87 Grand Villa

Topic: 87 Grand Villa (Read 2267 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #50 – May 25, 2014, 08:38:14 am

Am convinced that either 5.9 or 8.3 Cummins is going to be what we end up in. Gary's Coach looks like an excellent option. Very nice Coach, well equipped only needing cosmetic work. Found a nice U225 on the board in Arizona that is very appealing from the standpoint of being more affordable to operate and maintain. Purchase price seems more than fair to boot. Like so many things in life its all about compromising one thing for another. Wonder whathe real cost benefit of diesel vs. propane generator works out to ? Also how much difference the storage and width actually means to our family in the 280? Anyone happen to have owned both?

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #51 – May 25, 2014, 09:23:03 am

As a matter of fact, Yes.

We owned an 88 Grand Villa with the compartments. My take would be we were able to have enough storage space for our family of 4 and had room available. Our propane gen-set worked great but we found after purchasing our U280 we liked the diesel better, quiter and we feel more reliable.

The difference between a less than full width and 102 is worth the $$ to us but then again we full time and would not have traded if we had a unihome with the full basement.

Take your time, Gary's is a good coach well maintained. PM if you have questions.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #52 – May 25, 2014, 10:11:14 am

Unless you are really handy or lucky, the price difference between a known coach with excellent maintenance and an unknown coach can be gone in a blink of an eye when things go wrong. The savings in fuel between the 5.9 and the 8.3 is tiny compared to the total cost of ownership.

I'm constantly checking our MPG but in reality, it's just a game.

Pierce

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #53 – May 25, 2014, 12:31:45 pm

Thanks guys! Bill seems to be a sincere and stand up fella. We are operating under assumption at this point that both Coaches have been mechanically well cared for with the225 being older yet 100k less miles. The 225 seems to have benefited from dryer climate and being stored indoors. Offhand I wonder about the 280 having engine breaking vs the 5.9 having a signifigantly more affordable partd list for itself and the smallet tranny. No doubt the 280 would have benefits in room /storage and downhill control but is rhe compromise in those areas more than made up for in lower cost to msintain and drive. Forgetting the individuals selling the units as they both seem to care about maintenance and trying to price units fairly.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #54 – May 25, 2014, 12:41:00 pm

Don't forget on the 280 you level the coach with the air bags, so all tires stay on the ground. I would never won't to go back to hyd leveling.

Also the storage is a large plus. You can't believe the difference those 6 inch are for me after having both coaches. The answer for me would be the 280.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #55 – May 25, 2014, 01:22:30 pm

Before you buy any side radiator coach do a search on this forum for key word "hydraulic" and read the stories carefully. If you decide to buy a rear radiator coach to avoid the hydraulics be sure to replace the fiberglass fan blade on the rear radiator coach with a new nylon fan blade before you drive the coach anywhere. If you buy a rear radiator coach with a new nylon (not fiberglass) radiator fan you'll have the best of everything in terms of reliability and efficiency. A side radiator U300 cost about twice as much to purchase as a rear radiator U300 two years ago when I bought my coach.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #56 – May 25, 2014, 02:02:34 pm

THE 8.3 is a wet sleeve block and can be in framed if every needed,the 5.9 is not wet sleeved,some times they can be bored and repaired, the MD3060R transmission with the joystick is the way to go if you do a lot of mountain driving,the cost to maintain the 8.3 over the 5.9 is probable 10%.
The 5.9 also had what is called the killer dowel pin problem,I do not know the years, I would get the engine serial number and call Cummins.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #57 – May 25, 2014, 03:05:21 pm

Quote from: Bill Willett – May 25, 2014, 02:02:34 pm

The 5.9 also had what is called the killer dowel pin problem,I do not know the years, I would get the engine serial number and call Cummins.

Killer dowel pin was 1988-1998 Cummins B-- the 12 valve engines. Inexpensive to prevent-- can be very expensive if it fails. Google and find a lot of kits to prevent it from coming out.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #58 – May 25, 2014, 03:35:27 pm

Quote from: Bill Willett – May 25, 2014, 02:02:34 pm

THE 8.3 is a wet sleeve block and can be in framed if every needed,the 5.9 is not wet sleeved,some times they can be bored and repaired, the MD3060R transmission with the joystick is the way to go if you do a lot of mountain driving,the cost to maintain the 8.3 over the 5.9 is probable 10%.
The 5.9 also had what is called the killer dowel pin problem,I do not know the years, I would get the engine serial number and call Cummins.

The 5.9 was hampered by the non lockup trans IMO. Ran hotter. 542 is an aluminum cased version of the old iron cases gm turbo hydro like a 53 Buick had...

The Allison man had a 542 on a pallet at a FMCA show long ago and I commented that it appeared to be an old hydro trans. He said no way. We bet whether what I said would be written on the bottom of the sump pan.

