2018-19 Nexus Viper Class C

We specifically wanted our 25ft Class C to be on the E450 chassis. Just over 26ft, bumper to bumper. The 182" wheelbase seems to be the perfect fit for this size. Absolutely love it. Three cross country trips now, along with some closer trips also, and we constantly comment on how smooth it rides. Very quiet also. I had the alignment corrected when new. Drives like an SUV. Handles well in the wind. Trucks don't bother it at all. Just a pleasure to drive it. Comfortable all day.

rockhillmanor wrote:

I can turn my 31 ft into any spot that a 24 ft can. It's not the length of the coach, its the experience of the driver or lack thereof.

True, but mechanical setup also helps. I've owned similar size RVs built on the Ford E-350, Chevy 3500 and Sprinter 3500. The Ford had the tightest turning circle, followed by the Sprinter. I could turn all three around in my backyard pretty easily, but the Chevy required a lot more jockeying.

I doubt we have that different a driving style {speed - heavy right foot etc.} and there is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel.

Apparently we do! :C

I understand that handling, at least in a straight line, is probably better with the longer wheelbase of a 31" C but have trouble believing it can compare with a 24 foot C in close quarters or windy conditions {the extra windage of the larger coach being the issue here}.

I can turn my 31 ft into any spot that a 24 ft can. It's not the length of the coach, its the experience of the driver or lack thereof.

"Currently have the 450 albeit on a 31 ft. Handling is much better. AND I tow a toad with power to spare climbing grades AND I get 12 mpg."

I never doubted you had the power to spare as the 6.8L V-10 is a beast. My point was that two comparable Class C's, one an E-350 the other and E-450 of the same age will have the same motor and transmission. Yes, the differentials vary with the 450 coming with a 4:56 and the 350 a 4:10 due to the difference in weight and it is that weight that makes a huge difference in performance. The 4:56 has to cost you about a 10 percent increase in fuel consumption vs the 4:10. Note that in any C over about 26' the 350 is just not an option.

My 2011 chassis 350 has a GVWR of 11,500 {Ford upped them to 12,500 starting with the 2012's}. Most late model 450's come in at a GVWR of 14,500 with both rated to tow 5,000#.
most Toads run around 3,200 - 4,200# which are well within the GCWR of the typical 450 at 18,500#. My 350 has a GCWR of 14,450 and my motorcycle cargo trailer and bike weigh 2,220#. At the CAT scale, fully loaded {bike trailer etc} I come in at 13,808#.

Obviously, with or without a toad, the 450 is humping 3,000 - 4,000# more than the 350 every mile it rolls down the road assuming they are loaded to, or near their respective GVWR/ GCWR's

What puzzles me is that you are reporting 25 to 33 percent better mileage than I have ever seen in 5+ years and 52,000+ miles. I average 9.5 loaded {cruising 63- 65} but not towing and 8.5 - 9 towing {cruising 60 - 63}.

Since we probably have the same motor and trans {your profile doesn't disclose your actual coach or toad} I have to wonder just how is that possible? Have you modified your drive train with a 5 Star Tune or something similar? I doubt we have that different a driving style {speed - heavy right foot etc.} and there is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel.

I understand that handling, at least in a straight line, is probably better with the longer wheelbase of a 31" C but have trouble believing it can compare with a 24 foot C in close quarters or windy conditions {the extra windage of the larger coach being the issue here}.

Happily, we all seem to love what we have, why else would we have them but unless you are loading and or towing heavy a lot I maintain that a 450 chassis in a C 25' or less tends to be overkill... unless you are like Phil whose idea of fun is to go out into the desert and collect copious quantities of rocks... jump in anytime here Phil. :B

Hopefully, this discussion from folks like us who have been there done that will be of benefit to the people who are shopping. Such is the beauty of this Forum and the exchange of information and of course...

As always... opinions and YMMV.

:C

rockhillmanor wrote:
Currently have the 450 albeit on a 31 ft. Handling is much better. AND I tow a toad with power to spare climbing grades AND I get 12 mpg.

