Disney tested them at WDW and they were a nice ride. Not sure how much more efficient the bus is but haven't seen any more around. Available in 30' and 35'.
Not sure what the frame limitations are on it, but I bet a MH could be built on it. If the GVWR was low, I am sure it wouldn't sell because the mind set in America is I WANT BIGGER AND MORE STUFF, just like people's attitude when they go out dining and we know what that has done to the waistline.
Disney tested them at WDW and they were a nice ride. Not sure how much more efficient the bus is but haven't seen any more around. Available in 30' and 35'.
Not sure what the frame limitations are on it, but I bet a MH could be built on it. If the GVWR was low, I am sure it wouldn't sell because the mind set in America is I WANT BIGGER AND MORE STUFF, just like people's attitude when they go out dining and we know what that has done to the waistline.
Again, you're comparing grapes to grapefruit. A city bus has a totally different duty cycle than a MH. A hybrid will work well in stop and go driving-----but that's not what a MH does.
What makes sense for city bus does not make sense for a MH.
Mark
2000 Itasca Suncruiser 35U on a Ford chassis
2003 Ford Explorer toad with US Gear brakes,
ReadyBrute tow bar, and Demco base plate.
I am surprised that this thread has not emphasized aerodynamics more. Without giving up a lot of usable space inside, a serious effort to decrease air drag would make a huge impact. The Cat document on RV power is here. It shows that air drag is more than 50% of the power consumption at highway speed. I believe Cummins has a similar paper. An aerodynamic MH would look somewhat different than the boxy shapes we currently have. The current styles at least look much like buses and the interior space is optimized, but it is at a near total cost of increased air drag. Air drag reduction has not been seriously tried, and I expect that if it had it would have resulted in few extra sales. In fact it might have reduced sales due to the unusual design and some lost space inside.
Speaking of aerodynamic motorhomes. I saw this motorhome a couple of months back, I believe it was a class C, but anyway it was so pointed that it looked like an ant eater. I had never seen a motorhome so pointed before. It actually was kinda ugly, but I guess it cut through the air very good. NO Thanks! I will keep mine just as it is, even if I have to pay a little more for diesel. LOL!
Bagman I really like your spirit. I think your vision is bogged down with earthly constraints. We tend to look at the present and say it's not possible when it really is if we can think it. New technology will eventually bring us to the point of which you speak. I think an X-Prize approach is a really good idea. I have often wondered why something like this has not been approached only to realize that the market we are in and love so much isn't revered by the masses. If it were we would have the old supply and demand factor on our side.
I watched a program on Luigi Colani (Here) and how he has a design for big rig trucks that will dramatically reduce fuel cost with his new design. We really need this kind of thinking in the RV industry and quickly. I like others who have posted here do not think the the mentioned company's have the wherewithal to accomplish the task. I unlike others believe it is completely doable with what means we have at hand today.
Thanks again for your incite.
Cheers,
Zoondoggie
"If you don't know where you're going, you'll wind up somewhere else"
Hybrids are affordable because they are subsided by US taxpayers. Market conditions alone would not have sustained a hybrid - much like ethanol production. As for the pollution a hybrid puts out, go beyond the operation of it to the production and disposal of a hybrid. Building and deposing of the batteries causes huge amounts of pollution, not to mention rescue after an accident. Locally they are training our folks to cut the negative cable then wait 20 minutes before any extraction/rescue is attempted. Gas/electric hybrid - no thanks. Modern clean, efficient diesel - oh yeah!
There are 24 hours in every day - it all depends on how you choose to use them.
Bruce & Jill Brown
2008 Kountry Star Pusher 3910
zoondoggie, I have seen TV specials with Mr. Luigi Colani and I think this guy is an aero-genius! Also, it is refreshing that you get me! What we all have in common is that we love RV'ing and I want to see RV'ing being affordable for our kids. I bet if I could find a early 2000 something 33' Air Stream Low Profile landyacht with a Cummins 5.9L TD and swap out the 4 speed trans. for an Allison 6 speed, run 100% synthetic lubricants, use Alcoa wheels, run whichever tire has the lowest rolling resistance, remove the big awning as well as the ladder, remove spare tire & wheel, replace the mattress with an air mattress, clean up the roof line, add the air tabs, add an air dam and I bet that motor home would easily get 13 MPG. In the mid-90's several 34' class A's with the 5.9 Cummins got slightly over 12.0 MPG. I'm certain anyone affiliated with Motor Home magazine can verify this! I remember one class A (31' long Fleetwood Flair) getting over 10 MPG with a gas engine in Motor Home Magazine.
MasterBoondocker wrote: The MARKET will produce a better mpg MH.
I will bet that each MH R&D department is burning the midnite-oil on just this. Their survival is at stake.
Yeh, and it will be smaller, lighter, no CCC/ trailer capacity, slow,
less amenities, (W/D, big sceen TVs,tile, etc.)if any, prob. no slides,cost a lot. And like HB cars, take 10yrs + to pay for the fuel savings. Sorry, not for me. I'll keep my Bus and my Caddy...
It is a very well engineered small class A coach. I do have to agree with the "Just have to make it larger" statement. That was the reason I don't still have it.
It had basically the same floor plan as my FMC, just smaller. It got an honest 20 mpg overall milage. The body was in fact designed in a wind tunnel and there was zero wind noise. The engine/drive train was essentioally the front wheel drive system from a Buick Century put in the back. It was so quiet I would have to either listen out the window or tell wife to be still to deterime if the engine was running by sound. If you kept your foot to the medal, it would take a 6% grade at 55-60 mph.
The key to the performance in both the mpg and acceleration was the transmission. It was a 4 speed with overdrive and lockup torque converter. Look at the final drive ratio: almost 2:1 for fuel economy, but it readily shifted down to gain torque as needed.
The earlier diesel versions (4 cyl turbo BMW engine with manual transaxel) got 27-29 mpg.
BigRabbitMan & DiamondGal
Dixon,CADiamond Gal's T-Tapp fitness site
76 FMC #1046, Gas Pusher W/Chrysler 440-I
Edelbrock MPI fuel injection, Allison 545
Toad: Red '87 4x4 Subaru Brat, Lorance IWay 500c
DataStorm Satellite internet / I am here-click to see
Offline
