Skip to main content
Topic: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380 (Read 2349 times) previous topic - next topic

Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

There was some discussion of Foretravel vs. Wanderlodge about 5 years ago.  I am looking for advice and thoughts comparing the Foretravel U320 38' vs. Wanderlodge M380 from similar vintages (early to mid 2000's).  Advantages, disadvantages, features, drawbacks.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Tom and Lisa

2003 U320 38' PBBS
Build No. 6217

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #1
Disadvantage is the weight. Where Foretravel put in the Detroit 6V-92TA, Wanderlodges had to install the 8 cylinder versions back in the 1990's. They sure have a lot of fans. Our bulkhead/belly construction with the stupid Roloks is probably the worst disadvantage of a Foretravel.

Quote from their member site: "I think Foretravel did a lot of things right in the coach, they kept the weight down, they have a good power to weight ratio, they stuck with a stick steer axle, outboard air bags, good brakes, ride, and handling, and tasteful interiors. They also did some goofy things like using Rolok self threading fasteners (sheet metal screws) to attach the rear subframe including the drive axle lower suspension torque arms to the rest of the coach. When the Roloks fail the lower torque arms pull away from the chassis and the basement sags - owners call this "bulkhead separation". Foretravel says this isn't a serious problem. They also have their issues with fiberglass skin cracking and delaminating. One owner complained that the coach house framing around the slide cutout isn't strong enough such that the floor and the basement bays under the slide sag half an inch, he's seen this in every slide equipped coach he's inspected. They also have some issues with frame rust. Foretravel uses non-galvanized thin wall square cross section box tubing. They cover both sides of a panel (the basement floor or house side wall, for example) with a sheet of fiberglass. Water makes it's way in, can't get out, and the tubing rusts. The owners are a fiercely loyal and dedicated bunch, in many ways similar to us. They've found ways to excuse Foretravel of their sins and to continue carrying the flame. Foretravel has corrected many of these issues in the new coaches and I wish them luck. We've seen too many manufacturers fail. I wish them success.
"

I'm sure Wanderlodge has their share of issues. No complex RV is without it's share of problems.

Pierce
Pierce and Gaylie Stewart
'93 U300/36 WTBI
Detroit 6V-92TA Jake
1140 watts on the roof
SBFD (ret)

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #2
Think most of the M380's had the ISL 400 hp 1200 ft/lbs torque engine while the 320 had the ISM 450 hp 1450 ft/lbs torque engine. Weight was pretty close. Just my opinion, but think the M380 was Bluebirds attempt to get into the lower price market. Didn't work obviously because they are out of the RV market. I did own an old Bluebird FC model and think it was one of the best overbuilt coaches ever made.
Jim C.
coachfree, previous 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2003 Foretravels.

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #3
The M380 was unique among Bluebirds (M450 was similar at 45 feet).

M380 has a ISL.
The M380s have had a long run of head gasket problems that destroys the head at #6 position. Expensive and left people stranded upon failure. Some caught it early and saved the head by replacing head gasket early. No one seemed to determine why the BB M380 had so many head failures compared to other coaches running the ISL. Perhaps design and components, perhaps related to exhaust brake system, perhaps BB just bought a bad run on the ISLs.

The one slide version is too heavy for the GVWR chassis design. The 2 slide is worse.  Little CCC left.

Ball joints for the front axle IFS are virtually unobtainable. Even boots for the front ball joints have to be obtained from other BB members who make them. The aluminum skin had issues with expansion and contraction, and the fix was to cut a slot in the skin top to bottom and insert a cover (room to expand).

I owned 2 Bluebirds (FC35 and BMC37) and followed the line for many years. I originally wanted a M380, but all the problems led me to Foretravel. Research very carefully on the BB forums.

Note: I have not followed BB forums nor any potential updates on M380s for 18 months.



Dan - Full timing since 2009
2003 U320 40' Tag 2 slide

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #4
in addition to the engine difference, I don't think the Wanderlodge had a tag.  We had a 38' 320 (as others do on here) and it is a wonderful and great driving coach.  We just needed more room for the family. 
Kurt & Shanna
2007 42' Phenix
Peoria Arizona

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #5
in addition to the engine difference, I don't think the Wanderlodge had a tag.  We had a 38' 320 (as others do on here) and it is a wonderful and great driving coach.  We just needed more room for the family. 

Correct - M380 does not have a tag.  Neither did the SP, FC, or BMC 37'.

