Mpg/R-pod

brains77396

Active Member
The first thing I want to say is that this is not intended to bash another company, but to say that Heartland got it right. The wife and I have been ping-ponging between the MPG and the R-Pod. Without all the technical jargon, any trailer over a certain size must meet certain lighting requirements. It started when a new R-Pod owner went to register his trailer and could not because it did not meet the light requirements. So, I went to the MPG web site and viewed the MPG. Sure enough, there were the three lights across the back plus the amber and red lights, front and rear, mounted on the fender. Not sure how a major RV company could miss that. Anyway, to make a long story short, it pushed us off the fence to settle on the MPG. Good job Heartland, you did it right.
 

mcota

Member
We also looked at the R-Pod and came to the conclusion that the MPG was right for us. We felt that it was better constructed. I'm sure the R-Pod owners are happy with their decision, but we have taken three trips and couldn't be happier with our purchase. We are planning a month long cross-country trip and are excited about some quality family time in our MPG.
 

caver

Member
I was put off the rpod by an interesting A/C installation. Could have been a dealer boo-boo but it just looked like it did not belong on that camper.
 

kakampers

Past Heartland Ambassador
This is interesting, especially since Forest River is suing Heartland for making the MPG and "exact copy" of the R-Pod....guess that blows that claim right out of the water....LOL!! Way to go Heartland!
 

brains77396

Active Member
I picked this tidbit up on the R-Pod Forum. Anything over 80" has to have the lights. The R-Pod is 78". However, when you add the wheels and fenders on the outside of that, it is over 80". I would assume that FR just thought about the body and not the extra width the running gear added. This poor guy took his paperwork in to register and they told him he had to bring in the camper to be eyeballed. He did and the inspector failed it. He took it to some shop and had the three light bar added to lower read as the camper shape will only allow that. Put it right under the spare tire. So, if one is rear ended with the spare covering the light, is the camper owner at fault? Only this one case was posted, causing quit a stir.



This is interesting, especially since Forest River is suing Heartland for making the MPG and "exact copy" of the R-Pod....guess that blows that claim right out of the water....LOL!! Way to go Heartland!
 

sjmeyer

Member
I also looked at both myself. It only took me about 2 seconds to realize the MPG was the way to go. I've had my 183 since 4/1/10. It came with a little April Fools joke of "no spare tire installed." But after some wrangling with the dealer and Heartland, it looks like I'll finally be getting that last missing component.
--Steve
 
Top