I can understand better handling with an improved wheelbase to over-all length ratio. But 12 mpg? Really?

I suppose I could say that our ScannGauge-II says we get near 14 mpg when conditions are ideal. But my mpg numbers stated a few replies up, are trip averaging from the time we leave home, to the time we return home. I consider combined city, mountain, canyon, highway, park sightseeing, everything experienced throughout our trips from the Chicago area out to our national parks and back home.

And it seems that Murphy always has his way with us providing a significant headwind when heading west to our destinations, and also east when it's time to get back home.

Desert Captain wrote:
Rock hill manor, Methinks you are confused about the E-350/450’s. The 350 has a superior ride as in smoother vs the stiff ride of the 450. It also has more power as the engine/trans are the same but the 450 is packing an addition 2,000 pounds everywhere it goes.

The 450 gets worse mileage with its 4:56 rear end vs the 350’s 4:10. The 450 is a great chassis but on any Class C 25’ or under it is overkill at the expense of comfort and economy. If you are going to tow heavy they are worth a look but have less available power due to the extra weight.....

No, sorry I am not confused!
I've had both. Currently have the 450 albeit on a 31 ft. Handling is much better. AND I tow a toad with power to spare climbing grades AND I get 12 mpg.

Several years ago at the Tampa show we looked at a large Viper and the payload was low, under 1000 pounds. Something to consider.

We had a 2002 24' Itasca E-350. Now a 2015 27' Itasca E-450, and don't see/feel much difference.

Dusty

Desert Captain wrote:
Rock hill manor, Methinks you are confused about the E-350/450’s. The 350 has a superior ride as in smoother vs the stiff ride of the 450. It also has more power as the engine/trans are the same but the 450 is packing an addition 2,000 pounds everywhere it goes.

The 450 gets worse mileage with its 4:56 rear end vs the 350’s 4:10. The 450 is a great chassis but on any Class C 25’ or under it is overkill at the expense of comfort and economy. If you are going to tow heavy they are worth a look but have less available power due to the extra weight.

Also as noted E-350’s often come with the 55 gallon fuel tank. Mine does and after 5+ years and 52k+ miles I could not be more pleased with the ride and performance of my E-350.

Desert Captain said it very well.

You want the RV manufacture to select the appropriate chassis for the application. Have you ever rented a U-Haul truck? When empty, it rides horribly. When full, the ride smooths out. It's kind-of like that. You want to match the chassis to the load it will carry. When all loaded up for a good long trip, you want the over-all weight to be close to the chassis limit. Significant margin will yield a rougher ride. And as we all know, motor homes stay together better with a smoother ride. If using an E450 chassis on a smaller & lighter RV model, it will shake and bang down the road, rather than offer a smooth ride.

And like Desert Captain said, there is also a change in fuel economy. The E350 4.1 axle ratio yields roughly a 10% improvement in fuel economy. The reduced weight of a shorter motor home improves fuel economy further.

Our 2007 E350 motor home HERE is less than 24 feet long, weighs near it's capacity of 11,500 pounds when on trips considering 2 adults, 55 gallons of gas, 10 gallons of propane, and 42 gallons of fresh water, and our rig is very aerodynamic. We average 10.5 MPG when not towing, and 9.2 when towing our Jeep Liberty. The quality of ride is quite nice.

Rock hill manor, Methinks you are confused about the E-350/450’s. The 350 has a superior ride as in smoother vs the stiff ride of the 450. It also has more power as the engine/trans are the same but the 450 is packing an addition 2,000 pounds everywhere it goes.

The 450 gets worse mileage with its 4:56 rear end vs the 350’s 4:10. The 450 is a great chassis but on any Class C 25’ or under it is overkill at the expense of comfort and economy. If you are going to tow heavy they are worth a look but have less available power due to the extra weight.

Also as noted E-350’s often come with the 55 gallon fuel tank. Mine does and after 5+ years and 52k+ miles I could not be more pleased with the ride and performance of my
E-350.

:C