Airstream interstate - is it worth the hype?

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by tympa

Hi I'm new to the forum and thinking about buying a class B RV.

I went to my local dealer and was looking at the Roadtrek eTrek but then saw the Airstream interstate. I really liked that the etrek had all electrical and seemed more functional but the airstream seemed to have more safety and driving functions like parking assist, collision avoidance etc. But, is the Airstream really a better drive and is it really better to be without propane? Thanks!

Generally Airstream orders the Sprinters they use for the Interstate with more options than the other B-Van converters, with Advanced RV an exception because they custom order for each customer.

Regarding your question of all electric vs. propane. That depends a lot on your use.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

Generally Airstream orders the Sprinters they use for the Interstate with more options than the other B-Van converters, with Advanced RV an exception because they custom order for each customer.
.

Our GWV Legend came with pretty much every possible option. Not that it matters any more.

I wonder if there are any unsold Legends still sitting around?

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

Generally Airstream orders the Sprinters they use for the Interstate with more options than the other B-Van converters, with Advanced RV an exception because they custom order for each customer.

IMO, any Sprinter destined for being equipped with a second alternator should include the MT4 High Idle Option which would at least help to defend against the ubiquitous AC death spiral scenario. Compared to the cost of retrofitting this option, the $650 OEM option seems like a bargain.

[BBQ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dflvOLMZX60

[Eric Swenson]

Yes Manx, our new 2017 Winnebago ERA certainly does not include the newest safty features in their vans. We just got the 2017 ERA 170A, there were no new safety technologies included.
I was a bit sad about this, but the rest of the new ERA package was pretty nice and we sprung for it. It means I will have to rely on my ageing brain cells and vision. Mirrors are great as is back up camera. As a quasi-Luddite I suppose I am not too upset at this point about the not having the new safety tech. Wish it did though.

[Eric Swenson]

sorry Tyampa, I got off track a bit. I have lived under the assumption for years that anything Airstream was superior to all other brands. I really can't say about Airstream Sprinter Van conversions, but do know personally of more than a few owners of new Airstream Bambi Travel Trailers have had some bad experiences with the quality of the build on those trailers. I also believe that Thor Industries bought out Airstream a number of years ago and the quality is not what it once was. > Just rumors, I can not substantiate it. I would gladly like to hear that I am wrong on my assumptions.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by Eric Swenson

Yes Manx, our new 2017 Winnebago ERA certainly does not include the newest safty features in their vans. We just got the 2017 ERA 170A, there were no new safety technologies included.

It's probably am inter-company fight. The sales people probably want it as a standard item but the bean counters determining the price point say nyet. The customer has no clout at this point. But I think this will change when insurance carriers start offering customer discounts for both liability and collision premiums if the insured vehicle has additional safety features.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by avanti

Our GWV Legend came with pretty much every possible option. Not that it matters any more.

I wonder if there are any unsold Legends still sitting around?

Yeah, mine is still for sale at Lake Regions RV in Minnesota.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

IMO, any Sprinter destined for being equipped with a second alternator should include the MT4 High Idle Option which would at least help to defend against the ubiquitous AC death spiral scenario. Compared to the cost of retrofitting this option, the $650 OEM option seems like a bargain.

It won't get you second alternator, just the bracket for a second alternator. In fact you bracket don't work for a Delco alternator that I have. That would require a custom bracket.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by Davydd

It won't get you second alternator, just the bracket for a second alternator. In fact you bracket don't work for a Delco alternator that I have. That would require a custom bracket.

Yes, you're correct but that's not my point which is that running the Nations alternator at a higher idling speed will increase it's amperage delivery somewhat under high load demands. It won't eliminate the AC death spiral as the Delco unit does but it should help to slow it down.

[mtmdatlanta]

The only other upfitters that include the safety tech on the Sprinters are Pleasureway and Roadtrek, per their specs. Not even Chinook, at their high prices. Avion lists the Active Safety Plus package as a mandatory option for $4995, but doesn't spell out the safety tech, so I'm not sure. Winnebago includes lane assist on the Paseo, but I don't think any more is offered on the Transit. None of the Promaster based rigs seem to have any safety tech, but I don't think it's available at all from Dodge.

[Manx]

Coachmen Galleria also has safety tech. Not apparent from the listed specs, but it's in the brochure.

[Keyne]

Driven Sprinters with and without the safety tech and I would fully agree that the safety tech is useful. I love the blind spot assist on our Agile. The system is intuitive and very easy to include in the drivers overall awareness. Similar to GPS replacing paper charts when sailing... I always used both and never fully relied only on the tech. However it is great to have. As mentioned above the tech doesn't replace being attentive but it does assist the driver very well and I am glad we have it. Also the new Sprinters are VERY nice to drive vs the T1s very smooth and reminds me of a Mercedes sedan.

