I have a Toyota Class C RV (also a Class A bounder and KZ TT) and we REALLY like it. It is a 4 cylinder.
We go 60 mph just like many others on the highway with no problems. The acceleration compares with the Class A. We also get excellent MPG, and it sleeps all 5 of our children and two adults. Yes it is a bit tight, but it works. The tanks are a bit small, but it is fully self contained. Good A/C, great overhead bunk. Table converts to bed, and sofa comes out to make a huge bed as well.
I have been up to 75 mph in the camper, but it did get a little shaky. But at 60-65, its is just fine so I can't find the lack of power. We are not winning races, but do you ever.
In the mountains on steep grades, pop it out of OD, and we can go 45-50 mph without a problem.
There are MANY people that put 150-250k miles on these campers, which arguably is more than most people put on their RV's without problems.
We get between 20-23 mpg depending on wind, A/C usage etc.
I just don't understand why on Earth back in the early 90's when gasoline was under $1 a gallon, they made these GREAT campers, but now that gas is near $4 a gallon, they only make guzzlers.
I just don't get it. Now that our class C is definitely getting older and worn out, we would be prime candidates to get another one just like it. I really hesitate though because I would rather not get 8 mpg in one of the super sized V10's.
4 whopping cylinders on Toyota RV's. Talk about great getting good MPG. Also I have a very light foot on the pedal. I followed some MPG advice on Livingpress.com and I now get 22 MPG! Not bad for a home on wheels.
I think it was at least partly because US RV makers wouldn't stop overloading the chassis, causing warranty claims & the potential for lawsuits. I believe they've also stopped making chassis for U-Haul and other box truck applications, tho', so it may run deeper than that.
The axle issue was a lot deeper than the brakes. RV companies were kludging up their own rear dualies to prevent overloading the tires on the 1/2 ton single-wheel rear axle that they'd overloaded. So bearings and half-shafts failed, sometimes with serious results. Toyota replaced a lot of these axles with DRW 1-ton axles for free (!) to avoid legal liability and damage to their reputation, even tho' they had no moral liability to do so on a chassis overloaded by the upfitter.
I'd love to see a Toyota 1-ton or heavier pickup chassis in the US market. But I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon.
Jim, "Press any key to continue. Press any other key to quit."
'06 Tiger CX 'C Minus' on a Silverado 2500HD 4x4, 8.1 & Allison (aka 'Loafer's Glory') www.tigervehicles.com
I wonder if Toyota stopped making that type of chassis when they switched from the "pickup truck"/Hilux body style in the US to the Tacoma body style (which is a bit bigger for the US market, but supposedly not as reliable.)
It is a major loss because there isn't much in the way of good MH chassis options available these days, especially MPG-wise ones. You have your Ford V-10 (reliable engine, but the design is dated), the Chevy design (similar), and the Sprinter (which is the most state of the art, but $10,000 more.)
The rest of the world has "real" options. Fiat has a special chassis that is dedicated to motorhomes. This chassis would revolutionize motorhomes in the US if it came to our shores, because there is no step-down for the cab, and essentially there would be no difference between a class A and a class C with this.
I just find it ironic that even though the US is one of the prime countries for RV-ing, the selection of motorhome foundations is just plain laughable. Especially considering the fact that we had non-turbo V6 motorhomes that can get 20+ MPG without any special engineering over a decade ago.
Can anyone with Toyota experience comment on problems they may have had considering the above information. Living in Prince George which is a major point for those traveling to and from Alaska, I still see the odd Toyota MH passing through.
As a side note a vehicle built in Canada can in most cases be sold for a lot less in the states than in Canada, go figure. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/06/12/ottawa-car-price-disparity-border-shopping.html?cmp=rss
I had the 4-cylinder pop-top Chinook and had absolutely no problems with it, and it was a delight to travel and camp in. I put 100K+ miles on it. The problem comes when people try to take a good thing and overload it. I'm not surprised to hear that the ones with big stand-up bodies had rear axle issues. The engineering put into big add-ons is often marginal and incompetent, if engineering is applied at all.
The same kinds of problems arise in those ridiculous stretch limos. Also in electric vehicle conversions, and I know what I'm talking about there because I was in that business for five years, and our vehicles were extremely well engineered, while the competition was either not engineered at all or way over-built because of lack of ability to do proper stress analysis.
The HiLux was offered with a 1-ton chassis (mainly frame and rear axle changes).
The Tacoma, which shares many components with the Global Hilux, is still not a Hilux, and does not have a heavy frame or axle option. It simply cannot handle the weight a an RV body. I think they have simply decided there isn't enough demand to justify a specialized line a smaller HD cab/chassis trucks. To meet current crash and emissions standards, and todays HP expectation, a mini-pickup motorhome probably would not be especially fuel efficient anyways. Most friends with Tacoma v6 4x4 trucks only get 17-19 on the highway, which is the same that I get on newer E350 15 pass vans.
Not all hope is lost though.... The Transit will be offered with both the 3.5L EcoBoost, and also a small turbo-diesel. I suspect the Transit cutaway will be an excellent option for small Class-Cs.
2000 Ford E350 DRW Wagon (14-pass all captains chairs)
V10 w/ Banks PowerPack, Diablo Predator, 4.56 LS, ~350,000 miles
New Desert Fox in the works!