class c with v10

Yes my 02 Ford E450 get 8 to 10. I would not worry about MPG if you want this lifestyle, had this rig for 19 years when gas prices was $.99 back in 02 to $4.25 in 2008. One can always tent camp. Go RV.

We were in a smaller 22 foot class C with a V10. We could get around 12 but that was at around 90 kmh (maybe 55 mph) in the BC interior. We travelled on American interstates from time to time but can't remember what the mileage was. It dropped like a stone over 55 and we never went above 70 mph. Probably around 10 mpg US. Put a lot of mikes on that thing in Canada, the US and Mexico. Tough as nails

JaxDad wrote:

thriftydutch wrote:
I'm looking at a class C on a ford chassis with a V10 engine and no big cab over the front.

I have a conventional C Class and a friend has a B+ both on the same chassis. When we run down the road together, same road & speed we get identical mileage.

The difference between the two front ends means nothing in mileage from an aerodynamic point of view.

The big difference is I have an ‘extra’ queen bed that he doesn’t.

My 09 Cambria was aerodynamic in the front also. 8.5 mpg average over a 45k mile period.
Pulling a 5k load I got as low as 5 mpg with a bit of a head wind. Pulling my JK Wrangler there was no difference in MPG. 62mph was the sweet spot. A super C can be quite large on an International bobtail chassis. I have seen some Chevrolet's with the Duramax diesel. . I have a Duramax in my GMC truck. Pulling my trailer @10K pounds it gets maybe 12/14 @ 60mph. All stock, no chips, no tuners.

thriftydutch wrote:
I'm looking at a class C on a ford chassis with a V10 engine and no big cab over the front.

I have a conventional C Class and a friend has a B+ both on the same chassis. When we run down the road together, same road & speed we get identical mileage.

The difference between the two front ends means nothing in mileage from an aerodynamic point of view.

The big difference is I have an ‘extra’ queen bed that he doesn’t.

Wow! That’s all these Ford V10’s get for mpg! I didn’t realize they drank so much fuel. I was considering a new one but not anymore, not if that’s all the mp0g I can expect. It’s hard to imagine getting less than what I’m experiencing with my rig.

I have a 2009 Navion, MB diesel Class C. I drive 65-70 and get 14-16 mpg, and my rig stays packed. I average 14.5, lowest I can ever remember is 14.1, towing about 3800 lbs from Anchorage, AK to Pensacola, FL.
2 adults, one very large dog (95 lbs plus dog gear), and our rig was packed.

Yes, I know mine is a diesel, but I dont think a Ford diesel would get much better than the V10.

Oh well, guess I’ll stick with what I have, unless I can find an American badged Class C (or Super C) with a diesel that is comperable with the MB chassis class C’s.

Also, just as side-comments:

1) The Ford E450 chassis comes (or at least used to come) with a larger diameter driveshaft than the E350 driveshaft, for less vibration in any length motorhome.

2) One can easily improve upon any negatives of the E450's higher rear differential ratio by using larger diameter tires on the RV. For instance, most E350/E450 based Class C motorhomes come stock with 225/75R 16 size tires. By changing to 215/85R 16 size tires (which are larger in diameter) you partially or fully compensate for the E450's higher rear differential ratio ... plus as a bonus - improve upon tread wear and increase the distance between the rear duals for better airflow cooling of the tire sidewalls in hot weather.

If you get a 2017 and later, you get the 6 speed transmission instead of the 5 speed. Both are good transmissions, but the 6 speed I had was great. As Ron notes above, there is a lot to be said for a wheelbase that's not stretched; fewer driveshafts means less vibration issues, which can be troublesome to correct.

The V10 has proven durability. As stated, fuel economy not great. Biggest complaint is the engine has to rev up a lot on hills. It can handle it, but it is loud.

thriftydutch wrote:
Sorry about that. It’s a 2006 Ford E450. 25 feet long.

The 2007 E350 chassis is identical to a 2006 E350 chassis. Our motorhome shown below is built on a 2007 Ford E350 chassis with the V10 engine. It's over-all length is 23'-8" and is considered very aerodynamic by motorhome standards. Good aerodynamics helps both with fuel economy and vehicle control.

I advise not to exceed 65 mph on interstates, but 5 mph less at 60 mph is ideal for fuel economy and vehicle control. At 60mph under flat, no-wind conditions, our ScanGauge-II monitor, we see 11.5mph while towing our 2006 Jeep Liberty 4x4, but realistically our trip average of 4000 to 5000 miles of driving, we calculate 9.25mpg. We average 10.5 mpg not towing anything.

A 2006 E450 compared to a 2006 E350 for the same "SHORT" model motorhome, will get roughly ONE MILE PER GALLON LESS because the axle ratio inside the rear differential is geared for a heavier motorhome. The E350 engine rpm will be lower applying less throttle. But as the rig gets heavier, the numbers drift to favor the E450 chassis for the application, including fuel economy. The breaking point between the two is "fluid" due to so many variables including length, aerodynamics, weight, and towing. Also, the E450 frame is a little thicker than the E350, a structural consideration when stretching the wheel base.

Our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser MANY PICTURES HERE is on a 2007 E350 chassis. It has an unmodified, standard 158" wheel base.

Sorry about that. It’s a 2006 Ford E450. 25 feet long.