Log In | Register
Skip to main content
Topic: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question (Read 843 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #25 –
Quote from: Jeff Newman  - 
Gearing matters. I don't recall if Lazy Daze used 4.56 or 4.11 gearing in the rear diff, but it means the engine is pretty much spun out at 70 mph. Passenger van gearing is probably in the 3 range or even lower for milage and better top speed. That torque multiplication is a big deal in a motorhome.

I'm not going to pretend it charges up hills, but it goes fast enough and can hold 65 mph on flat ground towing (~2000 lbs) without working very hard. Hell, when I took it out for a test drive, I was amazed that it even reached 65...

I'm a slow driver in my LD for many reasons. First off I've got nowhere to go and all day to get there. Secondly I enjoy the scenery and the slower I go the more I can look around. Then of course there's the MPG to consider and staying around 55 greatly improves that. On grades you will find me chugging up and over in the truck lane doing a whopping 45mph. My 460 could go over much faster but as I said I'm in no hurry and I figure why make my motor woirk harder than it has to and again there's the MPG to consider.
Discuss anything with anyone and disagree agreeably. Always be polite and respectful.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #26 –
Quote from: dollinsdale  - 
    I’ve owned a ‘91, E350, 460 ci, rear bath Lazy daze and now a 2012, E450, v-10 RB. The 460 had a 3 speed w/overdrive tranny. The v-10 has a 5 speed w/tow haul. I tow a 2000 Jeep Sahara Wrangler. 
    My impression of the E350 Ford 460 is that it has enough power to tow anywhere you need to go if you are willing to down shift on extreme climbs and descents. It is a reliable brute. Average mpg @ 8, realistically, towing. Will not over heat.
    The v-10 E450 package is a higher revving engine that has adequate power to tow also. Mated with the 5 speed tranny with tow/haul mode and E450 chassis, it has a more comfortable and driveable power combination. Avg. mpg @ 9, towing.
    Both are very reliable drive trains and are a pleasurable experience to drive. But, I would have to say that I would give the edge to the E450 package. This is just my opinion and both are fantastic products if well maintained.
Dale from Downey.
I've heard the 450 has a little rougher ride. Have you found that to be true? On MPG my 460 has the Flowmaster exhaust system and I get right under 10mpg so it seems to work as advertised.
Discuss anything with anyone and disagree agreeably. Always be polite and respectful.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #27 –
    The e350 had a rougher ride. It didn’t have a rear sway bar. It did have Bilstein shocks in front and back. It required me to be a more active driver, if you know what I mean.
    The e450, although it has the stock Ford shocks and larger front springs, has a more solid feel. It handles poor roads much more smoothly. It also has oversized Road Master sway bars front and rear to deal with “tail wagging” and swaying. The width of coach is also a few inches wider, which helps.
   I guess the difference would be similar to going from a Chevy to a Cadillac or a ford to a Lincoln. Maybe not quite that noticeable, but, you know what I mean.
Dale from Downey.
Dale from Downey 27’ 2012 RB,”Casa Verde”, 2000 Jeep Wrangler. Formerly1991 RB & 1990 Jeep Wrangler.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #28 –
The concept of spending "more than it's worth" poses an interesting paradox. Presumably, the phrase is meant to convey a practice of false economy.

For example, let's say a used RV is purchased for $15k, but would actually be potentially worth $17k if an additional $2k were invested in certain areas. Alternatively, what if the rig actually required an further $3k to make it fully operationally functional? If the implication is that the RV would still only be worth $17k, it therefore presents the owner with the prospect of having a new basis of $20k or "spending more than it's worth".

Now, let's compare this scenario to the option of buying new. I'm not going to go around digging up stats, but what's the depreciation rule of thumb of driving a car off the lot? Or, more accurately, what about driving an RV for 3-5 years? In fact, even with putting on moderate mileage - let's assume 12k miles/year - what's the typical net depreciation hit?

Hasn't the owner in effect spent more money (new) than what the rig is (now) worth? Sure, let's divide the number of day/nights used to get an effective 'usage rate', but we can also apply the same calculation to the original example presented above.

The conclusion is - within certain bounds - there isn't really any firm or fixed rule of thumb about spending/investing "more than it's worth". If an RV is actually used sufficiently enough to amortize the costs comparative vis-a-vis to other vacation/travel alternatives, then it's a net win.

The killer - whether facing a surprise rot out or parking a brand new rig - it not using the vehicle. Use an RV, the cost nexus is some undefined point where either alternative is probably roughly comparable. Don't use the RV, and either option ends up costing money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #29 –
Quote from: snerf  - 
The concept of spending "more than it's worth" poses an interesting paradox. Presumably, the phrase is meant to convey a practice of false economy.

For example, let's say a used RV is purchased for $15k, but would actually be potentially worth $17k if an additional $2k were invested in certain areas. Alternatively, what if the rig actually required an further $3k to make it fully operationally functional? If the implication is that the RV would still only be worth $17k, it therefore presents the owner with the prospect of having a new basis of $20k or "spending more than it's worth".

Now, let's compare this scenario to the option of buying new. I'm not going to go around digging up stats, but what's the depreciation rule of thumb of driving a car off the lot? Or, more accurately, what about driving an RV for 3-5 years? In fact, even with putting on moderate mileage - let's assume 12k miles/year - what's the typical net depreciation hit?

Hasn't the owner in effect spent more money (new) than what the rig is (now) worth? Sure, let's divide the number of day/nights used to get an effective 'usage rate', but we can also apply the same calculation to the original example presented above.