He lost as it did say "Hydramatic"

Bob

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #59 – May 25, 2014, 05:02:04 pm

Is the 225 in93 a rear radiator model? Out of town on a smart phone having trouble researching. Either way on the Allison 4 spd I am atimate about preventive maintenance and service. If the converter slippage isan issue on this coach I bet a converter upgrade shouldn't be rocket science, more bullwork. Oversize all alluminum trans cooler from summit or Jegs shouldn't be to hard to install? Very grateful for all the input! Should be ready to purchase in 4to 6 weeks. Am going to research till then..

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #60 – May 25, 2014, 05:18:10 pm

Quote from: TAS69 – May 25, 2014, 05:02:04 pm

Is the 225 in93 a rear radiator model? Out of town on a smart phone having trouble researching. Either way on the Allison 4 spd I am atimate about preventive maintenance and service. If the converter slippage isan issue on this coach I bet a converter upgrade shouldn't be rocket science, more bullwork. Oversize all alluminum trans cooler from summit or Jegs shouldn't be to hard to install? Very grateful for all the input! Should be ready to purchase in 4to 6 weeks. Am going to research till then..

No,replacement. Part of the natural beauty of the design. The clutch pack may fail if driven harder with a lock up converter. Rear radiator

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #61 – May 25, 2014, 05:25:07 pm

Other than the storage and Down hill control sounds like the 225 is a lot of bang for the buck. Does the killer dowel have to do with harmonic balancer / pulley assembly?

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #62 – May 25, 2014, 05:29:13 pm

The U225 is a rear radiator, narrow body (96") and lower overall height than Gary's U280.

We bought our U225 before Gary put his on the market. His U280 would be the coach I would upgrade to. There are some advantages to the U225.

100 gallons of fuel but better fuel efficiency means good range. We get 9mpg towing a Jeep Wrangler with 33" very wide desert-sand tires and about 11.5 to 12mpg solo.

Our plans are to spend time halfway down the Baja Peninsula. The narrower body on a U225 is a big plus on that highway. So is the lower overall height and the lighter weight. Hydraulic leveling jacks are not so great in sand but lots of wood blocks available.

The rear radiator is a PITA when it comes to working on alternators, belts, coolant pumps, etc. But it's simple and access from the bedroom is quite good.

The U280 has a better generator, wider body, more storage (but is taller as a result). The interior living quarters are quite similar, however.

We bought our U225 for $18,500 at the bottom of the RV market in 2011. For us, the difference between the AZ coach and Gary's coach would revolve around the Baja highway issue and driving on sand (where a lighter rig is better given the same footprint).

Gary is a competent hand at working on his rig so that, to me, would be a big plus.

Craig

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #63 – May 25, 2014, 05:47:21 pm

Quote from: TAS69 – May 25, 2014, 05:25:07 pm

Does the killer dowel have to do with harmonic balancer / pulley assembly?

No, it is the locater dowel pin for the timing cover. If it falls out one of three things happen:

1. It falls harmlessly into the pan where it remains (screen on oil inlet prevents it being drawn back into the engine).

2. It can hit cam gear and/or crank gear and knock teeth off, allowing engine to jump time (and usually put valves into pistons).

3. It can hit cam gear and/or crank gear and be thrown through the thin metal of the timing cover allowing oil to rapidly leak out.

The fix is to put remove the timing cover and put a "cover" over the dowel so it can not come out.

Again, just Google "killer dowel pin".

Brett

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #64 – May 25, 2014, 06:21:26 pm

Quote

Other than the storage and Down hill control sounds like the 225 is a lot of bang for the buck. Does the killer dowel have to do with harmonic balancer / pulley assembly?

You must pull the front of the engine down to the block to get at the dowel pin,I have helped a buddy do his on a dodge pickup, it would be a bear on a rear radiator coach, the best bang for the buck is not always the best.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #65 – May 25, 2014, 08:02:32 pm

Quote from: Bill Willett – May 25, 2014, 06:21:26 pm

You must pull the front of the engine down to the block to get at the dowel pin,I have helped a buddy do his on a dodge pickup, it would be a bear on a rear radiator coach, the best bang for the buck is not always the best.

I appreciate that tearing down the front of any motor in chassis isn't exactly pleasant. At the same time the peace of mind of eliminating a potential issue later to me is priceless! My stroked 460 has been apart 4 times in the last 5 years. Never fun! Yet as Ive learned about cam timing / cam size exhaust ports and so on its been worth the PITA to me. Killer dowell and overheating exhaust manifolds is the only potential issues with the smaller Cummins. Essentially bullet proof with regular maintenance i!

