What would I be missing by buying a 15-20 yr old RV?

[Jedidad]

Assuming an RV has no mechanical issues (engine, tranny and brakes good), what do late model RVs have that older ones don't?

Are there "must have" features now? What about build quality? Are newer models built better now?

Better engines and transmissions?

Better appliances and sub systems (water, electrical,etc.)?

Thanks.

[Bordercollie]

One other point not mentioned is that a motorhome is a box truck with stiff suspension, full of appliances, etc., that is subject to road shock and vibration every time it is underway. The box itself is subject to damage/deterioration over time and miles driven and somewhat dependent on quality of original construction. 12 volt electrical connections to and from furnace, water pump, and all appliances can corrode or loosen causing you to spend time troubleshooting and fixing things before you can depend on everything working with "all the comforts of home" Old converter/chargers and batteries usually need replacing for reliable 12 volt power.

[ron_dittmer]

toedtoes wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

For reference.....

On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.

Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)

Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.

I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.

So at most you get .5mpg better than mine. That's my point - there isn't that much difference when you look at it as a whole.

Yes, there are differences in the engine/chassis between an older rig and a newer one - I pointed that out as the biggest concern in my first post. But mileage is NOT a major factor between old and new - it's a minor difference in a lousy mpg however you look at it. We're not talking the difference between an older pickup that gets 10mpg and a newer one that gets 21mpg. We're talking about no more than 3mpg difference with an average mpg between 8 and 10. If that difference is a major factor, then you probably can't afford to be driving an RV.

If an old rig averages 8mpg and a recent one 10mpg, that is a 25% improvement. It's not a huge savings, but is significant. Maybe it's more about being able to stretch the fuel tank 25% farther, especially if traveling to Alaska for example where fill-up opportunities are not as available.

That is one of a list of reasons to consider a later chassis. If adding up all the benefits, the original poster might justify spending the extra money. But it would be easy to toss away the benefits list if he finds an old cream puff stored indoors it's whole life, just like a classic car.

Well, for a difference of 2mpg, you can pretty much gain that back just by watching how you drive. From all the posts by newer C owners, I haven't seen anyone getting real mileage that I don't get with mine.

Again, I think there are a lot of benefits going with a newer engine/chassis, but mileage just doesn't add up in the real world. It's not enough of a difference to be a reason of its own. Now, if you want all the other benefits, go ahead and add in "it'll get better gas mileage" - but on it's own merit the gas mileage just doesn't do it.

QUOTE: - but on it's own merit the gas mileage just doesn't do it.

I most certainly agree!

[toedtoes]

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

For reference.....

On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.

Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)

Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.

I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.

So at most you get .5mpg better than mine. That's my point - there isn't that much difference when you look at it as a whole.

Yes, there are differences in the engine/chassis between an older rig and a newer one - I pointed that out as the biggest concern in my first post. But mileage is NOT a major factor between old and new - it's a minor difference in a lousy mpg however you look at it. We're not talking the difference between an older pickup that gets 10mpg and a newer one that gets 21mpg. We're talking about no more than 3mpg difference with an average mpg between 8 and 10. If that difference is a major factor, then you probably can't afford to be driving an RV.

If an old rig averages 8mpg and a recent one 10mpg, that is a 25% improvement. It's not a huge savings, but is significant. Maybe it's more about being able to stretch the fuel tank 25% farther, especially if traveling to Alaska for example where fill-up opportunities are not as available.

That is one of a list of reasons to consider a later chassis. If adding up all the benefits, the original poster might justify spending the extra money. But it would be easy to toss away the benefits list if he finds an old cream puff stored indoors it's whole life, just like a classic car.

Well, for a difference of 2mpg, you can pretty much gain that back just by watching how you drive. From all the posts by newer C owners, I haven't seen anyone getting real mileage that I don't get with mine.

Again, I think there are a lot of benefits going with a newer engine/chassis, but mileage just doesn't add up in the real world. It's not enough of a difference to be a reason of its own. Now, if you want all the other benefits, go ahead and add in "it'll get better gas mileage" - but on it's own merit the gas mileage just doesn't do it.

