E350 vs E450 chassis pros and cons for a short 24 ft class C

Interesting discussion. I have found the brakes on my 2003 E350 stink. This chassis has rear discs. They are under sized in my experience. Just simply too small. Does the E450 have bigger brakes on both front and back? Also I think I heard the E450 has a better parking brake set up on the drive shaft. My vehicle parking brake set up (internal expanding shoes inside the rotor) is way too small. In fact if you check your owners manual it says the parking brake is not intended to stop the vehicle. It sure won't even when perfectly adjusted .....

Desert Captain wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

Desert Captain wrote:
Load an E-350 and a 450 to their GVWR's {as many of us do} and the 350 will be between 2,000 and 3,000# lighter {depending on the model year} yet both will have the same engine and trans.

Hi Desert Captain,

I think you missed my point in all this.

Just because a 21 foot motor home on an E450 chassis is capable of carrying 3000 more pounds than an E350 equivalent, does not mean the owner is going to add 3000 pounds more weight. My assumption is that he will load the two flavors the same.

Ron, as usual we agree more than we don’t. The Op’s Questions have been thoroughly addressed by a number of different posts. My point is without sacrificing ride quality and fuel economy my (and your) 350’s get everything done, neither of us needs the extra capacity of a 450 to tow your Jeep or I my motorcycle/trailer.

As I previously stated if one wants to tow or load heavy the 450 becomes the better choice but most folks who choose a small C have no need for the extra capacity that comes with a 450 especially with what you have to give up.

As always... Opinions and YMMV. :C

:C

ron.dittmer wrote:

Desert Captain wrote:
Load an E-350 and a 450 to their GVWR's {as many of us do} and the 350 will be between 2,000 and 3,000# lighter {depending on the model year} yet both will have the same engine and trans.

Hi Desert Captain,

I think you missed my point in all this.

Just because a 21 foot motor home on an E450 chassis is capable of carrying 3000 more pounds than an E350 equivalent, does not mean the owner is going to add 3000 pounds more weight. My assumption is that he will load the two flavors the same.

Ron, as usual we agree more than we don’t. The Op’s Questions have been thoroughly addressed by a number of different posts. My point is without sacrificing ride quality and fuel economy my (and your) 350’s get everything done, neither of us needs the extra capacity of a 450 to tow your Jeep or I my motorcycle/trailer.

As I previously stated if one wants to tow or load heavy the 450 becomes the better choice but most folks who choose a small C have no need for the extra capacity that comes with a 450 especially with what you have to give up.

As always... Opinions and YMMV.

:C

tarnold wrote:
One word: BRAKES. My e350 front brakes just suck. I'm on my 4th set of front brake rotor/ calipers. 3 Rd set of front brake lines. Learned to just replace lines when doing a brake job. 115k miles. Rears still have 50% (drum) shoes left. Twice I've had front right caliper lock after a hard brake. Just takes 2 blocks to start smoking! Pull off an let cool down, then limp to nearest repair. Bigger is better in most regards.

Starting with 2008 models, the E350 got the E450 front brakes.

Sticking calipers has little to do with brake size, and everything to do with long-term parking outside.

One word: BRAKES. My e350 front brakes just suck. I'm on my 4th set of front brake rotor/ calipers. 3 Rd set of front brake lines. Learned to just replace lines when doing a brake job. 115k miles. Rears still have 50% (drum) shoes left. Twice I've had front right caliper lock after a hard brake. Just takes 2 blocks to start smoking! Pull off an let cool down, then limp to nearest repair. Bigger is better in most regards.

When I went shopping for a small Class C and discovered that some of them were offered on the heavier duty Ford cutaway van chassis, that was where I focused my search. Here's why: My "tool philosophy" was to always as much as possible for best performance use a heavy duty tool in a light duty way. At the time, I didn't know the specifics as to the differences between the two chassis, but I trusted Ford to have done some things different between the two chassis and that those differences would mean that an E450 chassis loaded well below it's maximum design level would in the long run be superior to an E350 chassis loaded much closer to it's design maximum.

