ron.dittmer wrote:
The way I see it, there are but a few reasons why a Super-C should be considered over a standard C.
- You need the length, storage, towing, & weight capability of a diesel pusher class-A, but must have the extra sleeping accomodations for more people
- You have a passion for diesel trucks and enjoy the driving & ownership experience of them.
If neither apply, then stick with the standard gasoline cut-away van-style C, most popular the E450 with V10 engine. In the long run, the cheaper one with be going standard.
Personally I could never imagine owning a Super C. The large rental box trucks I have driven were all a very bad experience, and Super Cs are based off the same chassis. If I needed to go bigger, a DP would be my focus.
Ron, I question your conclusion on the Super C based simply on rental box trucks. I don't think it is right.
Having owned a Super C and started the Kodiak Yahoo Group it has been a topic I'm very keen on. There is a big difference between most commercial applications and the RV versions. First, you RARELY see a commercial application with the lower wheelbase to length ratio found on motorhomes. The MH manufacturers also have a terrible habit of buying a standard wheel base (158 inches for example) and then lengthening the wheel base and frames rails at the end (MOR/ryde does the extensions). They really play around with the original manufacturers' centers of gravity IMO.
I've made a point of watching the U-Haul TopKicks (Kodiak's twin) for over six years and I've yet to see an overhang like one sees on many of the RV versions. When we had a Kodiak Rally in Elkhart it included a visit to Jayco and they reminded us that we were driving dump trucks.
Not only front rear balance but also left right balance could be a major issue. A former member of our group and this forum had a terrible struggle because his unit had a severe weight imbalance - 800 lbs difference from the left front to the right front and alignment was proving impossible. In many cases inadequate springs were installed and had to be upgraded. The list of suspension improvements added by many owners is very long. But, that is also the case on many Class A's and non-super C's.
Another issue was GCWR - they all used the 26k version with the Allison 1000, until Thor finally added a 30k version with the Allison 2500 - but Thor built few as the Kodiak bit the dust soon after. With a GVWR of 22,000 lbs (Seneca) many find themselves over the 26,000 when towing even a 5,000 lb toad. We bought the gasser because we had to tow a Tahoe and with a 19,500 GVWR we had a lot to spare (fully loaded and heading to Florida for the winter our total weight with toad was only around 23,500. That was important for another reason - the limit in Ontario for a general license is 11,000 KG or 24,200 lbs. (based on actual weight not the weight rating of the vehicle)). Over that limit and one needs a Class D license which is like your CDL.
Most standard C's don't have outstanding wheelbase to length ratios. Our Kodiak was .577 and few standard C's get that high. Most of the Senecas were pretty good as well.
Now, going to the Thor Four Winds Super C on Ford with diesel, the wheelbase to length ratio is a wonderful .619. Much less overhang compared to other 34 footers - including Class A's. In fact, most DP's in the 34 foot length area have terrible ratios because of the mandatory rear overhand of the transmission and engine. For example, the Winnie Journey 34 foot unit has a ratio of only .487. Hell would have to freeze over (i.e., the Toronto Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup) before I'd even consider that unit. Yet the 39 ft Journey we owned had an adequate ratio.
The GCWR of the Thor Super C is 35,000 lbs. Receiver is only 10,000 lbs and whether or not it could be increased will depend on the extent and nature of any wheelbase lengthening done and chassis lengthening (hopefully Thor has learned and given they are only doing one model it would be nice to learn that it came from the factory and required no modification). But at least it is good for 10,000 lbs - NONE of the Kodiak Super C's had that kind of capacity (not that it would stop the manufacturers from highlighting the 10k receiver). And most of the shorter Class A DPs can't tow 10k without breaching the GCWR, even though they come with a 10k receiver.
As I noted earlier I value the torque (and the 305/420 V10 used in your MH and my current MH is not very strong) and the exhaust brake. 300/660 is much nicer than what I had on my Kodiak and both have a 19,500 lb GVWR (the torque is lower than the torque of the Duramax used when the Kodiak ended production).
NOW, the 19,500 GVWR may well be the achilles heal of the Thor. What is the Unloaded Vehicle Weight. We have yet to see any numbers from those who have seen it at shows. So, someone please take a look in closets and cupboards and let us know the figure. Our Kodiak Gasser UVW was over 3,000 lbs less than the GVWR, so for our use it had great capacity.
IF the Thor comes up short here (UVW of, say, 18,200) we'd stop any future consideration at that point. The risk of going over would be much too high. My guess is that it will not be as good as the Kodiak gasser because diesel engines usually weigh in several hundred pounds higher. If the UVW is 16,500 to 17,500 then I think they could have a good seller if the quality is reasonable. The lopsided unit I mentioned above, was a Thor product.
So, in summary, I would certainly NOT be inclined to dismiss a super C for the reasons you suggest. I think everyone will have their own set of criteria to fit to that decision. Some may find the price of this unit high (I don't) but it is much lower than the Dynamax Super C's (keeping in mind that you get what you pay for of course).
Don
ps. This is kind of broken up as we had a lengthy power failure while I was replying - saved by the UPS thank goodness.
