2002 Fleetwood Bounder problems

Filed Jun 9, 2012 · Brakes, Steering · 10,000 miles · TX

Owning this coach since 2003 near new I have had hundreds of episodes of rocking, tracking and steering control problems that have been near misses and roll over accidents. I have owned the same brand in other rvs previously through the years because I believed in the manufactured brand. The suspension is well known as a "fleetwood rocker" instead of a fleetwood bounder by all the motorhome dealers that carry other frames and chassis. They obviously know the problems with it being dealers and not engineers. I replaced the shocks to remedy the problem only to find out the shocks were not bad, they are undersized for the coach being too top heavy , and the cantilevered coach weight that is rear to the axles. The same problem lies with the suspension on sway and steering problems. There are no tracking or steering controls on the frame to counterbalance the added weight of a coach on a ford workhorse chassis. A stabilizer on the front does not help due again to being top heavy and all the weight rear of the back axle. This coach should have never been allowed to be built on that particular frame or chassis with that much rear axle tag weight, without added controls front and back to stabilize the suspension and steering or at least lengthened wheel base. Brakes are same issue, under sized and caused severe heating problems to the point that a design change has since been made. Thanks to somebody, I just wish the suspension and steering would get the same attention by them accepting ownership of their mistake or before a fatality occurs.

Filed Sep 22, 2010 · Brakes · CA

I received the information from workhorse for the fix for the brake problem, I tried to call them and go threw the system of transfers only to get hung up on by the machine. Yes my motorhome is part of the campaign, but who's gonna pay for the thousands I've spent replacing brake rotors to keep the motorhome useful while waiting almost 8 years. You can't get a person a workhorse on the phone to even ask the question much less get an answer.

Filed Apr 22, 2010 · Brakes · 22,000 miles · FL

Tl * the contact owns a 2002 fleetwood bounder rv. While driving 50 MPH the vehicle front brakes locked up. He drove the vehicle off to the side of the road. The vehicle had not been repaired at the time of the compliant.the contact reference the federal safety agency recall 09v11000 and stated that a quick fix recall repair was done some years ago. The approximate[failure and current mileage was 22,000. Updated 7/28/10.

Filed Sep 6, 2008 · Brakes, Wheels · 6,578 miles · CA

While on a trip through northern california, my ABS light came on and breaking ability was compromised. This is despite me downshifting repeatedly while going down hills and applying breaks steadily (no pumping) as needed. After I returned home, I immediately took the rv to a service center and was told that the o-rings on the front breaks had melted due to excessive heat and wheel seals had been damaged. In addition, both front calipers, all 4 ABS sensors and brake fluid needed to be replaced due to boiling of the breaking fluid. The consequences of this workhorse engineering failure cost me $2133 on my rv, which has only 6578 miles on it. We had used our rv frequently on local trips up until this trip to northern california. Since this is now the 2nd failure in less than 4000 miles, I have gone on the internet and discovered that there are numerous other workhorse chassis owners who are experiencing the same problems with their braking system. I believe if this engineering defect is not resolved, you can expect to see accidents, injuries and fatalities as a result of this poorly designed system. The fact that workhorse has added larger break systems and a zerk fitting correction to rv's built after ours was manufactured indicates to me that they know there's a problem with the brakes on this model. Based on the comments I am reading on-line, I also foresee multiple lawsuits against workhorse......particularly if their investigation or neglect on this issues drags on for years and is not resolved quickly.

Filed Oct 26, 2007 · Acceleration · TN

Tl*the contact owns a 2002 ford (na) bounder. The contact received a recall notice for the federal safety agency campaign id number 07v336000 (vehicle speed control). The dealer stated that the parts for the recall repair were unavailable and did not know when they would arrive. The contact felt that was unacceptable. There had been no failure to date. The engine size was unknown. The current mileage was 18,000.

Filed Jan 31, 2007 · 25,062 miles · CA

Tl*- the contact owns a 2002 fleetwood bounder rv. The product # 9211460-59 and serial # 12500059. He would like dometic refrigerator informational model #rm3862. The contact's refrigerator cracked and began leaking. He came home and noticed the odor of the coolant leaking. To avoid a fire he turned everything off. The entire unit had to be replaced. He later read in the good sam magazine about the recall. The contact stated the dometic voice mail message was vague, and the repair was finished on 12/2/06. The contact expects to be reimbursed and is aware of recall dates april - june 2007. *ak updated 2/22/2007 -

Filed Mar 29, 2006 · Tires · GA

2002 fleetwood bounder left inside rear tire blew out. This took out a considerable amount of electrical wiring. *ts the consumer was concerned about the location of the electrical wiring next to an inside tire.

Filed Dec 6, 2005 · Body · 18,000 miles · TX

Dt: the contact stated the interior overhead console in the front passenger area dropped down from the ceiling about one inch. The contact feared that this might completely separate from the ceiling and injure the occupants. The vehicle has not been seen by a dealer.

Filed Sep 23, 2005 · Brakes · 2,990 miles · FL

Dt: the consumer received the federal safety agency recall 04v084000 concerning brake calipers on 2002 fleetwood bounder in october of 2004. The consumer was having problems with brakes starting in july 2003. The consumer had the brakes fixed under warranty. The recall work was done on august 10, 2004, but the owner had not received recall notice at this point. He was given information about the recall from the dealership. The consumer called dealership back and told him that recall work needed to be done. The consumer was informed by the dealer that recall work had already been done. The consumer insisted that only the rear brakes were fixed, and that was when the consumer received information from dealer about the recall and to call them immediately. The consumer called dealership and was told that the work had been done and that was all that was required. . The consumer questioned dealership about the front brakes, and they would not give him an authorization to take care of them. While the consumer was driving the front brakes were smoking from the calipers and almost caught on fire. The consumer was waiting on the tow truck to pick up the vehicle. The dealer did not know when the parts will be available. Meanwhile, the consumer was stuck in a different state, and wash upset with manufacturer for not fixing the vehicle the first time. *ak

Filed Jan 30, 2004 · Suspension · 500 miles · SC

2002 fleetwood bounder 36 s purchased new 4-april-2003 dealer has refused warranty service since 5-april-2003,vehicle is still under the original new vehicle 12/15 warranty and now has only 1500 miles,it has taken over 8 months to get selling dealer to take vehicle in for warranty repairs,vehicle has as severe rebound bouncing problem such as when hitting unven pavement crossing a bridge at road speed the front of the vehicle bounces and feels as if the vehicle is rocking across the rear axle pulling the front up.I am told this is a common problem on the 228 wheel base vehicle with the long over hang aprox 14 ft past the rear axle.the dealer parts mgr sid was tires need balanced,this diagonosis was made without even looking at the vehicle and that it was my problem,I do not believe tire balance will solve this ,I have asked the manfacture to resolve the front suspension problem as it is unsafe to operate in the current condition they refuse.