We have had a ~11,800 lb. 24 foot Class C on the E450 chassis for around 13 years, and it has provided what you would expect when underloaded by the coach structure and it's contents -> need brake pad replacements way less often, pull harder on grades due to it's higher gear ratio rear differential, and due to this higher ratio not slip it's transmission torque converter as much (to reduce transmission heating) when crawling off-highway with a heavy vehicle, sit a bit higher and more level all around (I also use larger diameter tires for improved ground clearance of all drive system and suspension system components), not sway as much on highway curves and when entering/leaving parking lots, not tend to get pushed sideways as much when a big rig passes by, and ... most of all ... reduce to zero any concern of ours on how much or in what way we load it with gear. i.e. We can travel with all tanks full and it's handling is not affected to any extent.

Yes ... it used to ride stiff in the rear due to it's E450 leaf springs back there (the E450 front coil springs provide a decent ride in the front). However, I took the sting out of the ride in the rear by using rear shocks that do not add shock stiffness to rear spring stiffness on highway potholes and cracks. You can do this with special shocks in the rear that provide soft - or no - damping on fast road surface changes, but stiff damping on gradual road surface changes. One type of variable action shock that does this is Koni's FSD shocks, which is what I run in the rear.

Note that most of what I say above DOES NOT apply to a larger/heavier Class C motorhome on the E450 chassis - which is the chassis that is absolutely required for those. I'm only addressing why I chose, and my experiences with, a smaller Class C motorhome built on the E450 chassis which could have been built on the E350 chassis.

The bottom line is, though, that use of an overkill chassis under a motorhome may ultimately depend upon your "tool philosophy". ;)

Gjac wrote:
Are the V-10's in these class C's the same as in the Class A's just de- rated by the computer or different engines? 362 vs 305 HP is a big difference.

They're different variants of the engine. The class A (and pickup truck, for that matter) version of the V10 uses a three valve head, while the E series uses an older two valve design. The three valve head version does produce more power but doesn't fit in the E series chassis, hence why the older one is still used. That's not to say the two valve heads haven't changed or been improved at all over the years, of course.

Especially for a relatively light class C, the V10 is perfectly capable of getting you where you need to go in reasonable fashion. You won't be the fastest vehicle up hills, nor for that matter the slowest; but it's quite sufficient for the vehicle in my opinion. I have a somewhat larger class C with an older (and less powerful) version of the engine, and the four speed transmission with decently large gaps between the gears, and I find it satisfactory.

They are not especially quiet engines when making power, and rev higher than you may think appropriate for a truck engine, and don't get exceptionally great fuel mileage; but they are reliable and effective.

Desert Captain wrote:
Load an E-350 and a 450 to their GVWR's {as many of us do} and the 350 will be between 2,000 and 3,000# lighter {depending on the model year} yet both will have the same engine and trans.

Hi Desert Captain,

I think you missed my point in all this.

Just because a 21 foot motor home on an E450 chassis is capable of carrying 3000 more pounds than an E350 equivalent, does not mean the owner is going to add 3000 pounds more weight. My assumption is that he will load the two flavors the same.

I have a 2019 Thor 22B which is a 24 ft Class C. I can tell you that the V-10 gives you immediate pickup and there is no problem merging onto interstates or passing with it. I don't know what the MPG on it will be yet as I have only taken short trips so far but I would expect it to be rather low. I had a Class B with the V-10 and it got around 10 MPG, this will be lower. As for the ride, it doesn't lean much but it does wonder a bit and will most likely need an alignment. It is also a little noisy compared to the Pleasureway B.

Load an E-350 and a 450 to their GVWR's {as many of us do} and the 350 will be between 2,000 and 3,000# lighter {depending on the model year} yet both will have the same engine and trans. The small difference in empty curb weight between them illustrates the minimal differences in the construction of the two chassis'.

Payload, much like towing capacity is more a matter of marketing than actual physics.

As far as the difference between the 362 HP V-10's found in Class A's those are the 3 valve model that are too large to fit into a Class C application.

:C