What Constitutes Vintage Class A

[Dave_Pete]

DW and I are dissatisfied with the build quality, and lifestyle of our new 2013 travel trailer. We're having trouble selling outright, due to a seeming glut on the market. We are considering trading into a Class A and want to keep it close to straight across or "write us a check for the difference" so we're looking at older units. We've looked at Class Cs, but are more favorably impressed with the front seat experience of a Class A.

We are "classics" and "vintage" kind of people. (Yes getting older, but that's not what I meant). We are doing a resto-mod on a classic 1968 Travel Queen Truck Camper for some of our traveling style needs, and we own a 1954 Willys Jeep CJ3B that we love driving and taking with and having people comment on.

So what constitutes a "vintage" or classic Class A? We don't mind some repair and upgrading, etc., but don't want to start out with a basket case. We're tall so would really need the 80" length of a bed and prefer it to be an "always made-up" type. That means a long-boy double, standard queen (non-RV queen). In other words, not sure a smaller Winnebago or GMC would work, but don't let that stop your comments!

[Pass42]

Sadly missing from this discussion are any of the excellent MH built by Ray Frank, such as the XPLORER .. we had a 36' 1988 Xplorer.. Cummins 5.9, Allison tranny... real wood interior, tons of amenities...built in icemaker, blender, doorbell, alarm system, A/C with heat strips, even a vanity/sink in the bedroom.. build quality was amazing.. sold new in 1988 for $149,000........unfortunately, my wife wanted a coach with slide outs......so we sold her & bought our 37' Tradewinds.......(also a great MH)

[wa8yxm]

To the O/P.. Good question

Under Michigan law any vehicle 25 years old or older qualifies for special "Historic" license plates... Of course I do not want these on my class A as "historic" plated vehicles can only be driven on "Historic Vehicle" occasions (like the Woodward Cruise, Classic Car Cruizes, To/From Auto Shows, and the like) and thus I need everyday plates on my house.

[arizal]

Nice vintage Airstreams for what sees to be reasonable prices

[Daveinet]

Keep in mind, For Revcon, the actual weight is going to be considerably less than the weight rating. For instance, my coach fully loaded with clothes, tools and tanks full still has another 1500# of CCC left. I've never weighed it empty. I would suspect GMC probably doesn't have that much extra CCC.

[Dan_L1]

Dave,
It's going to be a long winter.
I got curious and searched for specs of the 3 brands; GMC, FMC and Revcon.

The FMC is heavier with a GVWR of 15,500.
But interestingly the Revcon numbers are all a bit higher than the GMC.

Ultimately though they are all close for the final designs;
FMC 15,500
Revcon 14,500
GMC 12,500

Dan


Chassis Curb / MH Curb / (Gross)
GMC
23 ft 6,725 (10,500)
26 ft 7,015 (12,500)

Revcon
1st design 7,666 (10,740)
final design
27 ft 7,600 11,500 (14,500)
30 ft 8,000 11,900 (14,500)
33 ft 8,400 12,300 (14,500)

edit - added chassis curb wt to revcon

Daveinet wrote:

the original Revcon was built on the Toronado front end.... It was lighter than the GMC,

[Dan_L1]

Thanks Dave,

I was just curious as I worked for FMC in MPLS (and follow-on companies for 20 years) long after they parted the RV business, and worked with folks from San Jose. The folks out there designed and built some real interesting equipment, at least as far as weapon systems are concerned.

Dan

[Daveinet]

