LD versus Safari Trek February 05, 2019, 04:35:30 pm When I was motorhome shopping I vacillated for a year or more on getting a Safari Trek class A or a top of the line class C like the LD. Trekkies are as loyal to the brand as the LD crowd is to their class C vehicles and it was hard to find anyone that had anything bad to say about either. I believe the Trek pre Monaco years which started in 2001 to be a superior coach both inside and out with aluminum skin riveted to aluminum framing which greatly reduced water damage issues. What I didn't like was the Chevy workhorse chassis and that was at least part of my decision to go with the LD. IMO the F series is a better more reliable platform for the coach. Interior of the Trek is definitely higher quality with a huge rear bathroom. Some people don't like the drop down bed but for the extra living space you gain in a short vehicle it's worth the hastle to me. The huge front window on the Trek makes it seem as open and unclaustrophobic as the big windows LD. The trek is taller and wider with tons of basement storage which is nice but I liked the small profile of the LD for getting around in since I don't want a toad. The shortest trek is a 24 which measures to an honest 26 feet and I thought that might limit campsites so that was also part of my decision. Another thing was cost of ownership. Everything is more expensive on the workhorse from tires to brakes to suspension.So I've owned my LD a year now and have taken several trips and it's time to reevaluate my decision. First off length in campsites is not as limiting as I thought and a 26' Trek will fit in any campsite I've had my LD in. However I've found myself in some tight spots in unfamiliar towns in my LD that I'm not sure I could have negotiated in the bigger and longer Trek. Storage in my LD is more limiting than I thought it would be and the Trek basement storage would really be nice. I also have discovered I may have some rot issues in the rear of my rig from the end cap separation poor design and I may have to address that in the near future. That's where the aluminum framing of the Trek would shine. The extra heighth and width of the Trek initially concerned me but after a few motorhome trips I don't think that's really a concern anymore. So on reflection did I make the right decision? I really can't say for sure on that but after a year with my first motorhome I'm thinking just maybe if I had it to do again I'd be a trekkie. I do realize though if I had gone that route it's quite possible I'd be saying the exact opposite thing as I would be more attuned to the shortcomings of the Trek Maybe this helps anyone cruising these forums struggling with the same decision I struggled with and best of luck in your search. Hope I've helped more than hindered with this mish mosh of somewhat disjointed rambling thoughts . 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #1 – February 05, 2019, 05:27:21 pm We looked at the 24' Trek in the 90's before we bought our used '83 FL. It seemed pretty fancy inside, but was not impressed as much with details of the construction. Did research on reliability, and at least at that time, it was worse than average for the industry. Of even more concern were the problems with the drop-down bed, the only sleeping option. It had a track issue and did not work in the model we looked at the Pomona RV show in '93. The day before we attended that show, I had put a deposit on the '83 FL, which I had inspected reasonable well. At the show, the only RVs we looked at that felt as solid as that 10-yr old LD were the new LDs on display there...Steve
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #2 – February 05, 2019, 05:32:29 pm Quote from: Steve - February 05, 2019, 05:27:21 pmWe looked at the 24' Trek in the 90's before we bought our used '83 FL. It seemed pretty fancy inside, but was not impressed as much with details of the construction. Did research on reliability, and at least at that time, it was worse than average for the industry. Of even more concern were the problems with the drop-down bed, the only sleeping option. It had a track issue and did not work in the model we looked at the Pomona RV show in '93. The day before we attended that show, I had put a deposit on the '83 FL, which I had inspected reasonable well. At the show, the only RVs we looked at that felt as solid as that 10-yr old LD were the new LDs on display there...SteveWere reliability issues coach based or workhorse based? I'm not a workhorse fan as you have probably gathered. Never heard of bed issues but it was something that concerned me. Seemed like another thing to go wrong.
