator from dometics is 1000.
A better quality far more energy efficient one from the HUD drive housing industry costs 1/2 that much from Sears. And I know an RVer who has just junked his RV refrigerator in favor of the more efficient home unit.

HUD thermostat better at 1/3 the price. A better, higher energy efficient refrigerator at 1/2 the price. So how are prices going to go up if HUD approved items are used in the coach.

And as far as an inverter in every coach? Well what's wrong with that? The saving by using off-shelf HUD approved, higher energy items will more than offset the cost of a $500 - $1200 inverter.

And guess what? That's going to result in road safety too. How many people run down the highway with gas violating safety laws in most states to operate their refrigerator. What's wrong with an inverter doing this.

And why not go one step further? A young man in the RV dealership when we were talking about this told me their is a company in Oregon that makes refrigerators for the solar industry. It uses 80 watts per day. Not 80 Watts per hour. 80 Watts per day! It costs $1200.

So if these RV manufacturers really want to charge us $1200 for a fridge, maybe we ought to insist on ones that run on 80 Watts per day.

(Now mind you 80 watts is not to freeze ice, its assuming the refrigerator is already down to desired temperature. But even so they typical refrigerator even then doesn't operate with that kind of efficiency -- maybe 200 - 500 Watts per Hour.

The real dirty truth of the RV industry is that the manufactures have us thinking that RV appliances and controllers are unique and HUD high-energy efficient used in the housing industry (usually 1/2 the price) won't work. And that's just not true.

Think of it this way: most people pay about $25,000 - $30,000 for land. They pay a builder about $100 sq-ft to build house. Assume the $30,000 goes to the cab. Now assume you have to build a 25ft x 9ft apartment which is now is less than 225 sq-ft. Let's take the HUD approved typical building cost of (good housing) at $100 foot means the cost would be $22,500. Add in RV specific things e.g. generator, charger and you're talking another $10,000 (hardly, but lets say that for the sake of argument).

So where are we? $22,500 + $30,000 + $10,000 = $62,000. So if we do this for a house, why can't we do it for an RV?

And have I assume anything but "retail costs". Does a Ford/Chevy Frame *really* cost $30,000 to RV manufacture. Assembly for RVs is done indoors and mostly and so costs are much lower (just like factory built houses). I doubt, a generator and charger/inverter will cost $10,000. More like $3500 (retail) and $1200 (retail). So even then, I've given RV manufactures plenty of profit.

HUD compliant and still keep price in the same ball park is very possible. The real issue is that the RV fat-cats know HUD is right and RV manufactures are wrong. Admitting this, they are going to be forced to cut out their price gouging.

HUD in the game means the winner will indeed be the RV consumer. The $60000 spent on a coach will be HUD quality. Not a shoddy, over priced, worst than Chinese made junk.

Why do I say worst than chines made junk? Because I can buy Chinese junk for a bargain price. In the case of RVs, I'm buying junk for a premium price. If you're going to sell me junk, at least give it to me for a bargain.

There are only two ways this industry is going to change: HUD/FTC or Japanese move into RV space. And it's strange I've never seen this.

Because it was the Japanese that forced Detroit in the 90s into things like warranty transfers, better quality/reliability, better value.

The problem with getting Japanese in the market to do the same, is that like Detroit went through massive layoffs because of a shift in the market, the same thing would happen if Japanese entered into RV world.

HUD is the better option for American employees of these RV manufactures. I don't want these hardworking people to loose their jobs. That's why it's better HUD clean house not allow foreign completion to do it.

HUD involvement is greatly needed. Are me and the Mrs in the minority opinion on this, most likely. We don't have the marketing spin power of an established RV-industry. We are one voice. They are many.

But we can be many more, if we all say to RV manufactures - ENOUGH.
We want what we are paying for ... nothing more, nothing less. And the club needs to be wield by HUD, because we are too de-centralized to do it ourselves.

I understand your point about RV construction, but I personally wouldn't want to get HUD or the NTSHA involved, and have them make standards for RVs. With regulatory capture, it might be that after HUD gets done with things, a bare bones class "C" costs $250,000, and existing rigs have to have building permits given in order to have it re-roofed, add an inverter, or change the water heater. It also might be that RVs would be placed under building laws, where if one doesn't keep their rig inspected, even if it sits on their property, it could be condemned and hauled off at the whim of the government.

I personally would avoid getting the government involved no matter what. Instead, I'd vote with your dollars, and go with a higher end unit like a Winnebago, Coach House, Phoenix Cruiser, Nexus RV, or other brand. Bringing HUD in would mean a lot of unforeseen consequences.

They get away with it because we keep buying them, Walmart is full of China made materials because we buy them. Companies left our country because we don't buy their stuff.

The issue for me is why is the RV industry allowed to get away with this practice?

