24 ft ClassC MH downsides

Does that engine have a track record yet ?

I learned a lot from this thread thanks for sharing your experiences. I just compared the 450 stripped chassis to the 350 stripped chassis and could find no difference for 2020/2021 in the Ford web site. From previous posts older versions had some major differences. One thing I noticed was two 7.3 engs options, one was a premium version with 350 HP the other was an economy version at 300 HP. I think 300 HP is plenty for a 24ft MH. Has anyone found and MPG difference between the two?

pnichols wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

Gjac wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Never realized that short C's had handling issues with a WB/L ratio of .54 of 54%. Mine is 52% and I drive it like my car with one hand even with trucks passing me. I notice most of the C's I looked at were as high as my A. I wonder if the height to length has more affect because of the higher CG. Do shorter C's feel tippy when cornering than say longer C's on the same chassis? ............just not sure of the corner bed and getting up 3 times a night to go to the bathroom, but everything is a trade off.

Any class C with a poor wheel base ratio (like we have) will not handle as well as one with a better ratio. Fortunately if your new rig has a "handling" problem, $1000-$3000 in aftermarket upgrades will get you satisfied.

You should have a much better chance with a brand new E350/E450 today than I did back in 2007, to have the rig handle well without that additional investment. I read somewhere that Ford is installing some of the aftermarket "equivalent" upgrades into the RV package of their new 2021 chassis with 7.3L-V8 engine. They got with the program installing heavy duty front and rear stabilizer bars. You might still have to invest in a rear trac bar or heavy duty steering stabilizer, but you are at a much better starting point. You might even find your new rig to handle just fine without further investment.

. Hi Ron, I must be missing something if you do the math a 24ft MH with a 158 in WB will have a WB/L ratio of .54 or 54% which is suppose to be good. So I don’t think poor handling of these shot MH’s is do to poor WB/L ratio. That is why I thought there must be something else causing poor handling like height to length or weight distribution or too much weight for the Ford chassis.

Our rig is surely "tail heavy" which takes weight off the front axle, thanks in-part to the wheel base.

Some time since, our specific rig became available on a Sprinter with a 170" wheel base. The Sprinter handled our model rig much better because of the longer wheel base that also distributed the weight better....more weight placed on the front axle.

Ron, your 2350's floor plan is very similar to that of our 24 ft. 2005 Itasca 24V on it's 158" WB Ford chassis.

However, I have never experienced the handling issues you had that you attribute to maybe not enough coach weight forward onto the front suspension of your chassis.

From a weight distribution perspective ... where is your motorhome's generator and propane tank located?

My Onan 4000 and 18 gallon propane tank are centered under our dinette. Those two relatively heavy items towards the front help to load the front suspension.

Also, my spare tire is not way at the back above the bumper like yours is. My spare is down low between the frame members and slightly further forward right up against the gas tank. The spare is fairly heavy, so maybe having it mounted both down low and slightly further forward help with front loading and tail wagging a bit.

These are just me thinking out loud on what could be going on. :h

Here is the distribution of our weight. Our front axle weighs 3160 (rig empty), and 3260 (rig full during a trip including people in the front seats), obviously the teeter-totter effect is in play here. Note that we don't have a slide-out and we always carry a full load of fresh water.

A major difference between your rig and my rig is that though the same generation of chassis, you are on a 2005 E450, I am on a 2007 E350. Up to and including model year 2007, the E350 cutaway chassis was not equipped with any kind of rear stabilizer bar. Starting 2008, Ford installed them on every E350 cutaway.

I have all the aftermarket heavy duty suspension upgrades and extras for improved handling, but they obviously don't influence weight distribution. My front axle weight is light enough that it allowed me to swap out the front coil springs to a lower-rating (Rock Auto, Moog Springs, $100/pair). The result was a lowered front end by 1-1/4 inches that leveled the rig. Needless to say, both we and our house are happier with the softer ride up front.

I checked mine for that 32% idea. I thought to use when the truck or MH is at GVWR and also at RGAWR so the front is as light as it is allowed to be, what do you get?

1991 Ford MH - 30%, 2003 Chev truck--34%

I did it with actual scaled weights for the MH when we are over the rear rating and GVWR and got 29%.

Actual Chev truck with camper, truck just under GVWR and under axle ratings-40%

Actual Chev truck with 5er we had (under all ratings) - 41%

Handling the MH does feel different where there seems to be more "play" in steering than in the truck or cars. It goes straight hands off, but the steering seems "loose" or however to describe it. Just have to get used to it. Can't say I like it that way.

If course the MH is a dually and the truck not, so the idea of having 1/3 up front and six tires does not work with the truck and four tires. the weights are unequal front and back but so are the psi on the LT tires so it all comes out ok for tire weightings.

bobndot wrote:
https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/22155824/print/true.cfm

This was a very interesting thread. Thanks for posting it. It looked like the the best weight distribution was the Jayco 24SS. They no longer make that model the thread was from 2008, but that model was front end heavy where as the others like Winnebago were front end light. I wonder if the FWS placed the weight more up front? Or does Jayco in general do a better job at weight distribution?