[SiennaGuy]

Yes, the new safety stuff is complicated, expensive and difficult to fix. I'm alive to appreciate that fact only because of the safety stuff in my former van.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by SiennaGuy

Yes, the new safety stuff is complicated, expensive and difficult to fix. I'm alive to appreciate that fact only because of the safety stuff in my former van.

To which 'safety stuff' are you referring? And how did it save your life? What kind of van was it? Can you elaborate please? I'm always interested in learning what works and why.

Thanks!

[SiennaGuy]

Originally Posted by hepcat

To which 'safety stuff' are you referring? And how did it save your life? What kind of van was it? Can you elaborate please? I'm always interested in learning what works and why.

Thanks!

My 2008 Toyota Sienna minivan was rear ended in heavy stop and go traffic on a busy highway. The car in front of me stopped and I quickly and safely stopped (probably assisted by the minivan's anti-lock brakes). The car behind me, however, didn’t stop and hit me really hard. My guesstimate was that their car was traveling about 40 mph when it hit me. It pushed my minivan into the car in front of me, and my minivan accordioned. There was no single safety feature that saved me--it was the combination of things working together and designed into the Sienna that was life saving. After being towed off the highway to a side street, I noticed the following while waiting forever for a second tow truck:

1. The minivan's front crumple zone collapsed just as crumple zones are supposed to. It crumpled almost to the front wheel wells.
2. The front hood folded up neatly, instead of flying open.
3. The engine dropped, instead of ramming into the passenger compartment.
4. Even with the front end collapsed and the engine dropped, the car was still steerable, indicating that the steering column and its power steering mechanism were able to flex instead of pushing into my chest.
5. I remember feeling the seat belt pre-tensioners tightening quickly, holding me firmly in place inside the car.
6. The rear crumple zone collapsed, as well. The rear one collapsed only as far as the back of the rear seat. With the rear axle and wheel well being located where they were, it looked like it was designed to collapse no further.
7. The entire floor remained flat and all of the seats, including the rear seats, remained in place. Unlike the seats in a car, minivan rear seats are usually removable and on struts that I never would have guessed to be so strong.
8. I remember my head hitting the headrest, but it prevented whiplash like it was supposed to.
9. All five doors remained firmly closed despite all of the stresses to the structure. None of them popped open. This included the rear door that was smashed in. Even after the accident, they all could be opened and closed like normal.
10. There were broken windows, but there were no sharp pieces of glass, trim or anything else intruding into the interior of the car.
11. There were no leaking fuel lines or damage to the gas tank, preventing a fire.

Besides the pebbles of broken safety glass, the passenger compartment was otherwise completely and totally fine, with one very minor exception. Ironically, a clip on the cheap plastic box that held my drug store first aid kit was damaged. It was behind the rear seat.

The only crash safety thing that didn't activate was the air bag system, probably because I wasn't going fast enough when I hit the car in front of me. I'd stopped, and my foot was still firmly on the brakes when I was hit. My hunch is that I hit the car in front of me with a lot of continuous force, but at a speed that was too low to trigger the air bags.

On that side street, I remember staring at my Sienna, seeing that it was noticeably shorter, and being stunned. Over and over I thought about the passenger compartment being completely fine, despite all of the major damage. After being checked out at the hospital, my only injury was to my wrist, probably because I was holding on to the steering wheel for dear life. My only passenger had a minor headache.

[InterBlog]

Siennas are renowned for their crash safety. That's how they got their market share. I'm on my second one since buying the first gen model in 1999, which was its second model year.

That being said, I currently have THREE outstanding safety recalls on my 2011 Sienna, and Toyota flatly refuses to fix any of them (air bag defective, both sliding door motors defective, and spare tire mounting system defective). I don't know that I'll be buying a third, because I'm disgusted with customer service. The sliding doors in particular are a huge hassle. We're instructed to disconnect the motors and use them manually, but they weren't designed for manual use, so they keep jamming open on me and I've repeatedly had to go into troubleshooting mode just to leave the danged grocery store parking lot. God forbid I ever be accosted by a criminal in a parking lot and have to get out of there quickly only to have my stupid side door jammed open, rendering me unable to move. Personally I hope someone sues Toyota within an inch of its life because of the way they've handled these things.

