24 ft or less B+ with over head bed.

I prefer to Chevy 4500. Much less tuning of the chasses required than the Ford, while still retaining the benefits of the wider rear track.

I agree that the E450 is the best of the bunch. The only thing I would do concerning the extra rough ride in back on the lighter weighted rigs would be to "tune" the rear suspension to better match the actual load it carries. Too much extra capability will make a rough ride even more rough. Many RV owners complain about their rig thrashing around. Maybe something can be done to soften the ride.

How to "tune" the rear suspension is another topic involving the removal of the proper amount of E450 leaf springs. I have no personal experience to provide, only theories. I imagine it would begin by comparing the leaf spring packs of the E450 to the E350, learning what you can from the differences. Also compare your E450 actual rear axle weight to the limit of the E350 of the same model year. If you are rear axle weighs 1000 less than what an E350 rear axle can handle, then you want your leaf stacks to be that of an E350. Again, my theory alone.

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Interesting point, how much wider is a 450 chassis compared to a 350? Is this still true with the newer chassis?

For 2021/2022 as appropriate, for dual rear wheels, per manufacturer's specifications....and I think all recent years are the same, but I don't absolutely know that for certain.

Ford E450: 77.7" rear track
Ford E350: 75.4" rear track
Ford Transit T350: 65.7" rear track
Sprinter 3500XD or 4500: 60.7" rear track

Based on my experience with a decidedly not short, not B+ class C, I think you'll have trouble with comfort and stuff not staying put long before the chassis is in any danger of being too tippy for safety. The main places where I have any trouble at all are things like exiting some gas stations or other parking lots where there's a significant transition between the street and the driveway and I go somewhat obliquely, causing a significant but sill controlled sway. Stuff rattles in cabinets in such circumstances. I've never had any trouble negotiating mountain road curves at appropriate speeds, for roads that are halfway sane to take a motorhome over. It is, of course, not a Jeep, and dose have a pretty horrible minimum turning radius (mine worse than the ones you're considering since it has a longer wheelbase with the same wheel cut angles).

Andrew, thanks for those dual rear wheel width specs above.

Those numbers make it obvious that the E450 duallies are wider than the rest, and it sure explains why some Sprinter motorhomes I've seen on the highways always look "too tall for their width" for use on open country Western U.S. highway cross-winds. That chassis appears to be more suited for use in delivery trucks that travel heavily on narrow town streets. Of course the Ford E-Series was probably intended for that kind of use in primarily the U.S., but wound up coming out wider than later designs intended for world-wide delivery van use.

Gjac wrote:
Interesting point, how much wider is a 450 chassis compared to a 350? Is this still true with the newer chassis?

For 2021/2022 as appropriate, for dual rear wheels, per manufacturer's specifications....and I think all recent years are the same, but I don't absolutely know that for certain.

Ford E450: 77.7" rear track
Ford E350: 75.4" rear track
Ford Transit T350: 65.7" rear track
Sprinter 3500XD or 4500: 60.7" rear track

Based on my experience with a decidedly not short, not B+ class C, I think you'll have trouble with comfort and stuff not staying put long before the chassis is in any danger of being too tippy for safety. The main places where I have any trouble at all are things like exiting some gas stations or other parking lots where there's a significant transition between the street and the driveway and I go somewhat obliquely, causing a significant but sill controlled sway. Stuff rattles in cabinets in such circumstances. I've never had any trouble negotiating mountain road curves at appropriate speeds, for roads that are halfway sane to take a motorhome over. It is, of course, not a Jeep, and dose have a pretty horrible minimum turning radius (mine worse than the ones you're considering since it has a longer wheelbase with the same wheel cut angles).

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.

Interesting point, how much wider is a 450 chassis compared to a 350? Is this still true with the newer chassis?

When it comes to handling, motorhomes are not much different than rental moving trucks.

Imagine setting a 4 ton machine in an empty box truck right at the overhead door, then another time, place it right behind the cab, then another time left or right of center. Then do everything in a short box truck and again in a long box truck.
That is how motorhomes vary.

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.

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.

Every motorhome, brand, length, wheel base, etc. has it's own unique driving characteristics.

I got gutsy last year and decided to optimize our rig further than most people would consider. CLICK HERE to read about it which includes many descriptive pictures. Again.....Every rig is different so you will need to do your own research on whether your rig would benefit from doing something similar.

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).