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #3 – February 05, 2019, 05:43:44 pm We looked at a bunch of Class A's back around 2013-2015 when shopping to upgrade from our Class B Roadtrek. But we couldn't find anything short enough to fit in our driveway in a Class A. We knew the 20' Roadtrek fit and we hoped the 24' TK Lazy Daze would fit - we couldn't find anyone who knew for sure.But we took the gamble, bought our 2016 TK and found that it fit into our driveway - barely. Another couple of inches and we'd have been out of luck. And, parking on the street would have resulted in issues with the neighbors and city.What we found is that many salesmen tell you that the Class A's are shorter than they actually are. So we started bringing a tape measure to make sure, which didn't make the salesmen happy ;-)We like the floorplan in the TK better than any of the short Class A's we looked at too. Some felt too narrow which reminded us of the Roadtrek.Just our opinion in case it's helpful to anyone,Jim & DebSanta Cruz, California2016 TK 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #4 – February 05, 2019, 05:58:15 pm The cool, drop down bed had continuous problems, too bad they didn't work out the bugs. it seems like a great way to have a fixed bed and still have a comfortable, spacious interior. I definitely looked at the Trek Safari, liking the length and bed.If slides can be made to be pretty reliable, can't see why a drop down bed was too big an engineering problem to solve.As to the length issue, we have only been in a few, older campgrounds where the difference between 24' and 16 would had made a difference. Adding two feet overall to our towing length, would kick us up into the next fare category on the ferries in Washington, BC and Alaska. Personally, I prefer the shorter wheelbase for tooling around towns and in tight quarters. Storage is tighter in the 24' models but we get it the necessities in, along with a good selection of parts and tools.Previously we backpacked, kayak camped and traveled in a short Chevy camper van, so the 24' FL seemed, huge in comparison.Larry 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #5 – February 05, 2019, 06:03:01 pm One thing I left out if the OP was safety. I felt the LD which has you in an F-350 or 450 was a safer ride than a class A where you are essentially sitting at the business end of a trailer with a motor. 2 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #6 – February 05, 2019, 06:22:33 pm Quote from: Sawyer - February 05, 2019, 06:03:01 pmOne thing I left out if the OP was safety. I felt the LD which has you in an F-350 or 450 was a safer ride than a class A where you are essentially sitting at the business end of a trailer with a motor.Good point. Of all the various motorhome types, only Class Bs and Cs are manufacturer engineered to pass the Federal crash testing.The E450's seats, dash and airbags are part of a complete system, bigger rigs are not required to have the same, tested safety gear. Many As and DPs have no framing in the body, the outer shells provide the structureRoll an LD over and you will have a lot dented metal. Rolling many Class As and DPs will result in the coach coming apart.Larry 3 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #7 – February 05, 2019, 07:21:14 pm I prefer a class C or B for all of the safety reasons that you mentioned. But I have wondered once the roof of the cut-away chassis is further cut and mostly removed by the RV manufacturer, if the A pillar and what's left of the B pillar area could actually support the overhead in a full roll-over onto the roof. Hope I never have to find out, again. Sliding on the roof of a new Chevy Blazer in the mid 80s was more than enough for my lifetime.
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #8 – February 05, 2019, 07:36:21 pm I seriously considered the 24' Trek in 1993, and I recently missed an opportunity to buy a used '94 a few months ago. (hard to keep up with the Nordstroms! RV-Trader had one in Morongo Ca. for $18k. about 100k miles and fully operational! A cult classic now like GMC FWD motorhomes. It sold in hours. I test drove a used Trek in 1996, before I ordered my LD in 1999. I spent those three years looking in vain for a used LD TK. The Internet has gotten a lot better since then. The Isuzu chassis (an NPR truck) was superior, with a turbo diesel 4 cylinder 3.9 liter engine. An 18,000# GVWR and an optional (Maybe aftermarket) 55 gallon tank at 17-18 MPG. Ruined in later years by going to 26' and 28' variants, and then by people trying to tow cars. That engine was durable and pretty quick with the 24', but was never meant for anything longer, or towing another vehicle. (OK, a Seadoo maybe.) I think the governer that prevented driving faster than 72 put off a lot of people. The only problem I've heard about the bed was that you had to keep bedding out of the racks, and keep them clean and dry-lubed. Many RV maintenance people just couldn't handle that new-fangled stuff. The furniture wasn't the best. When Chevy bought Monaco, it required the Trek be built on a Chevy chassis, they made it bigger, heavier, slower, more expensive, and in my opinion ruined it. RonB 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #9 – February 05, 2019, 10:43:27 pm 890=-0987654321`Quote from: CactusCrew - February 05, 2019, 07:21:14 pmI prefer a class C or B for all of the safety reasons that you mentioned. But I have wondered once the roof of the cut-away chassis is further cut and mostly removed by the RV manufacturer, if the A pillar and what's left of the B pillar area could actually support the overhead in a full roll-over onto the roof. Hope I never have to find out, again. Sliding on the roof of a new Chevy Blazer in the mid 80s was more than enough for my lifetime.I would rather roll in a LD than any other brand of Class C I know of.Every LD has three steel roll bars, hidden inside the wood framing. It's part of the reason why LDs are heavy, for their size.I know of no other Class C with a similar structure. The front cabover is stronger than what you would expect.A Caravan member crashed into a piece of farm equipment, at speed, that ran a heavy steel, vertical blade into the passenger side of the cabover, slicing through the coach until it hit the first roll bar. It only needed a new cap, two windows, a mirror and the material damaged. It's still in use by the original owners.Ron and Steve know the rig I'm referring to, it was amazing how hard a hit it took, without tweaking the whole structure.Larry 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #10 – February 06, 2019, 10:18:29 am Quote from: CactusCrew - February 05, 2019, 07:21:14 pmI prefer a class C or B for all of the safety reasons that you mentioned. But I have wondered once the roof of the cut-away chassis is further cut and mostly removed by the RV manufacturer, if the A pillar and what's left of the B pillar area could actually support the overhead in a full roll-over onto the roof. Hope I never have to find out, again. Sliding on the roof of a new Chevy Blazer in the mid 80s was more than enough for my lifetime.I'm thinking more about collision than rollover. I agree with your assessment of that and a rollover likely wouldn't end well for occupants in an LD.