Now, on the OP's subject of Sprinters within the context of Airstream Interstates, I have never driven an NCV3, only a T1N, and in some ways I'm sure that the newer Sprinters with newer tech are superior - at least for a while. The problem with tech is that it tends to fail and the more tech there is piled onto the vehicle, the greater the failure potential. We see this over on Air Forums - and endless succession of threads about [this assistive tech failing] and [that assistive tech failing]. My T1N Interstate may be a bit less comfortable and a bit more difficult to drive, but at least I don't have to deal with all that nonsense, so that is an upside as I see it.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by SiennaGuy

My 2008 Toyota Sienna minivan was rear ended in heavy stop and go traffic on a busy highway...

...Over and over I thought about the passenger compartment being completely fine, despite all of the major damage...

Thank you for sharing your experience. I am absolutely convinced that the engineering that goes into making the "passenger safety box" is worth its weight in gold. I also believe that seatbelts should be four point safety harnesses as used in race cars, but of course they're a hassle to put on and folks just wouldn't. I'm amazed at the number of folks who are still ejected and killed in rollovers because they couldn't even be bothered to fasten a three-point belt.

And I want to be perfectly clear about my thoughts... my concern isn't passive safety built into the car, it's active electronic measures that take over some of the driver's responsibilities when it perceives a problem. I guess I'm happy that it can do that if you're in the on-coming lane and not very good at driving. I'm just not convinced that I want it happening in MY car when I'M driving.

And, Interblog... your experience with the electronics in the Sienna illustrates my concerns exactly. While your issues with the door systems aren't lane-keep assist, or automatic braking, they are still illustrative of the state of the art of electronics right now.

[avanti]

On the other hand, I have owned a fully-equipped (including first gen laser cruise control) 2005 Sienna since new. Just passed 150K miles. Since we've owned it, we spent money on exactly ONE repair (a short piece of the exhaust system).

It is by far the best vehicle we have ever owned, but that is not my point. The point is that you can conclude exactly NOTHING about the reliability of any vehicle by reading on-line owners' fora. As is well-known, those who report issues represent a hopelessly biased sample.

This distinction between passive and active safety systems totally puzzles me. All the laws of physics are equally reliable. There is NOTHING intrinsic to electronic systems that makes them inherently less reliable than their mechanical analogs. What IS true is that NEWER technologies tend to be less reliable than mature ones. Not very surprising--it takes time to get good at building new things well. But this has nothing to do with electronics vs mechanicals. (The only failure on my 12 year old Sienna was mechanical!)

It may be rational to decide to stay one or two generations back as a matter of taste (this amounts to favoring reliability over new features, which is fine). I do not believe that it is rational to have a bias against electronics per se.

[hepcat]

Lest you think me to be a luddite... I should mention that my first interactions with programming were with punch cards... so I go back a LONG way with computer technology.

Engineering passive systems is indeed about physics and the way materials react under stress. Auto engineers have done an amazing job in the past twenty years of refining exactly how crash stress vectors translate into how they build bodies to be sacrificed to spare the passenger compartment. Those systems remain intact until needed, and then, if designed properly, they perform their intended function. And that engineering is tested, not only virtually, but in actual crash tests where vehicles are sacrificed. And what is learned from one vehicle can be applied to all others, industry-wide. And it is.

Unfortunately, with electronics driven by computer systems, you're at the mercy of electrical connections, chip, sensor, and circuit quality control, and the foibles of human programmers. When that equipment and those instructions apply only to the operation of the engine and transmission, a failure means that the vehicle stops running. That can be really bad, depending on where and when it happens, but isn't on the same magnitude of the car's systems giving the steering a nudge, or braking on its own, or taking other autonomous action without the knowledge, consent, or input of the driver. And while there may be a programming team in place for a specific manufacturer, we have NO idea how competent or experienced they are... and like a piece of chain, the software is only as competent as it's weakest piece of code.

You can argue that for someone who's a poor driver, we all benefit from that technology as it may keep them out of a situation that could hurt someone. I can't disagree with that; that said, why do we allow poor drivers to share the road with us? When I was still working and guest-lecturing at driver's education classes, my first question was always: "What's THE most important thing you need to do while driving a car?" I believe that in all of the time I guest-lectured at those classes I had only ONE student provide the right answer which is..."drive the car."

That led to a discussion of distracted driving and how it's not only tolerated but encouraged by all of the entertainment gadgets now available in the car.

I guess my objections are as much on principle as an active mistrust of electronics. I do NOT want my car to try to correct my driving for me. I DO expect the other drivers on the road to take their job of driving the car seriously. Unfortunately, I know that too many don't. If they did, we wouldn't need to be paying for active driving intervention safety systems that rely on inherently unreliable technology.