Chevrolet Based Class C *UPDATED AGAIN*

j-d wrote:
Somebody posted specs awhile ago with the dimensions of the frames and the thickness and tensile rating of the steel. AT THE TIME (because it did not include the new GM 4500), Chevy was the weakest, E450 the strongest, E350 in between.
Not that we ever should, but I've heard: "You can overload a Ford but never overload a Chevy."

That is a CROCK of you know what. PERIOD. Darned if I can figure out who you HEARD it from because that person doesn't know much about RVs. Or, maybe you have a problem with your hearing. :)

There is no logic for the UVW of some of the units - on any chassis. When manufacturers add more slides and equipment they simply reduce carrying capacity. We now have our smallest MH of the five we've had - one shallow slide and no levellers. A decent wheelbase to length ratio and lots of carrying capacity because it is only 27 ft 10 inches long. Bump it to 32 ft, add two deep slides and down goes the carrying capacity REGARDLESS of the chassis used.

The E450 has a GCWR of 22,000 lbs which is a couple thousand pounds more than any of the Chevs as I recall. That does not necessarily mean one can put a 7500 lb receiver on it because it will depend on whether or not the wheel base and frame rails were extended and the quality of those extensions. Manufacturers often buy ONE chassis size and then lengthen the wheelbase as required and the frame rails. IMO that is not the best way for buyers but the manufacturers think it is more convenient for them. But then they have to send them out to companies like Mor/Ryde to do the extensions. Those frame rail extensions add to the weight as well.