What's the most cost-effective number of years to keep your RV?

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Now... I'm thinking that keeping your RV for 12 to 15 years is the best way to get all the value from the huge investment of money for your unit and drive as many miles as you can...

Why? It would be like buying a nice dress suit for a occasion and wearing it once or twice? That would be expensive too....

So...it stands to reason that the more miles you actually use your rig... the more enjoyment you get and isn't that why you purchased it in the first place?

Sure, there might be more repairs and maintenance, but, the cost of replacement, taxes, maybe financing ? Not everyone can pay cash....do you finance over 10, 15 or 20 years????

You can't take it with you...so, why not?

When the old RV gets too old or your tired of it? Again, still probably less expensive to repair what you have... assuming it's working for you???

So far so good on mine... but, I have had repairs and maintenance..... maintenance will always be there even on a new vehicle.

What do you think???

[hepcat]

An interesting question with as many answers as there are people who will reply.

I JUST sold my 24 year old Coachmen after owning it four of those twenty-four years and putting 40k miles on it. I made enough on the sale to more than pay for what I had into the Coachmen, buy my Airstream Interstate and put a few thousand in the bank as well. I'll drive it four or five years and find something different.

I look at this as a zero-sum game. If I can resell the coach for as much or more than I have in it and drive it forty or fifty thousand miles in the interim, I've made out just fine with my only cost of ownership being consumables and maintenance.

It's the depreciation that kills your finances.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

An interesting question with as many answers as there are people who will reply.

I JUST sold my 24 year old Coachmen after owning it four of those twenty-four years and putting 40k miles on it. I made enough on the sale to more than pay for what I had into the Coachmen, buy my Airstream Interstate and put a few thousand in the bank as well. I'll drive it four or five years and find something different.

I look at this as a zero-sum game. If I can resell the coach for as much or more than I have in it and drive it forty or fifty thousand miles in the interim, I've made out just fine with my only cost of ownership being consumables and maintenance.

It's the depreciation that kills your finances.

YES, depreciation schedule is really a big issue. ...
On the other hand, people like newer coaches with more updated safety features......

I purchased my 2012 RS Adventurous five years old in 2017...at least the most severe depreciation schedule had already passed. Still, it does continue to age and decrease in value whether you use it or not.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

On the other hand, people like newer coaches with more updated safety features......

I don't believe I've ever bought a car, truck, or pickup based on improved and/or updated safety features. I drove Jeep CJs for years. My purchase decisions are solely driven by finance considerations. That said, your thread is entitled "What's the most cost-effective number of years to keep your RV?" which is what I was responding to.

Buying a later model because of the advertising claims of manufacturers touting their new widgets is a completely different issue. And those widgets add cost to the purchase, complexity in operation, and sometimes exhorbitant expense, time, and frustration in repairs... few of which I'm capable of accomplishing DIY, and all of which keep me back in the early 2000's units that were still relatively simple with straight-forward systems (at least compared to the units produced since 2010 or so.)

Quite honestly, I don't know what I'll do after the '04 Interstate. It may be my last B-Van. Out-of-warranty repairs on the current crop of B-Vans will be nigh-impossible to do as the technology obsoletes and becomes unavailable, and will be (and actually already are) exhorbitantly expensive compared to the older generation of vans. And the system failures seem to be happening at higher rates as the complexity of the systems increase.

[booster]

I think that the number of years is going to be influenced a lot by what chassis it is on. The simpler units and ones with exemplary reliability records are not going to turn into money pits as quickly as the higher maintenance and part cost vehicles. The availability of aftermarket and used parts can be mean a huge difference in if you can afford to drive any particular older vehicle.


Once the warranties run out, all the costs get much more important to most of us.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by hepcat

the system failures seem to be happening at higher rates as the complexity of the systems increase.

I actually don't think that this is generally true. Overall, vehicles are more reliable than ever before. The complex technology actually contributes to reliability, via prognostics, automatic recalibration during wear-in, etc. Automotive electronics themselves are generally quite reliable.

The problem is that there are highly-significant and highly-salient exceptions due to immature technologies and ham-handed engineering. In our little corner of the world, Sprinter diesel emissions systems are the obvious example. This is an egregious example, and significant enough in the B-van world so as to distort our collective perception.

