This old Dodge motorhome caught my eye, for several reasons. One, I just have a soft spot for the genre, and have shot many over the years. And then there’s the fact that this is on the swb Dodge van chassis; now that’s a bit unusual. It must have been pretty much the cheapest motorhome in its time; that time being the great ’76-’79 RV boom, when countless small firms bought Dodge cutaways and built up a cheap wood-framed box and sided it in the ubiquitous aluminum sheets.
And of course the third and best reason is because of what it’s sitting in front of: an even bigger metal-sided box.
Here’s the frontal view. I have a vivid memory of seeing an ad for a similar rig back in that time, for $9,999. That was pretty cheap then, and comes to about $42,000 in today’s dollars, if that was in 1977 (it might have been a couple years earlier). No wonder they were so common at the time. And even a greater wonder is that some of them are still at it, over forty years later. I hate to say it, but I have a hard time seeing my Promaster still on the road in forty years.
The dodges are my favorite but I never understood why they made you have to carry two different types of spare wheels. A big upgrade to these things is to match the front wheel hub to the rear end so that all the wheels match and only one spare is needed.
You don’t, on this one. It had singles front and rear originally. That wider rear single was probably added later.
The ones that came with duals in the rear had a different hub in front to use the same kind of wheels there too, like typical 1 ton trucks.
There were a few exceptions to that in the first couple years of that, like ’71-’73 or so, but then they changed over to the 1 ton type wheels front and rear.
But this one is so small and light, it didn’t need duals. Even if this one came with a wider single originally, one (narrow) spare would still work.
I would wager this ’76 or so Dodge was very likely ‘born’ with conventional wheels on the front and ‘dually’ wheels on the rear. You are correct that Dodge’s first heavier class C cutaway motorhome chassis were configured this way, basically nothing more than a standard long wheelbase Tradesman van with no rear body and a D-300 rear axle bolted on. Notice the short (for a motorhome) wheelbase? The proper ‘MB-300’ class C chassis with dually wheels all around came out sometime around 1976 in a variety of longer-than-a-van wheelbases as a competitor to Ford’s new for ’75 E-350 Econoline chassis. After the real MB-300 was introduced, the earlier version with the mismatched wheels continued as a low priced chassis and was commonly used on smaller (cheap!) class C’s for the rest of the decade. Buyers were given one spare front wheel, I guess Dodge figured if you blew a rear you could just drive slow to a tire shop. I think they at least gave you the required 2 different sized lug wrenches!
I used to work on a lot of motorhomes. It was interesting at times…..
You’re right, with possibly some rare exceptions. There were some smaller coaches that had singles on the rear initially, including the Balboa. I thought the early Dodge Chinooks did too, but apparently not.
This is unusual in that it’s a 109″ swb van cutaway. I hadn’t even considered that they made a B300 version of the 109″ van, but they did.
Nice catch Paul and it looks like this does not have dual wheels on the rear axle. Also looks like this one has a generator.
Portland has some nifty looking RVs, but I usually do not photograph them since I have been confronted by the angry occupants a few times. Having a bike makes getaways quicker.
Portland Maine or Oregon?
Oregon.
Many kids that grew up in the 70s remember the Mini Winnebago featured in Disney’s ‘Escape to Witch Mountain’ from 1975.
I appreciated my Tonka version.
Wow! But isn’t this out of compliance with the federal regulation requiring all RVs to be painted “Desert Sand Snot”?
I mean, I haven’t actually looked up the reg, but…
“…I have a hard time seeing my Promaster still on the road in forty years.” Your old Chinook might still be on the road if the person you sold it to can put up with its faults for that long! 🙂
This little guy reminds me of the $5995 Winnebago F-17 Brave, CC here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1968-winnebago-f-17-the-model-t-of-motorhomes/
I will go for 1978 – last year of that 1974-78 grille design, and I believe the 78 to a blockier marker light from the earlier one that had been thinner and wider.
Count me as another fan of the B series van. Somehow ownership has eluded me more than once, despite a couple of good faith attempts. There is a guy in my neighborhood with a seldom-used Ram Wagon from 1994-ish. I keep resisting the temptation to go knocking on his door.
Paul, I never owned one, and neither did any family/friends, but these have always been intriguing. Maybe I should rent one sometime and see if it’s for me.
I vividly remember one of your essays from several years ago, talking about the hazards of wood framing (till then I had zero idea anything structural was wood), and rot, and so on. Here’s a nice column about all that from a guy who seems to know what he’s talking about: https://rv.org/blogs/news/aluminum-or-wood-rv-framing
Isn’t this actually a C-Class motorhome?
Indeed it is a class C motorhome.
Indeed indeed! 🙂
Fixed now.
This one is/was more a Tinderbox. I’ve walked by it twice and just checked facebook for any news. Turns out a buddy of mine from Blairally owns it; it was loaded with thousands of dollars in camping/outdoor equipment. The fire was put out after some damage, but it appears the arsonist returned a few hours later and finished the job.
It’s still curbside at 3rd and Monroe.
Walked by that yesterday afternoon. Took some shots. Wondered if it was arson or an accident. Not surprised.