Old School

The motorhomes I've looked at in previous entries have all been based on a Sprinter chassis. This has been my focus because nothing comes close to their fuel efficiency. However, I did begin to wonder if I was being penny wise and pound foolish: Are there other choices that I'd be more comfortable in, and is miles-per-gallon really such an important consideration? Those are issues I consider in this post.

As I rambled around the internet gathering information, I ran across a page on Pinterest devoted to "Full Time RV Living!". Several of the most interesting items on the page linked to a blog by Andy Baird sharing his tips for RV living and experiences on the road. His situation is similar to mine: retired early, single, technically inclined, living in his motorhome, with a passion to see new places, meet interesting people, and do new things. I became quite a fan of his blog, reading not only all his tips and recipes, but every one of his blog entries starting from how he got interested in RVing to his journeys in two successive motorhomes. Both of those motorhomes were models from Lazy Daze, and he praised their design, craftsmanship, and durability. So, when I began to look farther afield for the perfect RV for me, Lazy Daze seemed like a good starting place.

For reasons that I covered in my previous post, I've been restricting my search to RVs 24 feet or less in length. Luckily, LazyDaze has two 24' models. Here is the exterior and floorplan of their "Front Dinette" model:

And below is the "Twin King" model:

Both of these are Class C RVs, meaning that there is a bed over the cab area. It's quite a large bed, too, nearly a full Queen Size. This is the bed I'd use on a daily basis if I chose either of these designs. Though there isn't much room between mattress and ceiling, I don't think that would bother me. 

Another feature both designs have in common is lots of large windows. A lack of windows has been a big negative in several designs I've previously considered, and the fact that Lazy Daze has windows essentially everywhere is an important signal to me that they really "get it"; they understand what the camping experience is about - at least for my tastes. The front page of their website proudly proclaims they've been in business 57 years, and that experience shows through in many details. You only have to look over their feature list to see that they've put a lot of thought into everything. I had a chance to visit their factory in Los Angeles, and the quality of their construction and materials is evident.

I had a hard time deciding which of the two designs I prefer. The Front Dinette design has a spacious bathroom including a shower that's remarkably large for a compact RV. I prefer this design's entry into the kitchen area to the Twin King entry into the bath area. However, the Twin King has a spacious wardrobe, and I like that the two sleeping areas can be separated from one another. Also, the large windows on three sides of the rear seating area give a spectacular view - almost like a garden room. The photo below gives some sense of the openness.

Another plus that both designs share is visible in the photo: a real oven under the stovetop; very rare in an RV this size. Some drawbacks shared by both designs are also visible: the upholstery and floor finishes are rather dated and not particularly attractive. I'm sure they're chosen to not show dirt and what more would you expect when you go "old school".

In the final analysis, I'd probably go with the Twin King design because of the wide open feeling of the seating area. A major project that Andy Baird describes on his blog is converting that seating area into an office, complete with desk and storage shelves. If I got a year or two into my travels and it turned out my intention to bring friends along on short jaunts wasn't working out, the office would be a nice option to have.

I would be quite comfortable living in either 24' Lazy Daze design, but there are two drawbacks that are significant to me. The first one may seem like nit-picking, but the second one might be quite significant. Both have to do with the use of a Ford chassis for the vehicle. One might expect Ford to be less durable than a Mercedes-Benz Sprinter, but on the other hand, parts and maintenance are almost certainly cheaper. The lower cost of Ford also shows up as a roughly $10K savings in initial purchase price. That $10K could be steadily earning interest or dividends until repair costs started showing up. No, the first problem for me with the Ford chassis, the nit-picking one, is evident in this photo:

This is the layout of the Ford cabin. That bulge out from the dash between the seats is a cover for the rear of the engine, and is known as the "doghouse" in the vernacular. This doghouse makes it impossible to move from either seat into the RV living space without either some gymnastic, back-spraining, moves or exiting via the cabin door and re-entering through the living space door. Neither option is something I want to have to accommodate on a day to day basis. Having to go outside, possibly in the rain or cold, to get inside makes no sense to me. Also, I believe neither cabin seat swivels around to face into the living space - probably because of the limited room in the cabin. So the cabin is just wasted space when you're parked. In contrast, it's quite easy to get from either cabin seat in a Sprinter to the back of the van; I've done it without difficulty. And, both Sprinter cabin seats easily swivel around to participate in the living space. 

The other disadvantage of the Ford chassis - or any chassis I've seen other than Sprinter - is fuel mileage, or lack thereof. No one seems comfortable quoting anything better than 10 mpg for a layout like the Lazy Daze, and some say 8 mpg, depending on conditions. Sprinter RV owners regularly claim 20 mpg or better. Granted, the Ford runs on gasoline and the Sprinter on diesel, but those fuels have regularly swapped places for which is the less expensive. So it's time to do a little calculation and see if that difference in mpg is really a significant factor in an overall budget or if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

Cost of fuel, of course, depends on how many miles per year you travel. I'm going to estimate 20,000 miles per year for myself. While that's more than twice what I drive now, it may sound low for someone on the road full time. But I don't intend to be on the road full time, really. I plan to set a leisurely pace, often stopping in one place for a week or more at a time. Annual mileage of 20K is about 400 miles per week, which sounds about right to me. A couple days of travel per week, trying to do no more than 200 miles per day. Even at this seeming snail's pace, I could cross the country in six weeks; what's the point of going any faster?

I'm going to estimate the cost of fuel at $4 per gallon for either gas or diesel. Given the current boom in oil production, I'd say it's a toss-up whether this estimate is too high or too low. On a Ford chassis at 10 mpg I'd use 2000 gallons to travel 20,000 miles and spend $8000 on fuel. In a Sprinter at 20 mpg, I'd spend half as much: $4000. That's a savings of $4000 per year. To me, that's a significant savings. That means one extra overseas tour per year. Put another way, if the Ford costs $10K less initially, I've made that up in fuel costs after two and a half years. If I travel more miles per year, or the cost of fuel goes up (assuming gas and diesel rise equally), the balance tips further in favor of the Sprinter. So, nice as the Lazy Daze is, I'm going to stick with a Sprinter.

There is one other option, just coming on the market, that might rival the fuel economy of the Sprinter. I'll take a look at it in my next post.