[Jon in AZ]

That’s a hard question, really. From a purely cost perspective (as the thread title suggests), the cheapest unit is the one you buy older- like 15 years older- and drive into the ground. Repairs will be part of the cost, but even a major drivetrain replacement doesn’t approach the first few years’ depreciation.

But doing that requires a certain level of mechanical aptitude and tolerance for unexpected breakdowns. As already said, it also requires accepting less-than-current vehicle safety standards.

Considering safety and reliability along with cost,, a good balance in my mind would involve purchasing a 3-5 year-old unit in good condition and keeping it to around 10-15 years. Avoid the heavy initial depreciation and bugs, and keep it until vehicle safety has gone through a generational shift and/or repairs start to interrupt travel plans significantly.

[mck150stone]

Years?? How about "Until it ends up in the estate sale".

Paul J

[avanti]

The traditional rule of thumb is: If all you care about is saving money, it NEVER becomes cost-effective to replace a vehicle. Fixing is always cheaper.

But, as has been discussed elsewhere, in the past few years, active safety features (active braking, blind-spot monitoring, lane assist, etc) have made new vehicles so much safer for driver and passengers, that it can be argued that not upgrading to such a vehicle may be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

You can upgrade to these features only up to a certain point. Having experienced them, I personally would never routinely drive a vehicle without these features.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

The problem is that there are highly-significant and highly-salient exceptions due to immature technologies and ham-handed engineering. In our little corner of the world, Sprinter diesel emissions systems are the obvious example. This is an egregious example, and significant enough in the B-van world so as to distort our collective perception.

You're absolutely correct that the automotive systems are quite reliable, Mercedes wheel sensors and emissions systems notwithstanding; but there are enough anecdotal reports of electric and electronic coach systems failures from "immature technologies and ham-handed engineering" in unnecessary "luxury" systems (like power window shades for example) that make it to market that, when a coach is out of warranty (in comparison to the older, more reliable proven systems) it makes it a real gamble financially to take one on in the used market, at least for me.

[GeorgeRa]

Diesel emission control is very complex, urea injection controlled by 2 solid state electrochemical NOx sensors at exhaust gas temperatures is amazing, it is amazing that it actually works in the real world.

Major issue is training of technicians capable of understanding the system allowing pinpointing the issue following by pinpointed repairs instead “how about replacing this part, oops, wrong one how about this one”. With these complex issues customers is at a mercy of dealers’ capabilities, but there is a potential solution to this issue - inform customer about specifics before visiting a dealer instead of blinding us with starts left over, or dummy lights or 21st Century dummy icons.

Large displays could easily show a text like this –

“Dear user,

Your engine’s computer senses that downstream NOx sensor is malfunctioning in the emission control system. This failure needs immediate attention within 15 engine starts. These are your potential dealerships which have parts in stock:
Dealer A – 35 miles away, phone number and total cost.
Dealer B – 55 miles away, phone number and total cost.

If you are unable to get to a dealer within 15 starts please call one of the dealers and they will increase the 15 starts limit.

Both dealers were notified and this message was sent to your smartphone.

Please accept our apology,

Sincerely,

MBUSA customer relations team”.

Is implementing such an infrastructure technologically possible – yes, will dealers lobby against it, yes.


While on technology,
My recent favored development is Mazda’s spark/compression ignition combo. Very lean gas/air mixture compressed (lean enough no be able be ignited by fixed compression). Toward the TDC a small amount of gasoline is injected at a very high pressure right next to the spark plug and ignited by spark. Increased pressure due to this combustion increases the pressure sufficiently to ignite the remaining lean mixture. The key point is that the timing is controlled by spark not by unreliable gazoline compression. This engine should be introduced soon and no NOx sensors nor urea nor DPF, likely just an old technology of Ox sensor and catalytic converter.

https://www.enginetechnologyinternat...-ignition.html
__________________
George
2013 Sprinter VOILA
https://goo.gl/photos/2NCR3teXLSwNYSwN8

[hardybob]

We bought our first motorhome, 1993 pace arrow, when it was 4 years old. Kept it for 9 years. Drove about 70 k miles. Bought our second motorhome, 2006 roadtrek 210, when it was 4 years old. kept it 9 years. Drove it 90k miles. Now have a 2015 fleetwood flair, bought 4 years old, and plan to keep it 9 years. Overall expense much less than trips where you fly or drive, stay in motels or hotels (and worry about bed bugs), and eat out all meals. Plus you get to see the country and stop where you want. Wouldn't do it any other way.