[ron_dittmer]

toedtoes wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

For reference.....

On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.

Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)

Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.

I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.

So at most you get .5mpg better than mine. That's my point - there isn't that much difference when you look at it as a whole.

Yes, there are differences in the engine/chassis between an older rig and a newer one - I pointed that out as the biggest concern in my first post. But mileage is NOT a major factor between old and new - it's a minor difference in a lousy mpg however you look at it. We're not talking the difference between an older pickup that gets 10mpg and a newer one that gets 21mpg. We're talking about no more than 3mpg difference with an average mpg between 8 and 10. If that difference is a major factor, then you probably can't afford to be driving an RV.

If an old rig averages 8mpg and a recent one 10mpg, that is a 25% improvement. It's not a huge savings, but is significant. Maybe it's more about being able to stretch the fuel tank 25% farther, especially if traveling to Alaska for example where fill-up opportunities are not as available.

That is one of a list of reasons to consider a later chassis. If adding up all the benefits, the original poster might justify spending the extra money. But it would be easy to toss away the benefits list if he finds an old cream puff stored indoors it's whole life, just like a classic car.

[toedtoes]

ron.dittmer wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

For reference.....

On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.

Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)

Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.

I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.

So at most you get .5mpg better than mine. That's my point - there isn't that much difference when you look at it as a whole.

Yes, there are differences in the engine/chassis between an older rig and a newer one - I pointed that out as the biggest concern in my first post. But mileage is NOT a major factor between old and new - it's a minor difference in a lousy mpg however you look at it. We're not talking the difference between an older pickup that gets 10mpg and a newer one that gets 21mpg. We're talking about no more than 3mpg difference with an average mpg between 8 and 10. If that difference is a major factor, then you probably can't afford to be driving an RV.

[ron_dittmer]

toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

For reference.....

On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.

Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)

Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.

I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.

[TyroneandGladys]

The biggest problem with the chassis we have had and this would apply to any pre computer chassis. Was finding not only a shop that actually knows how to diagnose the problem and find the cause of the problem without having a computer to tell them what to change but have the equipment to work on the older rigs. Prime example is if a pre computer vehicle fails the emission test the shop needs a 5 gas analyzer very few shops have these anymore.
As far as the house part the problem again was finding service people that actually want to repair something instead of just replacing the item.

[valhalla360]

DrewE wrote:

free radical wrote:

Modern engines will start and run easier and get much better mpg too..
I wouldnt go back to carburetors if you paid me..
Id be weary of any Twenty year old chassis being in good solid shape..
Inspect everything very thoroughly..

Twenty years ago isn't quite so long ago in technological terms as you seem to be thinking.

A twenty year old chassis would be a '96, and so almost certainly have electronic fuel injection and probably a four speed overdrive transmission. Modern engines (and the newer transmissions) will get a little bit better mileage, generally speaking, but it's not the night and day difference you would get with a 30 year old carbureted engine and a three speed transmission. I regularly get between 7.5 and 8 mpg with my 18 year old 32' class C on the interstate. New ones of similar dimensions (frontal area and weight) seem to get maybe one half to one mpg better, from what I've read here.

Fuel injection is well worth having, there I fully agree. And there are plenty of little odds and ends that may very well need replacement on an older chassis like bushings and belts and hoses and bearings, which can add up to a seeming death by a thousand paper cuts. Still, I'd be more concerned about the maintenance and upkeep of the house part of an RV of that vintage than the chassis, though of course one should pay attention to both.

Exactly, if everything is in pristine condition (which is the basis for the thread), there is no significant advantage to going newer.

The reality of finding a rig in pristine condition is a separate question but finding one in good condition where it's just regular maintenance is very possible.

Personally, I think the sweet spot is around 7-10yrs. At that point the heavy depreciation is done but since a great many rigs only get used 2-4 times per year, if the standard maintenance is done, there is a lot of life in them for a very good price.

[toedtoes]

DrewE wrote:

free radical wrote:

Modern engines will start and run easier and get much better mpg too..
I wouldnt go back to carburetors if you paid me..
Id be weary of any Twenty year old chassis being in good solid shape..
Inspect everything very thoroughly..

