Hi Everyone
We're long time RV'rs using a custom built 1976 GMC. It's time for some serious upgrades or time to move on. The only replacement MH I would consider is a Foretravel and I've never been in one. Is that bias or what?
At any rate I'm not smart enough about Foretravels to choose a model that fits our needs and if there isn't one please tell me.
We're mountain hikers, travel long distances, move often, and find ourselves
in very remote areas traveling down some awful roads. A toad won't help us much
since we would often be too far from mother ship to return for the night and we would find ourselves doing a lot of backtracking.
The early 90's narrow body models might work for us; not sure about the 102" wide body, but I've never been in one much less driven one.
Any recommendations or are we crazy? Thanks in advance, Bob & Bethe
One more thought, We've found a great 5th wheel which satisfies our remote area driving needs, but long distance driving in a PU truck is not appealing.
Bob,
I can't answer many of your questions. We've been on one or two of those roads you describe and did not like subjecting our Foretravel to that kind of abuse. A guess on my part is that you want the shortest length possible for better maneuverability.
I look forward to seeing what others suggest.
George
Bob and Bethe. My first Foretravel was a 36 foot narrow body 1994 U 240 with a Caterpillar engine and I believe an Allison 6 speed transmission. It had the Firestone Torsilastic Suspension. I drove it from East Tennessee to Alaska, up the Alaska Highway and back down the Chessier Highway. I remember specifically maneuvering it thru one of the tight parks near Waterton Lakes. It handled beautifully. I had a Honda motorscooter mounted on the hitch. No problems getting on and off ferries, we came back by way of Vancouver Island. I remember going places that our companions in a 40 foot Newmar Kountry Star kept getting stuck. It was a fine piece of machinery.
Hey George, I understand your concern. I should have been more specific. I meant by "horrible" that the roads were/are very narrow with lots of hair pin turns and elevation changes. Only a couple times did we get in to badly rutted surfaces and we backed off pretty quickly. My concern is getting a "big" coach thru those kind of roads.
Thanks Horice, your input is what I'm looking for.
Bethe and I were at a dealership last week and the salesman got us in a big 102 wide monster. We were both too intimidated to drive it so the salesman took us for a ride. I was very impressed with the short turn radious and the way he whipped it around but that beast was more than we thought we could handle. Yep, we're chickens. Actually I think we just need some experience.
So far I think the 36 foot long U-240 narrow body is only available in 1991,2,3&4 model years. I could only find 102 wide 1995's. Is this correct???
Thanks, Bob
Yes. U240 went from narrow to wide body in 1995.
Best years:
1993 (stronger exhaust valve springs so effective exhaust brake) along with modern inline 6 cylinder turbo after-cooled Caterpillar engine and Allison 6 speed.
And 1994. Same drive train but a few had a transmission retarder-- nice, but not critical on this weight coach.
Brett Wolfe
Thanks Brett, good info. I would have thought the tranny retarder would be very desirable and I would have paid up to get a model with one. I think you saved me some $$$!!! I've had no problems with the GMC on many 6% grades, it's light weight and of course gas, not diesel.
Thanks again, Bob
Very little "feel" difference between a 96" and a 102" coach as far as driving goes... I would say a 36'. Easy to maneuver and level... Then if it were me a U280 (more storage and air suspension/leveling). U240 with it's Torsilastic suspension as a second choice.
Bob's Quote: "the salesman got us in a big 102 wide monster. We were both too intimidated to drive it so the salesman took us for a ride. I was very impressed with the short turn radious and the way he whipped it around but that beast was more than we thought we could handle."
Bob & Bethe,
A 36' coach is a 36' coach. It won't matter whether you are driving a 96" (narrow) or a 102" (wide- body) as far as getting it into places. It is just six inches wider. I too was intimitidated the first time I drove our wide-body (at first you don't think there is any room on either side of the coach when you are in a lane), but after 3-4 times, you get used to judging where to keep the coach to have it centered in the lane.
I agree with Dave Head; don't rule out the U-280's; from '92 on they were wide-bodied and had the HWH computerized 8 air bag suspension. It gives you a very comfortable ride and no need for stabilizing jacks when you are parked. According to my wife, that extra 6 inches inside is quite noticeable and appreciated for living space.
Keep on reading and gettng informed.
