should I install aftermarket 4" deep tran pan?

I'm in the market for a Winnebago or Itasca 2006-2007 View/Navion 23J, which is T1N 2.7L 5 cylinder, that I'll outfit for a 12 month trip to South America. In South America, the big trucks wear out the ruts leaving a higher than typical crown in most dirt roads and there are many thousands of miles of dirt roads to cross.

South America has a LOT of steep mountain climbing at high altitude (10-15k), so I'm concerned about the T1N's weak tranny. I will not be over, but will be at GVWR (10,200) the entire trip, which will put about 18,000 miles on the vehicle. I elected not to go with a 2" lift kit because of money and ride characteristics. Hence, I plan to have a stock suspension height and 16" tires. I plan to install a heavy duty aluminum transmission cooler and, at this time, plan to utilize the stock oil cooler.


I'm concerned about loosing ground clearance and I don't know if this 4" deep pan would be the lowest point. I just don't have the experience to know what's best here. Surely, busting the pan in a remote location (which is everywhere) down there would be painful.

Do you think the deeper pan, with a gauge, makes sense?

Thanks
 

nutterbutter

2004 LTV Free Spirit T1N
Not sure where you will be in South America, but I have driven in a few countries. There are MANY different types of dirt road. If you are in fact doing thousands of miles of dirt, I definitely wouldn't go making the pan lower.

While I've done very well driving my van on Western USA dirt roads, these are roads ANY crossover could easily pass. A Toyota Camry could pass with just a little difficulty.

Serious dirt roads seem to be worn out by two types of vehicles: Toyota Hilux and medium sized trucks. Both have significantly higher ground clearance than you. The Hilux roads will have branches that scrape both sides of the RV at the same time, and scrape the top as well. Possibly all 3 sides at once. The long wheelbase and long overhang past the rear axle will be issues.

I couldn't take a Navion to all places I drove a Hilux in Nicaragua, Columbia or Argentina. That's not to say you couldn't go to those countries and drive dirt... just that there are certainly 'normal' roads that would be damaging to a small class C RV.
 
Not sure where you will be in South America, but I have driven in a few countries. There are MANY different types of dirt road. If you are in fact doing thousands of miles of dirt, I definitely wouldn't go making the pan lower.

While I've done very well driving my van on Western USA dirt roads, these are roads ANY crossover could easily pass. A Toyota Camry could pass with just a little difficulty.

Serious dirt roads seem to be worn out by two types of vehicles: Toyota Hilux and medium sized trucks. Both have significantly higher ground clearance than you. The Hilux roads will have branches that scrape both sides of the RV at the same time, and scrape the top as well. Possibly all 3 sides at once. The long wheelbase and long overhang past the rear axle will be issues.

I couldn't take a Navion to all places I drove a Hilux in Nicaragua, Columbia or Argentina. That's not to say you couldn't go to those countries and drive dirt... just that there are certainly 'normal' roads that would be damaging to a small class C RV.
Thanks. I've been talking to a fellow whose been guiding convoys of 10 RVs to Ushuaia, Argentina for many years (done tours in Latin America). He said the 23' Winnebago View 23J would make I ok, but obviously it has it's limitations. One of his customers went down to Ushuaia with him in one. The T1N is wonderful, but I'm trying to do what I can to mitigate the risk of falling prey to it's big weakness - the transmission.

I'm down to 4-5 vehicles and will buy one by year's end. I'm not mechanically inclined enough to know, but I've read this forum, talked to Mercedes and Bob at Silver Star, etc. I need a 2006 or 2007 because they burn the type of diesel available down there. Also, vehicle insurance is unavailable or cost prohibitive, so I'm trying to stay on the lower end of market value for these 06-07 units, which implies miles in the 50,000 - 85,000 range, let's say.

Is it better to pay more for a lower mileage unit with an original transmission at say 50,000 miles, and just take unit to South America, or, is it better go get one with 100,000-125,000+ original miles and replace the transmission (reman) and various suspension components, assuming I end up with the same out of pocket in either case?

It seems like the higher mileage unit with more mechanical work would be the more sound vehicle with less risk of breakdown. Am I thinking right about this, or should I spend the whole budget getting the lowest mileage possible?

The cooler and pan are just an attempt to minimize the tranny blow up risk. I'll do the cooler in any event, but the pan may not be as important.
 

Midwestdrifter

Engineer In Residence
A user on this forum (Calbiker?) posted some graphs showing trans temps on his heavy sprinter motorhome. His data shows that trans temps are well controlled. Adding a large volume pan has little or no benefit except extending your fluid service interval.

It has the downside of decreasing ground clearance, and increasing trans fluid warm up times in cold weather.

Trans failures in heavy motorhomes seem related to a fairly small thrust bearing used in one of the gear packs. If you are really concerned, you can have the trans preemptively rebuilt.

With a scan gauge, you can add a trans temp monitor, the PID codes are on this forum. If you are worried, you can add the gauge. Monitor the temps after purchase, and do some test drives. If the fluid temps are fine, don't bother with trans coolers or deeper pans. You would just be adding unneeded complexity, and possible failure points.

You can also contact a trans rebuilder. Silver Star in Oklahoma comes to mind. Ask them what they suggest doing, and if their are any modifications they suggest. Take it with a grain of salt though, as many rebuilders will blanket suggest adding an external cooler.


If the worst case scenario happens, you can have a new trans (minus bell housing and TC) shipped via DHL or fedex in a week or so. Obviously not ideal, but it can be made to work.
 

