Small Class C: Toyota Warrior or Jamboree Searcher?

[Dan_RT66]

Hi- Looking at a '91 Toyota Warrior and a '95 Fleetwood Jamboree Searcher on the Ford 351 platform. Both are well maintained and both are at the upper end of the price ranges you'd expect (private owner sales). I'll be doing some traveling for weekends in New Mexico and environs and spending most of my summers in Montana. Advice about which would be better? Economy of operation is important; I'm 64 and pretty mechanical, have lots of tools and not afraid to use them. Owned a Class A behemoth for a time, that was a bad experience but I love being on the road and want to try again. Any constructive advice much appreciated! Thanks -

[Dan_RT66]

I changed plugs on and tuned up an '84 Continental Mark once. I kept wishing I had additional elbows - on my arms - and said arms ended up looking like I had held them in a box of rabid cats for about twenty minutes. Changed plugs I never saw before they were out of the engine. And that's a car with a "normal" automotive engine compartment. So, everything has its challenges, but I do indeed take oughtsix's point about being able to at least endure all the torture in one place, without having to lurch back and forth from out- to inside to do it. And I love the discussion, thanks all.

[oughtsix]

pnichols wrote:

oughtsix wrote:
I hate van chassis! They are uncomfortable to drive because of the dog house. And miserable to work on because the windshield is on top of the middle of the engine.

The whole purpose of the van chassis is to keep the overall vehicle length short as compared to the volume of the cargo that can be carried and to make it possible for the driver to get to the cargo area without getting out of the vehicle.

As far as working on them is concerned, once you get the doghouse off I find it easier to get to the rear of the engine and front of the transmission areas than in a pickup. Once you get the doghouse off, you can also work in those areas out of the rain while it's raining, too. 😉

Yes, I know why van chassis are used instead of pickup chassis. The length advantage of a van chassis is real but for the short RV's the OP is talking about I doubt the extra couple feet of the nose on the Toyota will make much of a difference. In the year range he is talking about I know that a van chassis is not a comfortable ride. Not much leg room for the driver and the passenger leg room is even worse.

The Toyota RV's are walk through from the cabin to the living area just like a van chassis.

IMO working on the engine in a pickup chassis is worlds better than a van chassis. The engine/transmission junction you can access through the dog house isn't were maintenance is done and a very unlikely/infrequent spot for repairs. Just changing the plugs on a van chassis is misery. You can access a couple of the plugs through the dog house. A couple more through the midget hood. The rest are knuckle bangers right under the windshield and supporting cross brace. There just isn't the working room in a van chassis like there is in a pickup chassis. Having to work through the doghouse isn't fun or convenient to get to unless you want to take the front seats out first. Going back an forth between the cabin and the hood to figure the best way to contort yourself to get at the middle chunk of the engine is a headache and a time waster. I hate working on van chassis. I don't mind working on a pickup chassis at all. Maybe if your daily job was working on van chassis you might know the tricks for getting at stuff easier but for shade tree mechanics they are simply a headache!

[pnichols]

oughtsix wrote:
I hate van chassis! They are uncomfortable to drive because of the dog house. And miserable to work on because the windshield is on top of the middle of the engine.

The whole purpose of the van chassis is to keep the overall vehicle length short as compared to the volume of the cargo that can be carried and to make it possible for the driver to get to the cargo area without getting out of the vehicle.

As far as working on them is concerned, once you get the doghouse off I find it easier to get to the rear of the engine and front of the transmission areas than in a pickup. Once you get the doghouse off, you can also work in those areas out of the rain while it's raining, too. 😉

[Dan_RT66]

Good point to consider, oughtsix, thanks.

[oughtsix]

Toyotas are a pickup chassis.

E350 is a van chassis.

I hate van chassis! They are uncomfortable to drive because of the dog house. And miserable to work on because the windshield is on top of the middle of the engine. I had to replace the fuel injection spider on a Chevy van once... I still have scars on my knuckles! If you are going to work on it yourself the pickup chassis is so much easier to get to everything!

[pnichols]

RT66 wrote:
... and a '95 Fleetwood Jamboree Searcher on the Ford 351 platform

Hmmm ... our traveling friends have a 1994 Jamboree Searcher. But, it's on an E350 chassis powered with a Ford 460. I would have thought all Ford chassis based Searchers of that time frame were on 460 powered E350s. :h

[xxjanaleexx]

I have had two Toyotas in the past and am now trying to find one to buy again. Loved the versatility and even though neither were 6cyl., I never had a need for more power. Now though, I feel I would prefer the bigger engine..IF I could only find one to buy.!! I am an elderly, disabled woman and have recently had to sell my larger camping combo. Hoping someone in NE PA. is looking for me to be their buyer! Janalee

[ReneeG]

Wow Ron, that's a nice Toyota. Thanks for the information for me too, I forgot the reason we had no problems with grades, was the larger engine and yes, I remember the dual wheels.

[Dan_RT66]

Ron, that Toyota is beautiful! Thanks for sharing the photos.

[ron_dittmer]

Dan, Since you are travelling alone, and mentioned that operating costs is a serious factor, I would go with the 91 Toyota Winnie Warrior for it should get you near twice the fuel economy. The 91 Toyota chassis has the large V6 MFI engine and true dually rear axle. Prior to 1987-1989, the Toyota chassis had some very serious issues with a lack of power from the 2.4L 4 cylinder engine, and lack of load capability.....as was our 1983 Toyota chassis motor home SEEN HERE. As the pictures show, we had upgraded the rear axle to true DRW.

[ReneeG]

You're welcome, Dan.

[Dan_RT66]

Thanks, Renee. I prefer the blue highways and seldom have a deadline, so speed is secondary to economy in my plans. I really appreciate you folks taking the time to chime in!

[ReneeG]

Just a note Dan, I live in the West and did when I had my Winnebago Warrior and although it took the grades slow, it was no slower than the gas Class A's.

[Dan_RT66]

Thank you for that reminder! Hills are a big part of life on the road here.