Is this wheelbase too short March 18, 2003, 08:50:12 am Yahoo Message Number: 19971Hello all you lazydazersI am looking at a 1983 20' lazy daze w rear lounge, chevyvan30 chassis, 60,000 miles, 350, well maintained. However, I'm a bit worried about the wheelbase being a bit short. RVconsumers group says don't go less than 54, and I do believe the 20 footer has a wheelbase ratio of 52 (wheelbase of 126).Any one had any experience with this model? Is the wheelbase issue overstated or is this model going to be fatiguing to drive?thanks a lotOh, thanks for the great site and informative messages
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #1 – March 18, 2003, 12:39:12 pm Yahoo Message Number: 19979QuoteHello all you lazydazersI am looking at a 1983 20'.... However, I'm a bit worried about the wheelbase being a bit short. RVconsumers group says don't go less than 54, and I do believe the 20 footer has a wheelbase ratio of 52 (wheelbase of 126). I just measured my 1984 on the Chevy G30 chassis which is nearly identical to the '83 as best as I can tell. (They are actually 22' not 20' unless there is a model I don't know about).The overall length bumper to bumper is 22'. The distance from the center of the front wheel to the center of the rear wheels is 12' (144' wheelbase).This gives a ratio of 12/22 = .545, which is just a touch above the RV Consumer Group recommendation.Hope that helps. Chuck.
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #2 – March 18, 2003, 01:45:35 pm Yahoo Message Number: 19982QuoteI just measured my 1984 on the Chevy G30 chassis which is nearly identical to the '83 as best as I can tell. (They are actually 22' not 20' unless there is a model I don't know about). There was a 20' model that had a rear wrap-around dinette/lounge. It may have been on the shorter chassis. I have never seen this model on the Chevy chassis, but it was offered.Steve
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #3 – March 18, 2003, 06:20:41 pm Yahoo Message Number: 19989Quote from: raysonet"Hello all you lazydazersI am looking at a 1983 20'.... However, I'm a bit worried about the wheelbase being a bit short. RVconsumers group says don't go less than 54, and I do believe the 20 footer has a wheelbase ratio of 52 (wheelbase of 126).I just measured my 1984 on the Chevy G30 chassis which is nearly identical to the '83 as best as I can tell. (They are actually 22' not 20' unless there is a model I don't know about).The overall length bumper to bumper is 22'. The distance from the center of the front wheel to the center of the rear wheels is 12' (144' wheelbase).This gives a ratio of 12/22 = .545, which is just a touch above the RV Consumer Group recommendation.Hope that helps. Chuck. Thanks for taking the time to respond Chuck. I have measured the length of the 83 and it is 20'(240"} and the wheelbase is 126... and is .525. just short .. So my dilema is whether to ignore comsumers guidelines for the ratio. So I was hoping some of the lazydazers would have had personal experience which would help me .. either to let go of purchase or buy. I did drive the rv at speed of 55 - 60 and it was a windy day and so the ld did float and drift .. It was easy to handle in the wind but I wondered if I would feel the same way three hours later.Again thanks for your thoughtsmike
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #4 – March 18, 2003, 07:54:13 pm Yahoo Message Number: 19997QuoteI just measured my 1984 on the Chevy G30 chassis. The overall length bumper to bumper is 22'. The distance from the center of the front wheel to the center of the rear wheels is 12' (144'' wheelbase). This gives a ratio of 12/22 = .545, which is just a touch above the RV Consumer Group recommendation...... Chuck Thanks for taking the time to respond Chuck. I have measured the length of the 83 and it is 20'(240"} and the wheelbase is 126... and is .525. just short . Again thanks for your thoughtsmike Mike, my pleasure. I'd love to see a picture of that 20 footer. I didn't know there was such a thing. Learn something everyday.I've seen a lot of debate about the RV Consumer Group ratio. In general it is a good guideline, but as with any guideline there seems to be a lot of caveats. The 20 footer ratio you mention is at .525 that is sooooo close to being in the good range (.54-.57), couple this with the fact that since it is an LD it is probably very well balanced, I would say it is probably a lot safer than other RV's with the same ratio. Then throw in stuff like how far do your bumpers stick out? On mine the rear bumper sticks out about 8 inches, the front bumper a little more than 3 inches. Is it fair that an RV that has integrated bumpers saves nearly a foot? If you don't count the bumpers your length is about 19' (228") and your ratio would be 126"/228" = .55. Do you really think that the RV's performance would be better if you removed the bumpers and had a "good" ratio of .55? The ratio is guideline, if you had a ratio of .40, run for the hills, but when it's that close other factors like the overall balance of the RV are just as important,(IMHO).I would do what you did, drive it and see if it's bad. I will tell you that my 22' moves around a bit in a good wind and when big trucks go by too, so from what you said I don't know if the 20' is that much worse to drive than the 22'.I wonder if LD stopped making the 20' because of the ratio or for some other reason like not being able to get the chassis, or not selling enough of them.I bet I'd buy that 20' in a heartbeat.Let us know what you decide.Chuck.