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #11 – February 06, 2019, 10:21:21 am Quote from: Larry W - February 05, 2019, 10:43:27 pm890=-0987654321`I would rather roll in a LD than any other brand of Class C I know of.Every LD has three steel roll bars, hidden inside the wood framing. It's part of the reason why LDs are heavy, for their size.I know of no other Class C with a similar structure. LarryI wasn't aware of that. Good info!I believe the Born Free is also built that way.Edit: Born Free does indeed have a roll cage."Born Frees are the safest RVs in America. No other Class C RV in America is built with three tubular steel roll bars."The Born Free Difference – Starting with Safety | Born Free RVApparently LD has steel reinforcement but not tubular?
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #12 – February 06, 2019, 10:35:50 am Quote from: RonB - February 05, 2019, 07:36:21 pmI seriously considered the 24' Trek in 1993, and I recently missed an opportunity to buy a used '94 a few months ago. ( RonBWhat I like about the 24 Trek is the living space you get with no bedroom. Huge bathroom and kitchen which my wife loved and a small dinette table made for two with a very open and roomy living area. The panoramic view out the front window is nice too.
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #13 – February 06, 2019, 11:15:33 am "Born Frees are the safest RVs in America. No other Class C RV in America is built with three tubular steel roll bars."----Born Free made a good product; too bad the business closed down in May, 2017.Out of cash, Born Free shuts its doors | RV Daily Report
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #14 – February 06, 2019, 11:19:06 am Quote from: Joan - February 06, 2019, 11:15:33 am"Born Frees are the safest RVs in America. No other Class C RV in America is built with three tubular steel roll bars."----Born Free made a good product; too bad the business closed down in May, 2017.Out of cash, Born Free shuts its doors | RV Daily ReportUsed only if you want one of these. I looked at them and liked them but the design was to confining for me. Love the LD windows!
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #15 – February 06, 2019, 11:19:53 am For those unfamiliar with Trek. Good pics.1997 Safari Trek 2430, Class A - Diesel RV For Sale in Sacramento, California... 3 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #16 – February 06, 2019, 11:57:14 am I had a 2004 Born Free very similar in size and floor plan as the LD rear bath. Kept it for 6 years and was glad to sell it and get the LD rear bath in 2010. The BF interior quality was lacking as I had the wooden cabinets breaking apart when traveling rough roads. There were several other negative BF issues that influenced my getting the LD. Best decision I have made. When I plan on selling our LD I will get another rear bath from the factory (maybe sooner than later).
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #17 – February 06, 2019, 02:33:34 pm In 2004, prior to the purchase of my 30'IB LD, I too was enamored of the Trek! I liked just about every aspect of it.However, having just recently ended my love affair with a 1971 Volkswagen Window Van, that everyone and their 2nd cousin tried to discourage me from buying due to the lack of protection from a head-on collision, I took those remonstrance's to heart when deciding on the Trek. No Sale! 1 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #18 – February 06, 2019, 06:06:20 pm Quote from: Lazy Bones - February 06, 2019, 02:33:34 pmIn 2004, prior to the purchase of my 30'IB LD, I too was enamored of the Trek! I liked just about every aspect of it.However, having just recently ended my love affair with a 1971 Volkswagen Window Van, that everyone and their 2nd cousin tried to discourage me from buying due to the lack of protection from a head-on collision, I took those remonstrance's to heart when deciding on the Trek. No Sale! That is an issue!
