Jump to content
Rockin'R

Considering 1990 Toyota Winnebago Warrior

Recommended Posts

I test drove a 1990 Toyota Winnebago Warrior with a V6 today and left a deposit on it. I currently have a '78 Toyota Dolphin, (17ft) that I absolutely love... but its lack of power on the freeway or long inclines scares the ^#*@ out of me! I'm not sure the size or weight of the Warrior yet, I'm guessing it's probably about 22ft. Does the V6 engine offset the additional weight of the bigger camper? or will I be in the same boat essentially when it comes to no power on long inclines? I live at high altitude in a hilly/mountainous area. When I drove it today I could get it up to about 60 max on a long incline where the speed limit was 65. Is that about the max I could expect? What kind of mileage can I expect?  (I average about 14-17 in the Dolphin). What else can anyone tell me about the differences I might expect between the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for one a much smoother ride. The V6 chassis handle and drive way better than the older ones. Yes it's still going to slow down on big hills. Hey my V6 Explorer does. I make it up the hill just fine and so will you. For anyone looking for a speed wagon you need to not buy a Toyota. Most V6 owners report about 15 MPG.

Linda S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, linda s said:

Well for one a much smoother ride. The V6 chassis handle and drive way better than the older ones. Yes it's still going to slow down on big hills. Hey my V6 Explorer does. I make it up the hill just fine and so will you. For anyone looking for a speed wagon you need to not buy a Toyota. Most V6 owners report about 15 MPG.

Linda S

Thanks! I did notice the smoother ride, plus amenities I don't have in the Dolphin. That mileage sounds decent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailer Life magazine did a road-test on a new 1990 Winnebago 21 footer with the 3 liter V6.  Fuel mileage for a near 4000 mile trip no faster then 60  MPH came up with 12.7 MPG average.  Had  the highest tankful with 15 MPG and the lowest tankful at 10.6 MPG.   The driver said when climbing a 6% grade - it could just maintain 50 MPH at a 4000 foot altitude.

On flat ground - 0-60 MPH in 23.3 seconds.  40-60 MPH in 13.1 seconds.

The driver also noted that at 55-60 MPH on a flat-highway it seemed to cruise well.  But at 65 MPH he said the pedal was pushed near to the floor all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rockin'R said:

Thanks! I did notice the smoother ride, plus amenities I don't have in the Dolphin. That mileage sounds decent. 

Yes a shower you can actually use. Wow. Like a real house

Linda S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a comparison of the 3 liter V6, 21 foot Winnebago - compared to a 17 foot Dolphin with a 2.2 liter four-cylinder

Dolphin 2.2 liter straigh 4 -   0-60 MPH in 37 seconds.  40-60 MPH in 19 seconds.  Fuel economy average - 15.1 MPG

 

Winnebago 3 liter V6 - 0-60 MPH in 23.3 seconds.  40-60 MPH in 13.1 seconds. Fuel economy average - 12.7 MPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jdemaris said:

Here is a comparison of the 3 liter V6, 21 foot Winnebago - compared to a 17 foot Dolphin with a 2.2 liter four-cylinder

Dolphin 2.2 liter straigh 4 -   0-60 MPH in 37 seconds.  40-60 MPH in 19 seconds.  Fuel economy average - 15.1 MPG

 

Winnebago 3 liter V6 - 0-60 MPH in 23.3 seconds.  40-60 MPH in 13.1 seconds. Fuel economy average - 12.7 MPG

Thanks, those look like some solid facts. I see you also have a '78 Chinook. I'm guessing that has the same engine as my Dolphin, although the Dolphin has a 5-speed transmission. Would you say you prefer the smaller Chinook over your larger Mini-Cruiser?

Seeing you have 3 eases my "am I crazy" feelings for thinking I may just want to keep both! ;)

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, linda s said:

Yes a shower you can actually use. Wow. Like a real house

Linda S

The man I bought my Dolphin from had fun fixing it up. He made one shower you can run out the "kitchen" window to shower outside, and a diverter to the one in the "bathroom". The hot water heater is a 5qt saucepan with a cooking thermometer stuck through the lid. You" heat it to 120, turn off the burner and jump in the shower" (his instructions! lol!, but it works!) He put adjustable power nozzles on each of them so you really can get a decent shower with very little water. I love the quirkiness of it all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Chinook and it is fun to drive and has plenty of power (as compared to the Minicruiser). It can also get 22 MPG.  But . . having a bathroom with us with the Minicruiser is a huge asset. I kind of like the power steering too.   Using the Chinook makes us feel like a bunch of hippies "roughing it" in our VW van, on the way to Woodstock.  Using the Minicruiser makes us feel like we have a small, comfortable home with us.  We are planning on driving out to the southwest next year from Michigan and I still haven't decided which one we are going to drive. In the mean time (this winter) I'm thinking of finding a way to build a small bathroom in the Chinook. We'll see. If I could find a way to get 18 MPG with the Minicruiser and do 65 MPH with it - it would be my #1 choice. I don't think that is possible however, unless I stick a turbo-diesel into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely feel like a hippie in my Dolphin, but that's ok. :)  I repainted the interior in a fun color combination. My niece tells me it's my "fiesta-mobile". I do have a small bathroom in it though. The man I bought it from had taken the toilet out and left a porta-pottie. I find I like that. I can empty it basically anywhere (forest service outhouses, rest-stops, my own house) and don't have to pay an rv park dump fee. Do you not have a space for a shower/toilet stall?