Good Luck!
and don't think of it as being 6 inches wider. It's only 3 inches wider, on each side.
That is correct, in 1995 the smaller, U 225 and U240 came in a wide body. I had one of those, too. A whole new story.
I would get a 36 foot u320. You can get it into anywhere and it has bigger fuel tank than the 34 foot U270. I have taken my 36foot all over and will take my 42 foot anywhere I can get under or through. I have well over 200k miles and I would put a small s liter on the rear and you can get anywhere with ease. Orchange out the scooter for a hybrid bike.
I don't know guys, I just went from the U225 narrow 36' to a U300 wide 40'. I sure noticed the difference, particularly when trying to get into COE camp sites. Frankly, I liked the hydraulic levelers better in uneven sites. They are more manageable and they are faster to level. The shorter wheel base allows a much wider variety of campsites to choose from. Based on what Bob said he was looking for, narrow roads and more rough camping sites, the narrow body and short wheel base is a better choice.
Those awful roads, do you drive them or do you hike them? If you are talking about driving them, I would be concerned when it comes to ground clearance in either the U225 or U240. But I don't know that they are less clearance than a GMC coach, or not. Think the air suspension coaches have more clearance.
If ride height is set properly, the Torsilastic Suspension (by B.F. Goodrich Aerospace Division) found on the U225 and U240 are fine on ground clearance. If you see one too low, it is likely that they need to adjust their ride height-- not difficult as long as you have shims left on the low wheel position.
Ride height spec is 32-33" as measured from the "shelf" behind each wheel position to the ground (with coach on level ground, jacks stowed). That shelf forms the top, back of the wheel well. You will see a stack of shims in front/behind each wheel position (hopefully!). Removing one shim from in front of and behind a wheel position (they are 1/4" thick and are slotted for easy removal) RAISES that wheel position 1/4". If anyone needs instructions on checking or adjusting ride height, please start a separate thread. I worked with the engineers at Goodrich on this suspension (more than a decade ago) and am fairly familiar with it.
And because we planned to do (and DID) a lot of back road driving, including trips all over Mexico, the rugged Torsilastic suspension was we we wanted. BTW, there are thousands of Dina buses in Mexico with over a million rough miles on those Torsilastic suspensions.
Will an 8 outboard air bag suspension ride better-- sure, but it is a LOT more complex. Particularly an issue if you are in rougher conditions.
Brett
Bob and Bethe,
I think only you can determine what you need. I was looking for an early 90's Foretravel when I found the 96 U270 36' I have. This was after googling "Foretravel" for a year. There is one thing about the U270 that I do not like and that is ground clearance or the lack of. It seems to be the low rider of motorhomes. This isn't all bad as it helps regards handling on the highway and it looks cool. A previous owner dinged a lower compartment door on the left side and I dinged one on the right side before I got it home. Both have been repaired, but would have been expensive to have it done. Crossing ditches, potholes and such is not one of my U270's strong points. I think, but I am not sure, the models with the torsilastic suspension have more ground clearance. My wife and I like to camp in state and national parks. We have not found the 102" width to be a problem, but some national parks do not have long enough spaces. At Big Bend they advise against going up to the Chisos basin with anything longer than 25', but when I found out that tour buses do it, I drove up there (went in the toad first and found a campsite I could fit in, there are only 2) and stayed 3 days. No electric, but we didn't need ac, and never ran the generator. The Foretravel is well equipped for dry camping with large batteries, large water tank, and holding tanks. We also drove the 14 mile washboard road into Chaco Canyon with no problems. The ride wasn't too bad as long as I kept the speed around 30 mph. I am now constantly on the lookout for potholes, ditches, dips, and such, but usually it isn't a problem. We do weigh a lot, so I watch the bridge weights, but have never had to turn around yet. Although we would have picked a 34' (very few were made) over 36', we are very happy with what we have. As someone else mentioned about Foretravels, they are very well made with quality components, but if something does need replacing, it will probably be expensive. Expect maintenace with a diesel engine to be more expensive than gas, even if you do it. Instead of 4 or 5 qts of oil, it will be 4 gal. of oil and likewise for coolant, and transmission fluid. Oil and fluids have to be the proper type for a diesel too. A plus though is that my Foretravel which weighs 10k lbs more than my gas SOB (some other brand) gets almost 3 more mpg. Best wishes.