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #5 – March 18, 2003, 08:37:57 pm Yahoo Message Number: 20004QuoteI just measured my 1984 on the Chevy G30 chassis. The overall length bumper to bumper is 22'. The distance from the center of the front wheel to the center of the rear wheels is 12' (144'' wheelbase). This gives a ratio of 12/22 = .545, which is just a touch above the RV Consumer Group recommendation......ChuckThanks for taking the time to respond Chuck. I have measured the length of the 83 and it is 20'(240"} and the wheelbase is 126... and is .525. just short . Again thanks for your thoughtsmikeMike, my pleasure. I'd love to see a picture of that 20 footer. I didn't know there was such a thing. Learn something everyday.I've seen a lot of debate about the RV Consumer Group ratio. In general it is a good guideline, but as with any guideline there seems to be a lot of caveats. The 20 footer ratio you mention is at .525 that is sooooo close to being in the good range (.54-.57), couple this with the fact that since it is an LD it is probably very well balanced, I would say it is probably a lot safer than other RV's with the same ratio.Then throw in stuff like how far do your bumpers stick out? On mine the rear bumper sticks out about 8 inches, the front bumper a little more than 3 inches. Is it fair that an RV that has integrated bumpers saves nearly a foot? If you don't count the bumpers your length is about 19' (228") and your ratio would be 126"/228" = .55. Do you really think that the RV's performance would be better if you removed the bumpers and had a "good" ratio of .55? The ratio is guideline, if you had a ratio of .40, run for the hills, Quotebut when it's that close other factors like the overall balance of the RV are just as important,(IMHO).I would do what you did, drive it and see if it's bad. I will tell you that my 22' moves around a bit in a good wind and when big trucks go by too, so from what you said I don't know if the 20' is that much worse to drive than the 22'.I wonder if LD stopped making the 20' because of the ratio or for some other reason like not being able to get the chassis, or not selling enough of them.I bet I'd buy that 20' in a heartbeat.Let us know what you decide.Chuck. Hello Chuck Thank you for your thoughts, experience and insight. You have spoken with a rational mind and have soothed my apprehensions. I have spoken with the mechanic who has worked on it over last 7 years and he validated it's worthiness.So, I am prepared to move forward with an offer. Thank you again, Chuck, for your great common sense and great knack to sift through to the bottom line.much appreciatedMike
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #6 – March 19, 2003, 12:30:42 am Yahoo Message Number: 20017QuoteI am looking at a 1983 20' lazy daze w rear lounge, chevyvan30 chassis, 60,000 miles, 350, well maintained. However, I'm a bit worried about the wheelbase being a bit short. RVconsumers group says don't go less than 54, and I do believe the 20 footer has a wheelbase ratio of 52 (wheelbase of 126). I checked the specs on the 20' model, and it uses the same 146" wheelbase chassis as the 22' models. It is called the 'Rear Dinette'. They also made what they called an 18' model, using the 125" wheelbase chassis (8900 GVWR). It is called the 'Side Dinette' and has a rear bath enclosing the fridge and wardrobe. The information I have is from at earliest '85, as all models had the twin 6V coach batteries - in '83 they did not. Possibly the earlier 20' model was on the shorter chassis, but it seems unlikely. Is the model you saw the "18'" one? This model has a significantly lower payload capacity than the longer wheelbase - and that would apply to any model on the 125" chassis.SteveSteve
Re: Is this wheelbase too short Reply #7 – March 19, 2003, 08:36:36 am Yahoo Message Number: 20020QuoteI am looking at a 1983 20' lazy daze w rear lounge, chevyvan30 chassis, 60,000 miles, 350, well maintained. However, I'm a bit worried about the wheelbase being a bit short. RVconsumers group says don't go less than 54, and I do believe the 20 footer has a wheelbase ratio of 52 (wheelbase of 126).I checked the specs on the 20' model, and it uses the same 146" wheelbase chassis as the 22' models. It is called the 'Rear Dinette'.QuoteThey also made what they called an 18' model, using the 125" wheelbase chassis (8900 GVWR). It is called the 'Side Dinette' and has a rear bath enclosing the fridge and wardrobe.The information I have is from at earliest '85, as all models had the twin 6V coach batteries - in '83 they did not. Possibly the earlier 20' model was on the shorter chassis, but it seems unlikely. Is the model you saw the "18'" one? This model has a significantly lower payload capacity than the longer wheelbase - and that would apply to any model on the 125" chassis.Steve Hi SteveThis '83 model is 20' .. measured it with my 25 foot tape measure. I'm getting the impression that this is an unusual length. It has rear lounge and wet bath behind the driver, 60,000 miles, and it come with an outdoor screen/tent attachment which becomes a private outdoor room ..kind of neat. Any way, I decided to buy for 7800. will pick it up in a couple of daysthanks for your thoughtsmike