Twenty years ago isn't quite so long ago in technological terms as you seem to be thinking.

A twenty year old chassis would be a '96, and so almost certainly have electronic fuel injection and probably a four speed overdrive transmission. Modern engines (and the newer transmissions) will get a little bit better mileage, generally speaking, but it's not the night and day difference you would get with a 30 year old carbureted engine and a three speed transmission. I regularly get between 7.5 and 8 mpg with my 18 year old 32' class C on the interstate. New ones of similar dimensions (frontal area and weight) seem to get maybe one half to one mpg better, from what I've read here.

Fuel injection is well worth having, there I fully agree. And there are plenty of little odds and ends that may very well need replacement on an older chassis like bushings and belts and hoses and bearings, which can add up to a seeming death by a thousand paper cuts. Still, I'd be more concerned about the maintenance and upkeep of the house part of an RV of that vintage than the chassis, though of course one should pay attention to both.

I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.

[DrewE]

free radical wrote:

Modern engines will start and run easier and get much better mpg too..
I wouldnt go back to carburetors if you paid me..
Id be weary of any Twenty year old chassis being in good solid shape..
Inspect everything very thoroughly..

Twenty years ago isn't quite so long ago in technological terms as you seem to be thinking.

A twenty year old chassis would be a '96, and so almost certainly have electronic fuel injection and probably a four speed overdrive transmission. Modern engines (and the newer transmissions) will get a little bit better mileage, generally speaking, but it's not the night and day difference you would get with a 30 year old carbureted engine and a three speed transmission. I regularly get between 7.5 and 8 mpg with my 18 year old 32' class C on the interstate. New ones of similar dimensions (frontal area and weight) seem to get maybe one half to one mpg better, from what I've read here.

Fuel injection is well worth having, there I fully agree. And there are plenty of little odds and ends that may very well need replacement on an older chassis like bushings and belts and hoses and bearings, which can add up to a seeming death by a thousand paper cuts. Still, I'd be more concerned about the maintenance and upkeep of the house part of an RV of that vintage than the chassis, though of course one should pay attention to both.

[wolfe10]

To the OP: Some excellent comments of "gas coaches through the years".

But, please let us know if you are only interested in gas coaches or diesels as well/only.

The reason I bring it up is that that age diesel coach will have the "modern" inline 6 cylinder turbo, inter-cooled diesel and likely the Allison 6 speed transmission. A very good combination. Less complex than modern EPA-dictated engines and getting good power and MPG.

I agree, gasoline coaches have come a long way in the last 20 years. Diesel coaches, "not so much" as they were good performers even back then.

[free_radical]

Jedidad wrote:
Assuming an RV has no mechanical issues (engine, tranny and brakes good), what do late model RVs have that older ones don't?

Are there "must have" features now? What about build quality? Are newer models built better now?

Better engines and transmissions?

Better appliances and sub systems (water, electrical,etc.)?

Thanks.

Modern engines will start and run easier and get much better mpg too..
I wouldnt go back to carburetors if you paid me..
Id be weary of any Twenty year old chassis being in good solid shape..
Inspect everything very thoroughly..

[free_radical]

Matt_Colie wrote:
Don't ask me, our coach is 44 now, and it does everything we need and want.

We have good house electrics and plumbing. HVAC is the same as anything newer. I did have to add a microwave as they were not yet common household items. (They were included in the same builds a little later.)

Many have put in newer engines and gained nothing but a newer engine with little improvement otherwise. I could go for a system with OBDII, but I am not about to pay what it will cost.

This coach has no structural wood, so when I don't get a window leak fixed right away, nothing rots.

I'm not sure I would could find anything this solid and nice that was much newer.

Oh, yeah, not monthly payments and it is now on an historic vehicle plate, so not annual license fee.

Matt

Thats one beautiful rig,,too bad they dont build them anymore,,

[Dakzuki]

If you get old enough, you're going to be bumping into non-overdrive transmissions (Turbo 400s, C-6s, etc). This means your cruise speed can be somewhat diminished and fuel economy can suffer. The up side is both those aforementioned transmissions are very reliable and simple to rebuild.