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #19 – February 07, 2019, 10:39:16 am I'm an adherent to the basic premise of "wisdom of crowds". Of course, people can amplify fads, but like a surface charge eventually wearing off, remaining demand and long-term positive opinion form a good basis of judgment.So, what's the point? The point is, I see these short '24 Treks around by the beach. Not the beater motor homeless, but people who have fixed/restored/preserved them, and take them out as a local beach vehicle. (Fun fact, both HB city and CA state have a 25' limit on their annual day passes ie same price as regular passenger vehicles.) In fact, there's one retiree well into his 80s who brings his down almost daily. He's got a regular spot, posts up in the passenger seat with the huge front window, and watches the world go by. What makes his case interesting is he had another '24 Trek that was slightly older (still nice). Then, a few years ago, he showed up with a newer, even better condition '24 Trek. Same place in front of the window, same bike rack in the rear from which he rides each day, etc.Well, naturally, seeing this dude on a regular basis, I started noticing more short Treks as they buzzed around. Not nearly as prevalent as LD (short versions), but still an obvious attempt to keep them in nice condition. The guy above keeps his immaculate, so because the glass is so clean and big, it's sort of impossible to not get a full glance at his entire interior - which is also kept pristine. (He pulls right up to the beach path.)All in all, anyone thinking of getting a short Trek would have plenty of company of other supporters. 3 Likes
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #20 – February 07, 2019, 02:34:49 pm "All in all, anyone thinking of getting a short Trek would have plenty of company of other supporters."When this thread started, I sent a copy of the URL to the one for sale to a friend who had had such a rig in the late 90's. We had become buds in the early 90's when we had Gertie (1985 Baby Daze) and they were just beginning to think about getting into RV'ing. Eventually, they acquired enough knowledge to RV, and purchased a used ~24-foot Tioga, Rosie.After a couple of years, they found that they really liked the lifestyle (both were self-employed), so decided to get a new rig, travel, and write a book - which they did.Their choice was "Wally", a 25-foot Trek with a beautiful mural of whales on the rear.As it turns out, said friends had really loved that rig, but after finishing their book, they traded it in on a 32-foot, very nicely laid out, Itasca Class A. We visited back and forth a few times while they had it, and, indeed, it was very spacious and quite nice. But as is so often the case, family exigencies arose, and the beautiful Itasca sat unused most of the time, so they reluctantly sold it outright, and have been RV less ever since.When we were talking yesterday about Wally, friend said that the pull to dash out to buy that rig certainly raised its head, and they would do it if there were less family problems to deal with right now.All that to say that it would seem from our friends' feelings, and the fellow at the beach mentioned above, the call to live at least a portion of one's life in a mobile environment can be a big draw.I know it is with me - a rolling dollhouse! ;-> Virtual hugs,Judie 1 Likes As an Amazon Associate Lazy Daze Owners' Group earns from qualifying purchases.
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #21 – February 07, 2019, 02:34:54 pm OK, I'll be the dissenter here. Personally I would never own a short class A due to the reasons mentioned by others. That being said, I would never own a Trek as it looks like a box (not quite a cube) on wheels. Give me a LD anytime over a Trek. Style points count, so there, I said it!
Re: LD verses Safari Trek Reply #22 – February 07, 2019, 07:14:02 pm Quote from: Jim Langley - February 05, 2019, 05:43:44 pmWhat we found is that many salesmen tell you that the Class A's are shorter than they actually are. Also (almost) all Class C's are longer than their model name and their description in ads suggests. Many owners and dealers do not know how long their vehicles are (and the dealers don't even care). That was my experience when I started searching for an RV in 2017. When I looked the first time at a Lazy Daze I brought a tape measure - and that 26.5' model was exactly 26.5 feet long from the outer end of the front bumper to the outer end of the rear bumper. However, the (original) owner of that 1995 Lazy Daze did not know for sure before the measuring how long the rig actually was.
Re: LD versus Safari Trek Reply #23 – February 08, 2019, 07:55:15 am Quote from: HiLola - February 07, 2019, 02:34:54 pmOK, I'll be the dissenter here. Personally I would never own a short class A due to the reasons mentioned by others. That being said, I would never own a Trek as it looks like a box (not quite a cube) on wheels. Give me a LD anytime over a Trek. Style points count, so there, I said it! Not sure which years but at some point Trek went from the rolling shoebox look to a swept back more aerodynamic front window which looked lots better and I would think helped MPG. Edit: Found one here. They look a little sleeker but yeah the LD is cool looking.I2001 Safari Trek in North Lauderdale, FL
Topic: LD versus Safari Trek (Read 544 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: LD versus Safari Trek (Read 544 times)
previous topic - next topic