fredbon
Pacific Northwest or SoCal
Senior Member
Joined: 09/21/2001
View Profile
 Offline
|
Workhorse chassis have experienced several years of severe brake failures on their gas chassis. Recalls have been performed and the problem persists, with little support from Workhorse.
Now the UFO rear engine chassis is showing signs of water pump failures and in some cases engine failure. UFO engine failures
Workhorse Custom Chassis just seems to go from one major issue to another; this is not what I expect from a "Premium" company.
I know some will say the issues are the result of items supplied from outside sources, but I say "bunk", the company carries the full weight of your product.
Fred
Fred and Bonnie
Frankie, Sun Yao Ting, & Seline (Cats)
2005 Dolphin LX 6375
2006 Saturn VUE
As I've Matured... I've learned that artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
|
-Gramps-
Portsmouth VA
Senior Member
Joined: 03/09/2005
View Profile
|
I don't think you can accurately judge any manufacturer by what you read on these forums. We posters are just a small sampling of owners or non owners with opinions (good and bad) of any particular product.
The forums are a good place to learn the ins and outs of rving from other rvers, but you have take it all with a grain of salt.
___________________________________________
08 Holiday Rambler Vacationer 38PLT Workhorse UFO GAS Pusher Chassis
06 Saturn Vue toad, SMI Breaking sys,Blue Ox tow bar. Myspace site and blog
Gramps and family
Drive a UFO.com
|
quickiwe
Kern County California
Senior Member
Joined: 01/05/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
Spoken like a true Workhorse owner Gramps...
Richard & Rachel
2006 Damon Astoria Diesel Pusher
2004 Jeep Liberty
|
Daveinet
il
Senior Member
Joined: 10/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
You all are looking at Workhorse but its a GM engine and a water pump that has been run for years and years. Since apparently there are many units that have not failed, then there must be something unique about that unit, like maybe the fan is not balance properly. This is a pretty simple setup. How many 8.1s are out there? I know Workhorse ran several engines as test chassis. One had 20K miles on the engine and the engine was fine. They sold it on 3 of those engines on Ebay. I almost bought one, I know someone who did buy one. I'm surprised they don't run electric fans.
Dave
FMCA F298817
'83 Revcon Prince 31' FWD
502 w/Thorley's & Magnaflows,
Howell/Edelbrock MPFI, Koni FSD,
Class A built for gear heads 
My Revcon Website
Revconeers Forum
XP activation frustration
|
Vet Man
Ct. & Florida
Senior Member
Joined: 09/28/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
I owned an 2004 35ft Winnebago with the WorkHorse 8.1 and Allison trans. I now own a 2008 35ft Winnebago on a 22,000lb Ford chassis. I have never been big on Ford's, but I must say I like the Ford better. It stays on the road much better, does not need after market add ons. I got tired of taking the MH back for several recalls. They were on the Coach and chassis.
2008 Itasca Sunrise 35A
2006 44ft Breckenridge
2008 Honda CRV Toad
2007 ZR1 Colorado Toad
2008 Pontiac Solistice GXP "Brazen Orange"
2008 26ft Car Mate-Car
"We Traveled To Alot Of Different Places While On Vacation, Until The wife Asked Directions"
|
|
|
Daveinet
il
Senior Member
Joined: 10/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
I think your perception about the 80s Chevy chassis is misleading as a result of your bias. There was nothing wrong with the P 30 chassis when it came out. It was a great chassis and tons better than the dodge which was so common earlier. It did not have any handling problems when it came out. The problem was that the chassis was designed to hold a 27' motorhome with a 12K lbs chassis. During the 80s, there was a significant up sizing of the chassis, due to the bad economic conditions. All the cheap coaches disappeared and only people who where buying where those with big money, so hence the the coaches got bigger. The problem was the chassis never got bigger to keep up with the coach size, so of course it was undersized for the task. Ford introduced a chassis that matched the current market, so of course it was better. This was a timing thing, more than anything else.
|
LVJ58
Las Vegas, Nevada
Senior Member
Joined: 02/26/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:Chevy was the main player. 2 out of 3 '86 Pace Aroow 36 footers. (they were the cats meow back then especially with the WWII boys). Biggest problem was a 16" tires with a terrible front end that walked all over the road. When Ford came out in the late late 80's with their
solid front end, no walking and 19" tires, the decline for Chevy began.
I'm not sure which GM chassis you're referring to with the 16.5" wheels, my 84 Airstream MH on the P30 chassis had 19.5" wheels however most all the Ford rigs I saw had the 16.5 wheels up until the wide track was introduced in 1999 with the 19.5" wheels.
Jim & Sherry Seward, FMCA #F342207
2000 Residency 3790 V-10 w/tags
2003 Suzuki XL/7 Towd
|
-Gramps-
Portsmouth VA
Senior Member
Joined: 03/09/2005
View Profile
|
quickiwe wrote:Spoken like a true Workhorse owner Gramps...
I was trying to defuse another Is so and so bad, going under etc... thread. It is my observation that most of the stuff posted on these forums is how bad something is. If I had beem a member here before I bought my Bounder and took all the Fleetwood bashing to heart...I would never have bought one. The same thing is true about Monaco. Now I own one of those. Most posters think the only thing that is really good is their own opinion of whatever they are posting about and sometimes that includes me as well. It's too bad but all opinions are just that.