I have a Mercedes with turbo-deisel and it's nice once I'm out on flat road, but actually worse as far as slow pick-up speed, and not as good on tight-curve up&down mountain roads as my Dolphin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rockin'R said:

 

I have a Mercedes with turbo-deisel and it's nice once I'm out on flat road, but actually worse as far as slow pick-up speed, and not as good on tight-curve up&down mountain roads as my Dolphin. 

I drove a 1981 diesel Chevy Chevette with a 1.8 liter for years (just got rid of it last year).  Also a 1991 VW Jetta 1.6 liter diesel. Neither had turbos. I still have my 1985 Isuzu 2.2 diesel mini-truck with 4WD also with no turbo.  Your Mercedes is a rocket-ship compared to some of the diesels I've had.  But when comparing one turbo-diesel to another, it is amazing how different then can be.  My 1992 5.9 liter turbo-intercooled Cummins has much more power then my 1994 7.3 liter turbo diesel Ford and the 5.9 gets better fuel mileage too. Even odder - the Dodge has 3.50 axle whereas the Ford has 4.10 axles - yet the Dodge pulls much better with a load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will see a huge difference, in great part due to fuel injection at altitude. A 22RE would be a big improvement too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living out west where you are likely to see big elevation changes, EFI is a huge advanage as it does its fuel/air ratio adjustments on the fly. With a carb, you can set it for one altitude. For others it is too rich/lean.  I wonder if anyone has ever done a remote mixture adjustment setup as is used in carbureted aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many old cars had remote mixture and remote timing adjustment (20s-30s).  From the tests I've read - fuel injection that is computer controlled keeps the air-fuel ratio correct when altitude changes, but does not offset the loss of power. All engines, regardless if carbed or electronically injected - lose 3% power for ever 1000 feet of altitude unless they are supercharged.  With a mechanical or exhaust-driven supercharger, the loss is only 1%.  It is the reason why many early turbochargers were sold as "altitude compensators."  

I saw a recent test on a new 306 horsepower 3.5 liter Toyota car that made 306 HP at sea-level. It dropped 245 HP at 6700 feet, and dropped to 215 HP at 9900 feet. That engine has variable valve timing, electronic direct injection, a very high 10.5 to 1 compression ratio, etc. and still had all that power loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bicoastal eric said:

You will see a huge difference, in great part due to fuel injection at altitude. A 22RE would be a big improvement too

Do you mean in a positive way, much more power than in my '78? and 22RE would be an improvement for my current '78?

I see you drive a 1990 also. I don't know if it has the same size/weight camper on it that I'm looking at, but are there any quirks about that year I should know about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toyota 20R = 95 hp, Toyota 22R = 108 hp, Toyota 22RE = 114hp.

It REALLY come down to pounds per HP, a smaller RV with a small engine may be just as quick  as a larger unit with more HP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes anything with fuel injection will have a huge difference. 

I havent driven my current rig through the rockies yet but I have driven my 1984 18' carb'd 4 speed sunrader through there as well as a 1987 21' fuel injected 22RE automatic.

The bigger, fuel injected 1987 did much better at altitude, in that rig I would be passing half of the semi's and the other half was passing me.

in the 1984, the only vehicle I passed was a double load of gravel being pulled by a dumptruck and a tractor, down to 10-15mph in first gear at some spots.

the 1987 never went below 20mph on any grade / altitude.

 

The 1990 dolphin v6 is a decent rig, I'd say standard quality inside and out. I think the RBR mini cruiser was slightly better build and trim quality but not a big difference. The Sunrader I was super excited to get one, being the "best" coach of any toyota moho. Well, now that I own one, I'm really not that impressed. ALL of the framing and paneling is PARTICLE BOARD! In my mind, that drops the interior build quality to the lowest of any of them, some years have more fiberglass inside like in the upper cabinets, but my 1984 is all stupid particle board (basically cardboard) Now, of course the exterior build quality is much better, far fewer leaks, but even there, the "foundation" aka the way the fiberglass shell is attached to the toyota chassis is lacking in my opinion. ANYWAYS... the 1990 Dolphin is fine, just make sure you spend plenty of time on the roof looking for cracked sealant and potential leaks. The layout is great, our preferred arrangement is to have a dinette that folds into a bed as well as a couch that flips out into a bed as well as a separate shower (my gf wasn't a fan of the "wet bath" in the shorty sunrader) Check out the airbag system, it will be a few hundred $ to get it fixed if not working. And of course theres the difference between the 22re and the 3vze (v6). The 4 banger is simpler, easier to work on, a tad more "bullet proof" but the V6 has the extra power you want and is a great engine as long as the valves are checked and the coolant system is in good shape.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WME said:

Toyota 20R = 95 hp, Toyota 22R = 108 hp, Toyota 22RE = 114hp.

