Class C, OWNERS ONLY PLEASE American or Foreign Chasses

pnichols wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
My Ford chassis is four-wheel-drive too ..........

All 4 of the rear wheels are driven.

Yeah ... that's the next best thing to have next to 6X4. ;)

I sure wish our E450 Class C had a limited slip rear differential so all four rear tires were driven when I need it most.

I doubt it would even be available, in speaking with driveline shops over the years they’ve all said the same thing, putting a locking diff. on anything heavy is a waste of time. The first time it engages under load is the LAST time it engages.

Even with a careful driver, all it takes is a little slip say pulling off the shoulder and back on to the road and you have a high torque high speed lock up that hand grenades the locker.

As you say though, with all that weight you maxed out your potential traction as it is.

Even with dually wheels, it's usually referred to as 2x4 (or 4x4, if the front wheels are driven), as the "by" specs are for axle ends, not physical wheels. I know, things are not consistent.

The weight generally does help keep some traction on a class C, at least compared to some other vehicle types. It also, I would think, makes things rather more difficult if everything breaks loose at once. I have no desire to find out how my motorhome behaves on ice or similar surfaces.

Some years and models of the E series chassis have a drive shaft mounted parking/emergency brake, bolted on the back of the transmission, rather than ones actuating the wheel brakes as is more commonly done. For those years, it's obviously fruitless to try the trick of applying the parking brake lightly to force both wheels to turn. (It's also absolutely essential to securely chock the diagonally opposite wheel before jacking up one side of the rear axle, of course; once one wheel loses traction by being lifted off the ground, the parking brake has no holding power at all.)

JaxDad wrote:
My Ford chassis is four-wheel-drive too ..........

All 4 of the rear wheels are driven.

Yeah ... that's the next best thing to have next to 6X4. ;)

I sure wish our E450 Class C had a limited slip rear differential so all four rear tires were driven when I need it most. I even crawled under it once to check the numbers on the differential to see if I hadn't lucked out with a locker when we bought the motorhome, new, off the dealer's lot ... but no such luck.

I wound up with the usual - only one rear dual set at a time being powered when things get slippery. My only Saving Grace is the tremenduous weight on those two dually sets. Maybe that weight will help force the differential to keep applying torque to both rear axles whenever it can't break either dually set free in moderately slippery situations.

My one big hangup with Class C rigs that have been converted to 6X4 is the raising of the overall height of the motorhome. All six tires driven is the ultimate in traction - but raising the CG of an already tall Class C is not good.

pnichols wrote:
One thing going for the newer Sprinter chassis under a Class C is - I believe that they can be ordered from Mercedes in a 4WD configuration - nice! :C

My Ford chassis is four-wheel-drive too ..........


All 4 of the rear wheels are driven. :B

I've had 3 class C motorhomes, two on the Ford E chassis and one Sprinter, and the Sprinter is a much more comfortable ride than the Ford. Yeah, it's more complex because of the pollution controls, but all new diesels have that including the diesel fueled Transits. The possible repair bills will be higher, but that's more of a gas vs. diesel thing rather than MB vs. Ford/Chevy.

If it’s a diesel C you desire, consider the Thor Super C which are built on the venerable F-series chassis.

ron.dittmer wrote:
I too agree with you. In our case we own an E350-V10 chassis. It's about the best chassis and drive train available for value, capability, reliability, serviceability, and over-all operating costs. And like you say, it's not bad with regard to comfort.

I would not be comfortable traveling to the places we do with a Sprinter. It is great when everything is working right, but a real nightmare when it isn't. Then adding that the closest Sprinter repair facility is likely far far away....the cons far outweigh the pros for me.

Ron ... well said!

The DW and myself are rockhounds, so we too "would not be comfortable traveling to the places we do with a Sprinter". Some of the places where we go I worry enough about our E450 chassis ... let alone if we were to try and get/stay/leave there via a complex Sprinter chassis.

Speaking of the above - maybe it's just my imagination - but in nearly all photos I see of Sprinter based Class C motorhomes their coach walls and cab structures seem to be awfully close to the ground (I call them Highway Queens). Our Class C has pretty good clearance all the way around and underneath, which is at least as good as a non-lifted stock-wheeled pickup truck. Our 158" chassis wheelbase also helps to reduce chances of high-centering or rock rubs when traveling on rough roads. Most Sprinter based Class C motorhomes seem to have around a 170" wheelbase ... which makes for a smoother ride ... assuming one is traveling on an even road surface.

One thing going for the newer Sprinter chassis under a Class C is - I believe that they can be ordered from Mercedes in a 4WD configuration - nice! :C

Here is a thread from December last year on same subject.
Sprinter versus E450

pnichols,

I too agree with you. In our case we own an E350-V10 chassis. It's about the best chassis and drive train available for value, capability, reliability, serviceability, and over-all operating costs. And like you say, it's not bad with regard to comfort.

I would not be comfortable traveling to the places we do with a Sprinter. It is great when everything is working right, but a real nightmare when it isn't. Then adding that the closest Sprinter repair facility is likely far far away....the cons far outweigh the pros for me.

Phil,

Well said on the costs of diesel and in particular the Sprinter.