Eric Experience

Well-known member
Outwestbound.
Rather than try to beef up the vehicle you should spend the extra effort to get a light weight conversion. If you weigh the vehicles before purchase you will find some are over GVM before you start loading. Some vehicles are sold because they are just to heavy. If you can find one that is 1ton under GVM you will have a vehicle that has not been predamaged by overloading. When you head off resist the temptation to take lots of stuff, that will help a lot with the wheel ruts and the transmission temp. Eric.
 

GaryJ

Here since 2006
Outwestbound.
Rather than try to beef up the vehicle you should spend the extra effort to get a light weight conversion. If you weigh the vehicles before purchase you will find some are over GVM before you start loading. Some vehicles are sold because they are just to heavy. If you can find one that is 1ton under GVM you will have a vehicle that has not been predamaged by overloading. When you head off resist the temptation to take lots of stuff, that will help a lot with the wheel ruts and the transmission temp. Eric.
Outwestbound,
Here's some data points that might interest you regarding weight: I purchased a new 07 View H one mile from the factory and on my first drive took it to the Forest City Co-op and had it weighed. I had purchased the first special order View that was built without a generator. With full fuel, full water and full propane the GVW was 9120 lbs, 3260 front and 5880 rear. This was without occupants. Published limits are GVWR 10,200; GAWR-front 3859; GAWR-rear 7056.

This motorhome has been driven many miles in Mexico running at or above GVWR without any known problems. Some of the time it towed an 1800 lb. utility trailer. Notice that the added weights of the GAWR's is 10,915 lbs. I'm not saying that makes it OK to exceed 10,200 lbs. but it has always been a point of interest and discussion among View/Navion owners.

Gary
 
Outwestbound,
Here's some data points that might interest you regarding weight: I purchased a new 07 View H one mile from the factory and on my first drive took it to the Forest City Co-op and had it weighed. I had purchased the first special order View that was built without a generator. With full fuel, full water and full propane the GVW was 9120 lbs, 3260 front and 5880 rear. This was without occupants. Published limits are GVWR 10,200; GAWR-front 3859; GAWR-rear 7056.

This motorhome has been driven many miles in Mexico running at or above GVWR without any known problems. Some of the time it towed an 1800 lb. utility trailer. Notice that the added weights of the GAWR's is 10,915 lbs. I'm not saying that makes it OK to exceed 10,200 lbs. but it has always been a point of interest and discussion among View/Navion owners.

Gary
Gary. Thanks. I'm a finance guy, travel fulltime in a fifth wheel and understand the weight certifications, etc.. I have manufacture's "Motor Home Weight Information" sheets for a few "for sale" units, so I had some actual "as built/ UVW" figures.

I view being overweight from both the mechanical and legal aspects. Because of the wiggle room for insurers have on a material claim, I don't exceed GVWR ratings. That doesn't diminish the usefulness of your data, because folks who do fine aren't represented much on the forums. Seems (at least to a newbie to the forum), that those with past or existing problems are over represented, but that should be expected.

A weight sheet for a 2006 Itasca Navion 23H that I have, loaded off the showroom, pegs UVW/GVW at 9,017, including full fuel tank (same top end ratings as yours). The Onan 3.6Kw, plus the tale pipe, is say 175#, water is 283# and LP is 60#. Adding water and LP and subtracting the generator from my comp above is 9017-175+283+60= 9185, which should be comparable to your 9120, and 9185 is just 65# higher, perhaps for some other items deleted from your unit and/or my underestimate on the generator, plus my comp isn't the same year.

I understand the axels add to 10,915, or 715 over the GVWR. I honestly don't know the mechanical implications, but I do understand how some weight would overlap and require uprating the axels for the practical way they carry the loads.

I won't pull a trailer. The mechanical issue to me, if I'm at GVWR, is that the GCWR is 13,700. As a triple asterisk note to GCWR, the manufacture's weight sheet says that, if a trailer IS NOT equipped with brakes that activate with the Sprinter's brakes, then the GCWR must be derated to GVWR + 1,000#. Hence, the Sprinter's capabilities (at least in terms of suspension and braking ) are designed for at least 11,200, which is a 10% bump over GVWR, from my reading.

The T1N is a strong vehicle, but in it's RV application, the transmission is a little light. Like most RV problems, I suspect that 80% + are user errors brought on my expectations told to them by marginally ethical RV dealers AND manufacturers. I mean, why advertise lots of storage, when the same can't be practically utilized. Oh well!

Thanks again for your info Gary.
 
Last edited:
Outwestbound.
Rather than try to beef up the vehicle you should spend the extra effort to get a light weight conversion. If you weigh the vehicles before purchase you will find some are over GVM before you start loading. Some vehicles are sold because they are just to heavy. If you can find one that is 1ton under GVM you will have a vehicle that has not been predamaged by overloading. When you head off resist the temptation to take lots of stuff, that will help a lot with the wheel ruts and the transmission temp. Eric.
Thanks Eric. I've got a spreadsheet with 25 units for sale in the 2006-2007, and nearly every one is loaded. The manufacturer seems to have included awnings, generators, etc., in all of them. My South American trip is an unusual use, so I'm comfortable making mods that would not make sense in the United States. If there is anything left of the View when I return from SA in a year, I'd reverse these mods to recapture resale value.

I'll look for an underweight rig. As it stands today, this link shows my current thinking for using a "View or Navion" for this trip. No final decisions have been made.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/XbQUp8KffLOeqdbe2
 

Top Bottom