Dear Dave,
I don’t know if this is your area, but I will ask anyway. I see many RV reviews about Class A motorhomes being a pusher, but always with diesel. Why don’t they make a pusher with gas? Naturally, this would be for smaller Class A’s. I’m looking to upgrade. —Jeff, 2016 30-ft. Gulfstream
Dear Jeff,
There have been a few attempts at a rear-engine gasoline chassis going back to FMC and Winnebago’s famous disaster, the Spectrum 2000. In 1999, Winnebago set out to engineer a state-of-the-art motorhome similar to the GMC with a rear-engine gas chassis designed and built completely by Winnebago. It was a unibody construction chassis similar to an automobile rather than a frame rail and featured the Ford 460 CID with C-6 transmission.
It was a beautiful motorhome and drove like a dream. However, all 95 units were repurchased by the company as the weight of the rig was too much for the engine and drive train, and several started on fire. I picked up a repurchased unit in Bangor, Maine, and drove it back to the factory. I had never driven anything as nice before, nor have I since.
Universal Fuel Option (UFO) chassis
Fast forward several years, and Workhorse Custom Chassis introduced the Universal Fuel Option (UFO) chassis for the 2008 model year that could be outfitted with a diesel or gas drive train and featured the Chevrolet Vortec engine.
The V-8 Vortec engine was an 8.1-liter gas engine with 340 hp and an Allison 2100 6-speed transmission. Only two RV manufacturers offered it, one being Winnebago on the Destination and Adventurer Limited. Here is the feature page in the 2008 Winnebago Destination brochure.
The concept sounded good on paper. However, several engineering setbacks delayed the gas offering and only a few were actually built. Then the economics of 2008 hit with the high gas prices, stock market crash, housing bubble bursting, and financial institutions failing. The RV industry pretty much shut down. Workhorse was hit hard and was eventually purchased by Navistar, if memory serves me correctly.
Then, in 2010, new emissions were implemented, and that meant new certification for engine manufacturers. Chevrolet dropped that engine and, even today, we only see the Ford F53 with a gas engine. I’m not sure exactly when the UFO dropped out of the offering, but it was close to 2008.
So, why not reintroduce a rear-engine gas model? In my opinion, it’s price vs. performance compared to the diesel. The Ford F53 is a chassis that is used in several markets, not just the RV industry, so all engineering and production costs are shared. The cost to develop a rear-engine gas pusher chassis that would most likely only be used in the RV industry would be very costly.
UFO chassis didn’t have features of diesel pushers
The UFO chassis did not have the features of the diesel pushers, such as air bag suspension, 10,000 lb. towing capacity, specially designed front steering system, air brakes and other features. And the cost was too close to the diesel to justify purchasing it versus the diesel. Most RV buyers looking at the larger Class A units not only wanted the diesel, they wanted it with 360-400 hp, or more, even if they didn’t need it.
One thing I’ve learned in the RV business is never say never! So will a gas pusher become available in the future? I doubt it. I would venture to say we could see an electric pusher available instead? But then, what’s the point, as the advantage of a rear engine unit is no engine noise, which is one of the advantages of the electric engine. However, with the engine in the back, even if it is electric, that means no engine in the front. So there can be a bus-style front door and no “dog house” engine cover between the driver and passenger.
Dave Solberg is a leading expert in the RV industry and the author of the “RV Handbook.”
Read more from Dave here.
RVDT2714
Maybe not an electric pusher, but a hybrid diesel-electric motocoach with a variable output generator located in the back. Enough to directly power the electrical drive system, but able to ramp down to a camping mode and provide 10-15kW when boon docking. The question becomes about efficiency, because if you need 100kW to directly power the drive, then at that point, the diesel savings are moot, and you might as well stick with a traditional setup. If I can cut my diesel consumption in half (10 gph to 5 gph), then an extra $100K in price starts to look attractive.
Way back in the 1960s there was a “gas pusher” that worked amazingly well and still does! I own a 22’ Class A 1968 Ultra Van powered by a 6 cylinder, air cooled Chevrolet Corvair engine. Much more information can be found at http://www.ultravan.org. We have owned our coach for 15 years and have traveled extensively throughout the USA and parts of Canada in it every year, still powered by our Corvair engine!
Thanks for posting! Very cool.
Very cool.
Hi Carl: I had a 1961 Corvair Monza coup and I loved it – except for the fan belt! I had problems keeping it on which is essential for horizontally opposed cylinders and being an air-cooled engine. Did you have any problems with that? I miss that car to this day!
Very cool. I have been rving since the late 70’s and I think I have actually seen one cruising down the highway many years ago. I thought it was pretty neat back then. I enjoyed seeing the 60’s decor in your video and her 60’s attire too.
I loved this question. I loved Dave’s answer. So thorough.
Right on Cancel!
I’m surprised that Ford has not offered one of their Powerstroke diesel engines in the F53 chassis! A friend has one of the more “rare” class C motorhomes with a Ford Powerstroke diesel in its E450 chassis. It is a 2006 or so 29′ Gulfstream, BT Cruiser model and it gets great fuel economy and has plenty of power.
I would think having a diesel motor in the F53 chassis line would be a great addition. (of course, it would still drive like a bread truck but it would have more torque! 🤣)
Thank you for the information, Dave! I enjoyed reading the history of the industry, of chassis. Have a great day and safe travels!
FMC in the 70s made a rear engine motor home. Had a 440-dodge engine. From what I remember they were nice, but hard to work around the engine and taking out the radiator, which I did a few times.