E-350 vs. 3500 promaster

Our old E350 with 6.0 diesel and 3.73 axle had 20,000 lbs GCWR, which meant it could tow 10,500 lbs while the van was also loaded to it's 9500 lb GVWR. It was a single rear wheel cargo van. The E350 cutaway chassis with dual rear wheels has higher GVWR and similar GCWR. I believe the V10 gas engine with 4.30 axle also had 20,000 lbs GCWR.

The Dodge Promaster platform motor home reminds me of the Toyota based motor home from 1979 to 1988. Both having single wheel rear axle load limitations, the curb weight was so close to the limit that you couldn't take anything with you on a trip including your own family. Of coarse people ignored the numbers and drove around the country with their rigs over-loaded.

I would never consider any motor home built on a Promaster cut-away chassis. I can't understand why they are permitted to make them. The NTSB should not have approved that chassis for motor homes. Make box trucks that haul Styrofoam and children's backyard slides and such..... bulky, light weight cargo. Not a house with people, water, and all the rest.

Something that hasn't been pointed out yet is that the Promaster is front wheel drive. Mechanically it's really just a huge minivan. Front wheel drive provides great traction in passenger vehicles but in a truck or motorhome you can easily end up with the drive axle being too light to have good traction on hills or in slippery conditions.

To me, the RV's built on Promaster have a very limited audience, because of he very limited OCC. A couple, on a trip, is almost guaranteed to be overloaded.

Transit? Maybe. Promaster? Nope. Just because something CAN be done (RV on Promaster) doesn't mean it SHOULD be done (Trend and Friends).

SkiMore wrote:
Is the "clutchless manual" transmission on the gas engine or just the diesel?

I should have asked about the Ford Transit also.

Glad to know the E350 isn't obsolete yet since there are a couple of models with that engine that look interesting on paper.

The Transit OTOH is a great platform. It comes close to the carrying capacity of the E350, however the E350 still has way more combined weight rating, meaning is can tow 5,000+ pounds vs the Transit which can be as low as 2,000 pounds (ish).

Is the "clutchless manual" transmission on the gas engine or just the diesel?

I should have asked about the Ford Transit also.

Glad to know the E350 isn't obsolete yet since there are a couple of models with that engine that look interesting on paper.

If the Promasters are still using their "clutchless manual" transmission I would stay away. There's a huge pause in acceleration every time it shifts. Since you don't know exactly when it's coming like you do in an actual manual transmission you are pushed forward off the back of the seat by momentum during the shift. I found it extremely annoying on a test drive. Maybe after owning one you could be able to anticipate the shifts and not bob forward every time.
Also, I thought the Promaster had poor side visibility. The B pillar is too far forward.

They are built to different requirements. The Promaster is more comparable to the Transit, not the E350.

In this month's Motor Home magazine there is an article on the Winnebago Trend, built on the ProMaster chassis. This particular one has an OCCC of 930#. It has a GVWR of 9,350# and weighs 8,420#. The GCWR is only 11,500#.

The E-350 is a heavier duty chassis than the Promaster. Depending on the specific variant chosen, the E-350 with dual rear wheels (which is what would be used for a motorhome) has a GVWR of 11,500 or 12,500 pounds. The Promaster 3500 has a GVWR of 9350 pounds and is only available with single rear wheels. Many of the promaster-derived motorhomes have pretty severe weight carrying limitations--you can be over the rated weight in some cases just from a couple of people and a tank of water, without taking any other cargo or belongings.

The E-350 also has a much larger fuel tank, about twice the size. (This is somewhat offset by it's having a thirsty engine.)

The Promaster is the nicer vehicle to drive, assuming both are set up with reasonable balance and so forth. It would also be more maneuverable (tighter turning radius, etc).

I'd generally prefer the Ford chassis for a motorhome, primarily because too many of the ProMaster-based motorhomes are just a little too much for the chassis.