It REALLY come down to pounds per HP, a smaller RV with a small engine may be just as quick  as a larger unit with more HP

And 3.0 V6 = 150hp

At low speeds, pounds per HP. But then overcoming aerodynamic drag becomes a much larger part of the HP requirements than weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek up North said:

And 3.0 V6 = 150hp

At low speeds, pounds per HP. But then overcoming aerodynamic drag becomes a much larger part of the HP requirements than weight.

Absolutely true. And even the shorter rigs have the same frontal area and aero drag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bicoastal eric said:

Absolutely true. And even the shorter rigs have the same frontal area and aero drag

Not the ones with pop-up roofs like the Chinooks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more road tests. Note how the heavier Chevy with the biggest engine beats them all in speed and fuel mileage.   Pop-up roof I suspect helps a lot.  Good old fashioned pushrod engine too.  

 

 1979 19’ Odyssey on Toyota. 2.2 engine and four speed manual . Weight 4770 lbs. 7' 6"high.
0-60 MPH = 32 seconds. 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds.

 

1978 Trotwood, Toyota . 2.2 engine and four speed manual, 3470 lbs,

0-30 MPH – 5.5 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 21 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 12 seconds.

 

1978  Galavan 400 on Datsun chassis. 2.2 engine, 4 speed manual trans. Weight – 3730 lbs.
0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds.

 

 

1978 Galavan 400 ,Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual
16’ long, weight– 4000 lbs. 6' 8" high.
0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds

 

1977 Dolphin RV on Toyota chassis.  16’4” long.

4 speed manual trans.  2.2 engine and four speed manual.

4000 lbs. 8’4” high
0-60 MPH = 37 seconds, 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds

 

1979 Sand Pak, Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual. 9' high.
4500 lbs.
0-60 MPH=32 seconds, 40-60 MPH=18 seconds

 

1990 Provan Tiger, 4.3 V6, auto trans. Pop-up roof. 6' 10" high.
Weight = 5400 lbs.   Aver. fuel-mileage @ 60 MPH - 15.8 MPG
0-60 MPH=15.1 seconds, 40-60 MPH=8.6 seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 93 winnie warrior, I had a 92 itasca spirit , both with the VZ3E engines.  I am happy with the engines, even though the current cause me some grief (ala overheated due to radiator hose coming off (probably my fault - after doing the timing belt). 

 

I get 14 -- 14  1/2 on highways at about 55 and down to 12 creeping around the mountains.  I have climbed colorado mtn passes - usually end up in 2nd gear at about 40 - 45 mph (puts it well into the power curve).  I have down a few in 1st at about 15-20 (power band).  

I certainly would not want any LESS power.   The 4 cyl has a great reputation, but unless I was going to be in the flatlands, I want the 6 cyl.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2016 at 5:47 PM, jdemaris said:

Here are some more road tests. Note how the heavier Chevy with the biggest engine beats them all in speed and fuel mileage.   Pop-up roof I suspect helps a lot.  Good old fashioned pushrod engine too.  

 

 1979 19’ Odyssey on Toyota. 2.2 engine and four speed manual . Weight 4770 lbs. 7' 6"high.
0-60 MPH = 32 seconds. 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds.

 

 

 

1978 Trotwood, Toyota . 2.2 engine and four speed manual, 3470 lbs,

 

0-30 MPH – 5.5 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 21 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 12 seconds.

 

 

 

1978  Galavan 400 on Datsun chassis. 2.2 engine, 4 speed manual trans. Weight – 3730 lbs.
0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1978 Galavan 400 ,Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual
16’ long, weight– 4000 lbs. 6' 8" high.
0-30 MPH – 5.7 seconds, 0-60 MPH – 20.5 seconds, 40-60 MPH – 11.5 seconds

 

 

 

1977 Dolphin RV on Toyota chassis.  16’4” long.

 

4 speed manual trans.  2.2 engine and four speed manual.

 

4000 lbs. 8’4” high
0-60 MPH = 37 seconds, 40-60 MPH = 19 seconds

 

 

 

1979 Sand Pak, Toyota chassis. 2.2 engine and four speed manual. 9' high.
4500 lbs.
0-60 MPH=32 seconds, 40-60 MPH=18 seconds

 

 

 

1990 Provan Tiger, 4.3 V6, auto trans. Pop-up roof. 6' 10" high.
Weight = 5400 lbs.   Aver. fuel-mileage @ 60 MPH - 15.8 MPG
0-60 MPH=15.1 seconds, 40-60 MPH=8.6 seconds

 

I don't see any numbers to compare had mileage. But I promise you the old Chevy would do worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I have both a Chevy Provan and a 22re Sunrader. The Chevy wins on mileage at higher speeds, 65 and up. At below 60 the Toyota can beat it by a couples mile per gallon at the most. I can't be sure of this cause I don't think I've ever really driven my Tiger that slow for any extended length of time. My Tiger is a high top too not a pop top. My  v6 Nissan Sunrader beats the Toyota too at higher speeds. Guess I can't really compare cause anything above 70 the 22re is screaming. Funny the Toyota is still my go to rig. Just happier in it

Linda S

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×