Revcon vs FMC...Basically the build quality of each unit is in the same class, but slightly different philosophy. Revcon had a strategic goal of building light weight. This meant some rather exotic construction material and methods to achieve that. The shell, frame, and interior is aircraft aluminum. The interior cabinets are hollow core. This means the center of gravity is at 29 inches. Total weight on the police scales for a 33 footer is just over 12K lbs. Handling is well balanced. At 70 mph, I did a quick turn left and swerved back so hard, I pulled a muscle in my back. The front end slid as it tried to swerve back into my lane. Even though the front slid, the vehicle gave no sign of loss of control. Absolutely no sway. When I straightened the wheel, I was driving along as if nothing happened. I've been caught by a microburst with recorded winds of 90 mph. No problem driving in it, other than the wind was opening the window awnings and slamming them against the side of the coach. Eventually I hit an exist and secured the awnings. On a 2 lane road, 60 mph, I have met a semi oncoming. Let go of the steering until he passed. The coach stayed straight. I tow a 4600 lbs Grand Cherokee. I've seen 98 mph on the GPS twice, and could easily be driven with 1 finger on the wheel.
The FMC did not have the specific design goal of being light. The bottom half is aluminum, while the top half is fiberglass. The cabinets are Formica laminate, but solid core. So just as durable, but not as light. So to handle the weight, you have heavier truck components. Not bad, but just different design goals. As far as handling, I've not driven one, but have read many different commentaries. Some will state the low profile means it handle high winds OK, while others comment on the weight of the engine in the rear. There are a few who have added weight to the front end to compensate for the weight of the engine in the rear. I get the impression that under some conditions, its fine, but under other conditions, its not the best. I assume its very similar to when I get my PC800 loaded on the rear bumper of my coach. If I just hold the wheel straight, its fine, but if I let go, it tends to wander. (Without the PC, it goes dead straight)

[Dan_L1]

Dave,

Can you compare your Revcon to the/a FMC?

Dan

[1985air345]

Here is a link to pictures of many of the brands mentioned here.

ViewRVs.com - Class A Motorhomes

There are a bunch of Bluebird pics as well as Barth, Airtream (motorhomes), Argosy, Grumman, GMC, FMC, Revcon, Vogue, and several other brands.

[Daveinet]

Missing from the discussion is a Revcon, particularly if you have been disappointed with the build quality of other units. Its really in a different class construction wise. My '83 cost around $120,000 back in '83 when it was new. The interior is Formica laminate over solid wood frame. The cabinet doors are hollow with honeycomb support. Super light weight, but lasts forever. Most interiors cabinets look like the day they came out of the showroom. The shell in stretchform aircraft aluminum over aluminum frame. Interior walls are also aluminum and coated with a decorative plastic. Makes for a very cleanable surface that won't rot and lasts forever.

If you like working on stuff, I would suggest this is the motorhome for you. That may sound bad, but seriously, it has been a dream to work on. The guy who designed it was a former engineer who made his name in CAN-AM racing. (wrote the book on aerodynamic downforce with the T22) The drivetrain is custom, but well laid out and easy to get to. So many things are just logical and do not need to be re-engineered to make them right. About the only weakness is the front differential. The Dana 70 flexes under load because it is running in reverse. This creates extra wear on the carrier, which eventually gives out. There is a solution by Carl Jantz (the guy on Alaskan Offroad Warriors - History Channel) I had him rebuild mine, and so far, I've not been able to break it. Stock engine is a 454 mated to a TH400 trans. There are many of us that have dropped 502s in them, not because the 454 was weak, but because we like to drive fast. The Revcon has a very low center of gravity and is by far the best handling motorhome ever built. I typically cruise at 5 mph over, which out west means 80 mph. The is one finger driving, towing my Grand Cherokee. I do not like to slow down on grades.

the original Revcon was built on the Toronado front end (that is where GM got the idea. ) It was lighter than the GMC, so it did not put the wear on the drivetrain. Starting in ~1980 they used a custom drivetrain based on the 454 and used a modified transfercase to run the driveshaft forward. In 1985, they widened the chassis, which also added some weight, but they added width does give a nicer feel. Storage space and ameneties are very good for the time period. I always remember someone her stated they traded their 33 foot Revcon on a 37 foot basement "buss chassis" Allegro. They stated they has a very hard time fitting everything into the Allegro.

[falconbrother]

Here's my idea of a vintage (almost) motorhome that I would seriously consider, were I looking:

http://greensboro.craigslist.org/rvd/4789945688.html

[frankdamp]

I don't know if it's the same nowadays, but back in the late 1950's/60's, in the UK "Vintage" was a legal definition. It could only be used in conjunction with vehicles manufactured before the 1931 model year. Any good quality vehicle made after that was termed a "PVT", a Post-Vintage Thoroughbred (Aston-Martin, Bentley, Lagonda, Rolls Royce, etc). It didn't include the mass-market stuff like Austin, Morris, Standard.