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #66 – May 25, 2014, 08:45:44 pm

Having had both a propane and a diesel generator, would much prefer the diesel. It is a pain to try to find propane for the generator while traveling. It can be done, but much easier to find diesel and also does not burn as much diesel as propane.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #67 – May 25, 2014, 11:53:02 pm

I've driven.a few 5.9 Cumminses. In a pickup truck, they are fantastic. In a Monaco 36'DP (with the pump turned up and with 60lb/hr injectors) it was dog slow. Coal out the tailpipe was all that you got when you gave it the beans. My 6.2l diseasel Georgie Boy pulled better than that. The same rig but unmolested gave less coal out the pipe but no real difference in power delivery in the Fleetwood I drove. OTOH, the 8.3 in the Patriot.. well, I've driven slower cars. I really wanted the 8.3/6speed Unihome but never found it in my limited price range. That said I am perfectly happy with ye olde 3208t and mt643. No trouble at all merging onto the interstate going the speed limit before getting out of the onramp, at least so far...

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #68 – May 26, 2014, 12:37:15 am

I can't speak to Twobus' Monaco, but our U225 (which also has the Banks Stinger package that the one in AZ has) is certainly not "dog slow". I don't drive it at 70 but I wouldn't drive Gary's U280 at 70 either. The HP/weight ratio and the torque with the Stinger is pretty decent.

No smoke from the exhaust on our rig. Neither black nor white.

Craig

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #69 – May 26, 2014, 01:33:14 am

I've never seen a 5.9 smoke like thaf one either. I bet anything yours is tuned properly and this one was decidedly not. That Banks setup is the bees knees ins't it...

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #70 – May 26, 2014, 10:37:13 am

Gary's decals aren't the prettiest (better than mine) but its a great coach that has been well used and serviced regularly...

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #71 – May 26, 2014, 12:20:06 pm

Quote from: twobus – May 25, 2014, 11:53:02 pm

I've driven.a few 5.9 Cumminses. In a pickup truck, they are fantastic. In a Monaco 36'DP (with the pump turned up and with 60lb/hr injectors) it was dog slow. Coal out the tailpipe was all that you got when you gave it the beans. My 6.2l diseasel Georgie Boy pulled better than that. The same rig but unmolested gave less coal out the pipe but no real difference in power delivery in the Fleetwood I drove. OTOH, the 8.3 in the Patriot.. well, I've driven slower cars. I really wanted the 8.3/6speed Unihome but never found it in my limited price range. That said I am perfectly happy with ye olde 3208t and mt643. No trouble at all merging onto the interstate going the speed limit before getting out of the onramp, at least so far...

I have seen cummins damaged from too much fuel input. Washes the oil off the cylinder walls. Compression drops. White smoke a lot.

Drove a 5.9 done by dr diesel's local guy in a dodge extended cab with a camper on it and it had incredible power. Black cloud behind it. Made the clutch slip if not careful on shifting under power.

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #72 – May 26, 2014, 05:30:24 pm

Quote from: Dave Head – May 26, 2014, 10:37:13 am

Gary's decals aren't the prettiest (better than mine) but its a great coach that has been well used and serviced regularly...

No doubt ! The power to weight ratio is better in spite of being almost 3 tons heavier, Considerably more storage which will help when we semi retire out west in several years as I plan on doing property management / lighter carpentry in resort community's . No doubt it will pull heavier loads and the generator would be a knockout if we decide to build somewhere between Taos and Albuquerque.
The 225 could also suffice just not quite as well...If the prices and or miles were closer it wouldn't be such a quandary for us. Of course both coaches could easily sell before we are ready to move. We're about 4 weeks out...

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #73 – May 26, 2014, 06:20:26 pm

Since the AZ coach has a Banks, I'm thinking that the power to weight ratio is better on the U225 than on the U280. Somewhere around 300hp out of the 5.9 and an extra 180ft-lbs of torque according to this web page by Banks: Banks Power | 98-02 Dodge - 5.9L Cummins ISB>>Stinger® System. Comes out to 1hp for 75lbs of weight.

Banks Power | 98-02 Dodge - 5.9L Cummins ISB>>Stinger® System

The U280 would be 1hp for 93lbs of weight. And nothing says you couldn't spend a couple thou and add a Banks to the 8.3 on Gary's U280.

Gary has the edge when it comes to storage and interior room. And the diesel gennie.

Craig

Re: 87 Grand Villa

Reply #74 – May 26, 2014, 06:25:27 pm

Quote from: twobus – May 26, 2014, 01:33:14 am

That Banks setup is the bees knees ins't it...

It truly is! And I didn't even realize what a bonus it was when I bought the coach. It also had the Pacbrake (but an older version) which I also did not realize was a big plus. The luck of the ignorant.

Craig

Affiliate Notice