Chevy/Ford/Toyota etc don't do this. The warranty conveys. So why do we as consumers allow these RV manufactures to get away with this.

The only person who has leverage is the original buyer and he/she probably not going to make an effort to seek a modification of warranty or walk away from a purchase.

So who is left? Who is the common bargaining voice for the consumer? I don't think it's RIVA. If it was this would not be an issue today.
Where do we turn? HUD is the only game in town. HUD and possibly the FTC.

SOAP BOX ON

And I'm not sure if I'm in the majority on this or minority. I truly believe HUD needs to be a force in the RV world. I originally didn't until my wife convinced me otherwise.


Whether part-time or full-time an RV is a dwelling: a bed, a bathroom, and a kitchen. That's a dwelling. And HUD is responsible for ensuring that all dwelling whether are lived in full-time, part-time, or recreationally are safe. The only way to force these RV manufactures to step up is to get HUD involved.

I bought my coachman used, the 2/3 of the screws on the bottom that hold the walls up were missing. Of the remaining ones about 1/4 didn't even create a join because they missed what they were suppose to screwed into.

The electrical wiring is atrocious and lacking. 15AWG - 18AWG wiring has been used in places where it should have been at least 10 - 12AWG. These are fire hazards because even RV tech didn't realize this is what had been done. Even they are astonished by this.

They simply add devices to these thinking the wiring must be properly rated for 15A (DC) but it isn't. I almost has a fire in my coach because of this.

My coach is barely (used) at 26 months old. And has less than 9500 miles on it. Already the roof seem is falling apart and the RV has only seen moderate use.

I could go on-and-on about the poor original quality of the coachman RV. And when challenged they simply say these are "recreational".

Recreational or not, they are still temporary dwelling places and they should not be built as a hazard.

The argument for telling HUD to stay out from RV manufactures is that the cost of the RV would go up to the point where consumers could not afford an RV.

Oh really. HUD stepped in to the housing in the late 70s. There was no significant increase in house cost beyond ordinary market conditions and inflation. (So proved my accountant wife!)

The law of Supply-Demand is not altered in RV world. If they are over priced, then demand will go down hurting sales and profitability of RV manufacture. So they are going to have to come up with better production methods and better arrangements with supplies just as contractors did in housing.

Moreover, look at my case. How much more does 10 ft of 10AWG cost over 10ft of 15AWG -- pennies more. The cost is mostly in labor.

So what is happening is we are allowing RV manufactures to be penny wise and pound foolish at the expense of the quality we deserve as the high price we are already paying for these RVs. 50 - 80K is at the low end. That is the same price as a house including land. And they are built according to HUD standards.

And truth be told, I fell for this. But the Mrs is an accountant as I said and she didn't fall for it.

How much with $5 or $10 effect their profit margin in a $50,000 RV?

The argument is yes, but in a 100,000 units $5 = $500,000. Okay, MBA dude, so how much is 100,000 units * $50,000 = 5,000,000,000. That's 5 Billion. So $500,000 against $5 Billion is still a pittance no matter how you look at. If logic rules, you can see the percentage is the same. It's trivially small.

Let's put that in to perspective -- In the vast majority of American's their lifetime income will meet $500,000. <1% will have a life time accumulated income of $5 Billion. So think of what a pittance $500,000 really is to $5 Billion.

And margins aren't that thin for these guys. How many times has a person gone in and seen an $90,000 coach and walked out with $80,000? If margins are really so thin that $5 extra bucks makes a difference then how can the price drop $10,000. Margins aren't that thin. So don't fall for this ruse.

So who is at fault? We are. We are allowing these manufactures to do this. We are allowing them to build hazard dwelling (part time, recreational time, full time what ever). Sill a safety hazard.


And HUD doesn't allow a manufacture to say "well 2nd owner, doesn't matter if the builder put a substandard wiring or failed to properly attached a wall per our code". HUD steps in and fines that contractor. And even has authority to force them to make repairs.

As I said RIVA is not the voice of the consumer. And so the only thing we can do is ask HUD step in. We have no collective group representing us otherwise.

SOAP BOX OFF.

pconroy328 wrote:
True - the famous Jayco 2 Year warranty is original owner only. That said, I'm going to see just how well I can get the individual warranties to apply tomorrow. The generator on our "New to me" 2016 Greyhawk won't start.

I'm taking it to Cummins tomorrow.

A few weeks after we bought our 2009 Greyhawk new, our Generator wouldn't start. We had put about 10 or so hours on it without an issue before that. Turned out to be the fuel pump on the generator, replaced by the RV dealer.

-Michael

True - the famous Jayco 2 Year warranty is original owner only. That said, I'm going to see just how well I can get the individual warranties to apply tomorrow. The generator on our "New to me" 2016 Greyhawk won't start.

I'm taking it to Cummins tomorrow.

Warranties are normally not transferable, I worked in the outdoor power equipment industry and frequently ran into this.