Now that I have vented I will give you my opinion on Workhorse. They have the same ups and downs like most manufacturers (do you remember a problem with a certain diesel engine throwing rods?). Owners react the same to the ups and downs like most other owners. Its a love hate relationship depending on your own personal situation at the time. I experienced one of those brake problems while I owned my Bounder. I have a current potential problem with my UFO, I just don't care to react to it in a negative fashion.
There is a problem with the water pumps on the UFO but it is not a problem with the pump itself. It's is an engineering problem that I am not sure, not being a mechanic, that I can accurately describe. It has something to do with the water pump clutch (which is not the same clutch as the front engine gasser) not allowing the pump fan to free wheel when the coach is moving at high speed or the engine is running above a certain rpm. As a result the fan may lock up and the pump can fail. In my conversations with WH, I have been assured that the source of this problem has been found. They have caused a failure during tests and the fix is pretty simple and quick. That's all I know about that at this point. I think it is safe to say that, because of how new the UFO is (all of them are either 07's or 08's), the fix should cover just about all UFO coaches under warranty.
All the UFO owner's I have talked to, including ones that have had this failure happen, really love their coaches. So do I. Maybe we are a rare breed of owners, I don't know. I know this...I am looking forward to keeping this coach for a long time and having a good relationship with Monaco and Workhorse (who are partners by the way) and hoping they do well. So the luster is still there for me.
* This post was
last
edited 09/07/08 07:23am by -Gramps- *
View edit history
|
Tom N
Sarver, PA/Crystal River, FL
Senior Member
Joined: 07/25/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
IMHO............
The gas GM 8.1 was never designed to run in a reverse configuration.
Buy a Workhorse gas W22 chassis and plan on replacing the shocks with $600 Koni's, replace the air cleaner ducting, add sway bars front and rear, have the ECM reprogrammed, replace the digital dash because of defects, replace inadequate brakes, pads, rotors (often more than once), etc., etc. Total costs approach $10,000!! (On edit I'll add burned plug wires to the problems.)
All of the above are facts supported by owners and Workhorse Ambassador's posts on rv.net and iRV2.
The plus with a workhorse chassis is the Allison transmission.
If I were buying today I'd seriously look at the new Ford 24,000# chassis.
The rear gas engine UFO will be history in a year because it is now an extra cost option and no one will pay more for the gas engine now that the Freightliner® XC Chassis 340-hp Cummins® ISB 6.7L turbo-charged diesel engine is standard on a Winnebago Destination and Latitude.
Will any dealer stock an extra cost 2009 gas engined UFO?
Time will tell if my thoughts are correct.
-Tom
owner of a no modifications needed W24 Workhorse chassis and member of the Workhorse Custom Chassis Club
* This post was
edited 09/07/08 04:17pm by Tom N *
"The people that don't believe in evolution are the ones who need it most!"
Sarver, PA/Crystal River, FL/Indiana, PA
2005 Itasca Suncruiser 38R 38' 11"
W24, Allison 2100MH, full body paint
2008 Honda Odyssey EX-L, Roadmaster Sterling bar
FMCA 335149
|
itsalleasy
USA
Senior Member
Joined: 07/20/2007
View Profile
|
hstein01 wrote:Fred,
I agree with the one poster who eluded to the fact that these are components failing. They could as easily been purchased and installed on a Ford. With that said, I was never sold on the publications that came out when Chevy teamed up with Workhorse. Let's explain this progression that got them there. In the 60's and 70's it was the Dodge. When they dropped out of the picture in the early 80's Chevy was the main player. 2 out of 3 '86 Pace Aroow 36 footers. (they were the cats meow back then especially with the WWII boys). Biggest problem was a 16" tires with a terrible front end that walked all over the road. When Ford came out in the late late 80's with their
solid front end, no walking and 19" tires, the decline for Chevy began. Chevy tried for years to design a chassis that would compete with Ford, then threw in the towel and "settled" for a outsourced chassis. I'm sure if Chevy could hyave designed a decent chassis they would have not decided to cut into their profit margin by buying chassis' outside their family. Also when you keep your components in-house you can test,design,revise,communicate,etc. easier. By the way- I still advise my clients to buy Ford over Chevy, because Workhorse and Chevy like to play the "blame the other guy" card too much when it comes to service work. It's been driving service managers crazy ever since it happened. Makes it a little hard for me to help clients purchase because I also recommend Winnebago which likes the Workhorse stuff. If I can be of any other help, plaes don't hesitate to PM me.
Hal Stein
Independent RV Consultant
RV-Help.com
Where in the world did you scrounge this mishmash of misinformation?
Chevy used 19.5" tires long before Ford.
Chevy built the P30 in GM plants until it was SOLD to Workhorse, and continued to produce parts and assemblies for Workhorse until they found sources.
Motor home chassis never were huge numbers for P30 production, Chevy never chased the motor home market. The few part numbers which were peculiar to the motor home chassis were mainly related to brakes and engine cooling because the house builders tended to overload the chassis and do a poor job with radiator openings.
Most of the time the P30 and school buses were produced on the same assembly line, neither was high enough demand alone to warrant an assembly line. GM got out of the school bus market because of the potential liability. That meant the P30 also would have to go.
F53 production is not managed by Ford, it's outsourced, which according to you is a big problem.
Go back and do some accurate research, your post is way off.
|
|
|
|
