24 ft or less B+ with over head bed.

Gjac wrote:

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

I don't think there's any solid advantage or disadvantage, since the "B+" designation is just a marketing distinction for a smallish class C that (generally) has no cabover bunk and maybe an above-average trim level. It's hard to say one is inherently better than the other when they're basically just different names for the same thing.

That being said, if you find a unit that meets your needs and has a layout you like, does it really matter if the maker decides to call it a class B+, or a class C, or a class F4, or...well, anything? To my mind, that seems to make about as much of a difference as whether the model is named after a summer resort area rather than a species of tree (or, should it be a toy hauler, a military aircraft).

I don't care what they call it either,. I just thought that a lower profile B + MH, 9 ft 10 ins vs 11 ft 3 ins for a C would have a lower CG and feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners. If the ride is the same the "solid advantage" of the C is more exterior and interior storage and more FW capacity. The aero front end does not seem to help the ride as some have posted.

Also, a C on an E450 chassis of the equivalent length of a B+ on either a E350, or Sprinter, or whatever dually chassis is going to feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners because the width (stance) of the E450's rear duallies will be wider than those of other chassis types used for B+ and C motorhomes.

Our 24 foot Class C on it's overkill E450 chassis feels generally very solid and well-anchored on curves, in high cross winds, and when caught in the air side-push from passing trucks. The rear dually width versus coach height is very important geometry for good side-to-side stability in a motorhome.