The conclusion is - within certain bounds - there isn't really any firm or fixed rule of thumb about spending/investing "more than it's worth". If an RV is actually used sufficiently enough to amortize the costs comparative vis-a-vis to other vacation/travel alternatives, then it's a net win.

The killer - whether facing a surprise rot out or parking a brand new rig - it not using the vehicle. Use an RV, the cost nexus is some undefined point where either alternative is probably roughly comparable. Don't use the RV, and either option ends up costing money that could be better spent elsewhere.


I think like this when buying used vehicles. First as you say you lose thousands the minute you drive it off the lot. Then there's the tax you pay on high priced new vehicles and then there's insurance and registration. I figure I can buy used and put all that money into making my used vehicle much like new for a fraction of the cost. Having said that I bought my 1994 f250 diesel 4X4 brand new and when I did I told myself the only way this works is if I keep it twenty years. I still have it and it's still a nice truck so that time it did work out.
Discuss anything with anyone and disagree agreeably. Always be polite and respectful.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #30 –
My few cents worth. (Disclaimer: I do not understand the concept of turning the vehicle over every 2-3 years. I buy with the expectation I may drive it forever).
Say you drop $10K on a rig and then drop another $10K for fixing and spiffing.  Say you then get 5 years and the same 50K trouble free miles out of it as someone who bought new.   What was the 'worth' when you got on the road and what is it after 5 years, and the dollar-cost valuation of the 5 years experience?

OTOH,  if after adding $10K, it's still a wreak, then it was more than it was worth.

Joel & Terry Wiley
dog Zeke
2013  31 IB   Orwan   / 2011 CRV Tow'd LWEROVE
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #31 –
Regarding the Ford 460, the 1980's and early 1990s Econoline cabs had major issues with insufficient airflow around the exhaust manifolds. During heavy use (long uphill grades) the manifold would get so hot as to expand and pop the heads off the manifold bolts. This would then cause an exhaust leak only a few inches from the exhaust valve, and if not promptly repaired, would lead to exhaust valve damage from cold air entering the leak on shutdown and warping the red hot valve.

I had this happen 3 different times in 2 years with a 1988 cab. It happened a 4th time and my father, who actually owned the unit, gave up and sold it broke. Of the 4 times this happened two needed valve work at about $2000 to rebuild the head.

I learned when driving the rig to take it easy and try to avoid climbing hills at WOT and avoid long periods where the motor was running high in the rpm range. After knowing about the issue, I could adapt driving styles to avoid popping the manifold bolts. My father could not- he may have felt safer in trying to stay at the speeds of other traffic. In any case, when he drove his motorhome up mountain passes, more often than not he would pop manifold bolts.

The RV repair shop said that this repair was their bread and butter, that it happened all the time. I don't know if this issue was worked out with better airflow in the new generation of Econoline cabs in the early-mid 1990s.

This repair (and the lousy fuel economy) soured me on 460 engines. I was very pleased to find a rare Chevy cab in my 1989, and wanted it despite the 350 engine vs. 454. Chevy cabs ride like a dream compared to the Ford's I am used to. Bump steer is much more minimal. As I've mentioned many times the Chevy 350 far exceeds our expectations of performance.
1989 MP
 
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #32 –
I had a 1994 midbath without a generator. That was not a real problem.

Before we bought the rig we looked at a multi plan with the Chevy. I would strongly recommend against it!    The 350is not enough engine for the rig. The Ford 460 while a gas hog it is a great engine! 
2004 MB
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #33 –
Quote from: Elizabeth West-Ownbey  - 
I had a 1994 midbath without a generator. That was not a real problem. Before we bought the rig we looked at a multi plan with the Chevy. I would strongly recommend against it!   The 350 is not enough engine for the rig. The Ford 460 while a gas hog it is a great engine! 

Were the early-mid 90s MP or TK available on a Ford chassis? I have no idea - I've only seen Chevy G30 chassis configurations for the shorter 22' LDs. If there are shorties running around on the Ford chassis, are any equipped with the 460? (As is the case of my 22' G30 running the 454?)

OTOH, I had assumed the longer early-mid 90s MB were likewise devoted to the Ford 460 platform. However, last month I saw a '95 MB at my repair shop sitting on the G30. I asked the owner if it was a 454 and he said no, it was a 350. We both looked at each other and I said, I can't imagine trying to drive that rig with that engine.

Even in the 22', the 350 is pushing the limits. A neighbor had a 91' G30 22' FL/RB with the 350 and it was pretty underpowered. Of course, the LD was just a lark for him - got it cheap, didn't care, just took it on occasion to the local beach park.

However, some things never die, and with an estimated 100 million small block Chevies (SBC) globally produced (both domestically and overseas under license), that makes for an awfully large target for aftermarket companies. And, sure enough, all the majors, like Holley, Edelbrock, et al have complete, turn key upgrade kits including on board computer, EFI, sensors, performance parts (cams, heads, intake), etc.

Matched with some kind of overdrive (say, drop it to 3.5 [my 4L80E is 4.1 is 3rd but 3.3 in OD]), you would have both good low end power and the ability to run around 2.2k RPM at 60 (like mine) for decent gas mileage. If you could find a decent rig for around $10k and drop $5k on engine upgrades and another $5k overall, you'd have a pretty sweet, relatively low cost RV for around $20k. Not too bad.
Re: 1992 Chevy 22- Buying question
Reply #34 –
I have my rig home today, so was able to access some tech notes I keep on board (for handy quick reference if something comes up while on the road).

I wanted to update my comment above about gearing ratios for my 4L80E 3+OD transmission. 3rd gear is 4.1, but the OD drops it all the way to 3.08. With that type of gearing, I turn 2,100 RPM @ 60 mph and 2,200 RPM @ 65 mph.