[paddy]

I keep most vehicles until a used up.
First RV was a pop-up.
Used 6 weeks a year for 25 years.
Traded it in when a spring broke and shop couldn't find a replacement.
Next pop-up had six years and sold to buy class B+/C-.
Never plan to sell.
Not as cost effective as the pop-ups but better meets our wants/need at this time.
(Close to retirement)

Current car has 168,000 miles.
Also have a 1993 and 1994 Miata but they are garage queens except for Sunday racing.

[hardybob]

Paddy, sounds like you get your money's worth. I used to autocross years ago with two datsun 510s and then a miata. Loved that miata. Then ran the racetracks club events with porsche and bmw with a M5 and a 325. Are you in the scca or another club?

[cbrown154@me.com]

The most cost-effective way to own a motorhome is to buy something with an American made chassis. Nothing against foreign cars, because I own three of them, but for a motorhome you can find ChevroletFord or Dodge dealers everywhere, but finding a Mercedes dealer might be tough. Also you pay a premium for a Mercedes and I’m not sure it’s always worth it considering the cost of repairs.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by cbrown154@me.com

The most cost-effective way to own a motorhome is to buy something with an American made chassis. Nothing against foreign cars, because I own three of them, but for a motorhome you can find ChevroletFord or Dodge dealers everywhere, but finding a Mercedes dealer might be tough. Also you pay a premium for a Mercedes and I’m not sure it’s always worth it considering the cost of repairs.

Yeah, they're expensive..it's a Mercedes Benz....

OK, go ahead and tell me..."What's wrong with the chassis?

[cbrown154@me.com]

I had a Volkswagen based Winnebago Rialta. It was very difficult finding a dealer to take care of a Volkswagen. I can’t imagine what it might be like to find a Mercedes-Benz dealer.
Every town in America has a Chevy or a Ford dealer. Also, if you look at historical reliability statistics, Mercedes-Benz is not really high on the list.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by hardybob

Paddy, sounds like you get your money's worth. I used to autocross years ago with two datsun 510s and then a miata. Loved that miata. Then ran the racetracks club events with porsche and bmw with a M5 and a 325. Are you in the scca or another club?

Detroit SCCA/Great Lakes Division SCCA
Autocrossing for 23 years.
Won the Great Lakes Division two years in a row when the fast drivers didn't show up
I gave up worrying about winning and concentrate on the fun factor.
If I ever sell the Miatas I can say "Only driven on Sundays".
I set one Miata up for the race track but cut back due to work and haven't been on the track in years.

Sounds like you have had fun with your racing.
Still doing it?

[paddy]

Originally Posted by cbrown154@me.com

The most cost-effective way to own a motorhome is to buy something with an American made chassis. Nothing against foreign cars, because I own three of them, but for a motorhome you can find ChevroletFord or Dodge dealers everywhere, but finding a Mercedes dealer might be tough. Also you pay a premium for a Mercedes and I’m not sure it’s always worth it considering the cost of repairs.

Talked to a ham radio club member Saturday.
He has a B+/C- and has 260,000 miles on it and still going.
It is 20 foot and he has used it as a daily driver since new.

[paddy]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Yeah, they're expensive..it's a Mercedes Benz....

OK, go ahead and tell me..."What's wrong with the chassis?

A neighbor saw our MB Sprinter RV and commented that he bought a used Sprinter with 250,000 miles for his business.
He traded it in when he cut back his business when it had 365,000 miles.
Never did anything to it but regular maintenance.

I have 20,000 miles on our Sprinter with no problems so far.

I have heard that not all dealers will work on RV based vans because of the extra weight that their lifts will not accommodate, both foreign and domestic .