Obviously, this couldn't be applied to RV's and I'm not even sure it still applies in the UK. My personal opinion is that, to call an RV "vintage", it should probably be pre-1970, but that's just my take on the subject. It should certainly not have EFI, ABS or any of the other computer-controlled systems. Good old 4-barrel carbs, hydraulic brakes without anti-skid, 3-speed auto transmissions or stick-shift, etc.

Back in the late 1960's, just after we'd emigrated to the US, we looked at a Clark-Cortez rig. I was amazed to find it had a 4-speed stick-shift and only a 6-cylinder engine (a 270 cu. in. Dodge, I think). We thought the entry door in the middle of the back wall was a bit strange. I guess NASA like them, as they were astronaut transport to the launch pad for several years.

[falconbrother]

I have a 1990 P30 Chassis Mallard Sprinter. It's most definitely vintage. But, everything works and the 454 pulls the 28 feet of class A really well. I can easily out pull semi-trucks up hills while pulling my Honda CRV behind me. But my chassis has the throttle body fuel injection which seems to run really nice and get great mileage for a motorhome. The brakes aren't fantastic. I have the same basic master cylinder, hydraulic brakes as a bread truck or a one ton dually. So, when in traffic I let the fools go on down the road and I drive easy. If you go with a motorhome from this era then I recommend that you have a basic knowledge of mechanical repairs. Would I buy another 1990 model motorhome? Sure, no doubt. I have my money's worth out of it by now so, it's pure fun at this point.

Don't be afraid to buy an orphan. All the parts are all the same for everything. Same chassis parts, all Chevrolet, same house parts, fridge, AC, water heater, furnace, microwave, TV, etc.. as every one else. The modern tires are far better than the 16x7.5 D rated tires that came on it. Replacement parts are super cheap. I replaced my master cylinder with a remanufactured part from Autozone and the grand total after core exchange was $27.00 bucks. Someone installed an exhaust gasket on the right manifold and it blew out down at the beach. I drove it home sounding like a tractor. My mechanic charged me $150.00 to repair it. That's a deal. I do my own oil changes on the generator and the engine. That cost me roughly $75-80 bucks for both. I flush my radiator every couple of years and that's cheap. So, you get the idea.

In a perfect world, if I were shopping for a "vintage" motorhome I'd get something made in the mid 1990s that has been used at least a couple of times a year and maintained well. I would worry about the preventative maintenance of the chassis and the generator. Then I would worry about any history of roof leaks. If the fridge is bad or the roof AC I would not worry as much about that. The roof AC is a heavy but really easy job. An RV fridge is expensive but, if the price of the RV is right it's worth it.

I have a buddy that recently bought a used class A on a Ford chassis with the 460 V-8. His motorhome is gorgeous and clean as a whistle. The 460 runs great. It was from the mid 1990's, not sure of the exact year model. He got it relatively cheap. It was owned by an older couple that took great care of it but, decided to stop RV-ing. The downside of our 28 foot is that we have one bedroom in the back and a fold out sofa. The dinette is too short for a guy my size to comfortably sleep there. If we had a class C we would have the bed over the drivers compartment. But, yes, there is something to be said about driving an A. It's comfortable and roomy up front. If I were going a long way I'd choose the A every day.

Yea, I'm wordy..

[hanko]

mpierce wrote:

guardrail53 wrote:
Dave pete, the one disadvantage to the 20 year old bus chassis are the old school diesel motors, the old Detroit diesel motor's were dog's, to put it simple! Yes they would "run forever", but if going really slow uphill is your thing, then go for it! I would find a late 80's, early 90's, Holiday Rambler, Monaco, Beaver, Country Coach! They all make a retro style, with all the nice features you will really like! JMHO??!! Rail!

Not necessarily true. I have a 1990 Bluebird with a 8v92 two cycle Detroit, 475 hp, 1450 torque. Coach is 48,000#, pulls it pretty darn good.

Now, if you go back further to the 6v71 series, 318 hp, you are correct. However, if you got a Cummins or Cat from the same era, you would not be much better off. All engines back then were much less capable.

If you want to go way back, you will have many compromises to make, from power train, to amenities in the coach. Had a 1964 Airstream, loved it, bunk beds, many miles and smiles with the kids growing up. However, did NOT have a grey water tank, only black, because back when made, you were allowed to dump grey water everywhere! Times change, expectations change.

The 318's were 8V-71's I ownned three of them