Phil, I think you are right, on weight distribution, I have long believed that each tire should carry the same load for the MH to handle correctly. I am sure that WB/L ratio helps but is already great on these 24 ft MH's and these other add ons help. On my current MH each tire carries aprox 2500 lbs. It is a P-30 chassis that many on this forum complain about handling issues and a white knuckle ride. The only add on I have is a steer safe, and it makes no difference in handling. I drove it 500 miles without it and saw no difference. I drive this MH with one hand like my car. I never hear any mention on here that each tire should carry the same load, but this is MHO. The only problem I have is I can't find this information on the MFG web sites. I don't know if you guys have found a way to estimate this other than weighing the MH at 4 corners.

What about the tires ??
When i was experiencing issues driving my new 24’ 158” , the first thing tge alignment shop did was swap the front tire positions left to right. Much to my surprise it made a difference. It wasn’t the cure but it was s noticeable improvement . Im running the commonly used Hankook Dynapro HT’s. 275/75/16.

ron.dittmer wrote:

Gjac wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Never realized that short C's had handling issues with a WB/L ratio of .54 of 54%. Mine is 52% and I drive it like my car with one hand even with trucks passing me. I notice most of the C's I looked at were as high as my A. I wonder if the height to length has more affect because of the higher CG. Do shorter C's feel tippy when cornering than say longer C's on the same chassis? ............just not sure of the corner bed and getting up 3 times a night to go to the bathroom, but everything is a trade off.

Any class C with a poor wheel base ratio (like we have) will not handle as well as one with a better ratio. Fortunately if your new rig has a "handling" problem, $1000-$3000 in aftermarket upgrades will get you satisfied.

You should have a much better chance with a brand new E350/E450 today than I did back in 2007, to have the rig handle well without that additional investment. I read somewhere that Ford is installing some of the aftermarket "equivalent" upgrades into the RV package of their new 2021 chassis with 7.3L-V8 engine. They got with the program installing heavy duty front and rear stabilizer bars. You might still have to invest in a rear trac bar or heavy duty steering stabilizer, but you are at a much better starting point. You might even find your new rig to handle just fine without further investment.

. Hi Ron, I must be missing something if you do the math a 24ft MH with a 158 in WB will have a WB/L ratio of .54 or 54% which is suppose to be good. So I don’t think poor handling of these shot MH’s is do to poor WB/L ratio. That is why I thought there must be something else causing poor handling like height to length or weight distribution or too much weight for the Ford chassis.

Our rig is surely "tail heavy" which takes weight off the front axle, thanks in-part to the wheel base.

Some time since, our specific rig became available on a Sprinter with a 170" wheel base. The Sprinter handled our model rig much better because of the longer wheel base that also distributed the weight better....more weight placed on the front axle.

Ron, your 2350's floor plan is very similar to that of our 24 ft. 2005 Itasca 24V on it's 158" WB Ford chassis.

However, I have never experienced the handling issues you had that you attribute to maybe not enough coach weight forward onto the front suspension of your chassis.

From a weight distribution perspective ... where is your motorhome's generator and propane tank located?

My Onan 4000 and 18 gallon propane tank are centered under our dinette. Those two relatively heavy items towards the front help to load the front suspension.

Also, my spare tire is not way at the back above the bumper like yours is. My spare is down low between the frame members and slighlty further forward right up against the gas tank. The spare is fairly heavy, so maybe having it mounted both down low and sligthly further forward help with front loading and tail wagging a bit.

These are just me thinking out loud on what could be going on. :h

Gjac wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Never realized that short C's had handling issues with a WB/L ratio of .54 of 54%. Mine is 52% and I drive it like my car with one hand even with trucks passing me. I notice most of the C's I looked at were as high as my A. I wonder if the height to length has more affect because of the higher CG. Do shorter C's feel tippy when cornering than say longer C's on the same chassis? ............just not sure of the corner bed and getting up 3 times a night to go to the bathroom, but everything is a trade off.

Any class C with a poor wheel base ratio (like we have) will not handle as well as one with a better ratio. Fortunately if your new rig has a "handling" problem, $1000-$3000 in aftermarket upgrades will get you satisfied.

You should have a much better chance with a brand new E350/E450 today than I did back in 2007, to have the rig handle well without that additional investment. I read somewhere that Ford is installing some of the aftermarket "equivalent" upgrades into the RV package of their new 2021 chassis with 7.3L-V8 engine. They got with the program installing heavy duty front and rear stabilizer bars. You might still have to invest in a rear trac bar or heavy duty steering stabilizer, but you are at a much better starting point. You might even find your new rig to handle just fine without further investment.

. Hi Ron, I must be missing something if you do the math a 24ft MH with a 158 in WB will have a WB/L ratio of .54 or 54% which is suppose to be good. So I don’t think poor handling of these shot MH’s is do to poor WB/L ratio. That is why I thought there must be something else causing poor handling like height to length or weight distribution or too much weight for the Ford chassis.

Our rig is surely "tail heavy" which takes weight off the front axle, thanks in-part to the wheel base.

Some time since, our specific rig became available on a Sprinter with a 170" wheel base. The Sprinter handled our model rig much better because of the longer wheel base that also distributed the weight better....more weight placed on the front axle.