Dan - Full timing since 2009
2003 U320 40' Tag 2 slide

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #6
Too much heat for the ISX at 650HP.  It's a more reliable engine at lower HP. Possible head gasket problem that limited coolant circulation and caused valve seats to come loose and drop down causing valve failure and destroying the engine, most often in #6. Valve/seat failure seem to be more prevalent in the 24 valve heads in smaller Cummins also. Watching temps, especially EGT can help prevent this as well as keeping RPM up on long grades.

Pierce
Pierce and Gaylie Stewart
'93 U300/36 WTBI
Detroit 6V-92TA Jake
1140 watts on the roof
SBFD (ret)

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #7
A metal body has severe temp issues either hot or cold.  Plus hail is a worry.

Round roof costs interior space
"Riding and rejoicing"
Bob & Susan
1997 U320 40' Mid entry, build 5132,  wtbi ce27, 4th owner
2007 Solara convertible
2 prodeco tech outlaw ss electric bikes

1095 watts solar
08 Ls 460 and a sc430
2000 Ford F-250 superduty 4x4

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #8
A metal body has severe temp issues either hot or cold.  Plus hail is a worry.
Round roof costs interior space
A round roof does cost a little interior space but not much.

Our ex-Greyhound had a couple of million miles, most of them back east with the big hailstones. Like the Bluebird, the GM bus was built like a tank, You could have football practice on the roof. No temp issues and not a trace of hail damage after all the years of severe bus use. Good to check the Wanderlodge forum for those coaches that have suffered hail damage. The commercial grade construction is the reason they last and last but also why the Bluebirds are heavy. The GM buses used lots of aluminum so were light but strong.

Pierce

Pierce
Pierce and Gaylie Stewart
'93 U300/36 WTBI
Detroit 6V-92TA Jake
1140 watts on the roof
SBFD (ret)

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #9
I have read these forums for years and benefitted from Brett Wolfs knowledge about motorhomes in general.  I have never owned a Foretravel so I cannot  speak with credibility to their quality personally.  It is however common knowledge they are very nice units.  We currently have a Series 60 Wanderlodge 42.5 and compared to our previous Beaver Contessa and Vogue Prima Vista, even with the metal skin the temps are much cooler than the fiberglass when parked in the sun without the a/c.  As far as hail damage to the metal skin, it would have to be very large, the metal is very thick.

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #10
Biggest issue, as mentioned above, is that a 'Bird is a LOT heavier than a Foretravel. Couple that with the drop-down hydraulic jacks for leveling and you can see why some 'Bird owners have made some big impressions in places. 'Birds are also quite a bit more complex than Foretravels.

Before we bought our Foretravel I was pretty sure that we'd buy a PT-40WB. I'm sure glad that we didn't. From what I saw when I was on WOG, most 'Bird owners spend at least a few days after each trip fixing whatever didn't work when they were out. As full-timers, that could get to be an expensive problem.

Remember that 'Birds were built by the school bus people, and they carried that mindset over to the motorhomes. Take the stuff off of the roof, shut the engines off, and you could probably roll one 360* with no damage. I wouldn't worry about most hail storms. Those with baseball- or grapefruit-size hail WILL cause damage to anything outside.

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #11
The roll over law suits  were the school bus issue.  7 year bus replacement schedule for school use.

"Riding and rejoicing"
Bob & Susan
1997 U320 40' Mid entry, build 5132,  wtbi ce27, 4th owner
2007 Solara convertible
2 prodeco tech outlaw ss electric bikes

1095 watts solar
08 Ls 460 and a sc430
2000 Ford F-250 superduty 4x4

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #12
https://www.wanderlodgeownersgroup.com/downloads/wanderlodge_manuals/2003%20M380%20Owner's%20Manual.pdf
M380 Weight and carrying capacity - Wanderlodge Owners Group
Foretravel Vehicle Weight
Actually weights are pretty close. But Wanderlodge's in general are very complex. Few direct switch activated systems, almost every switch operates a relay, which operates the circuit. You really have to be a techie to maintain a older bird. I enjoyed it, but many will not.
Jim C.
coachfree, previous 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2003 Foretravels.

Re: Foretravel U320 38' vs Wanderlodge M380

Reply #13
My guru buddy sold birds with me in 1989.  If you own one you need bill.
"Riding and rejoicing"
Bob & Susan
1997 U320 40' Mid entry, build 5132,  wtbi ce27, 4th owner
2007 Solara convertible
2 prodeco tech outlaw ss electric bikes

1095 watts solar
08 Ls 460 and a sc430
2000 Ford F-250 superduty 4x4