More Chevys needed?

pnichols wrote:

I've been trying to make the wide-wheel-base point for Class C motorhomes for years in these forums. That's what the Ford chassis (and Chevy chassis?) provides under Class C coaches ... ESPECIALLY the E450, which even has it's duals 4.5 inches wider in the rear than the E350's duals.

It's not only that the wider wheelbase provides for more spacious non-slide and slide floorplans, the wider wheelbase also provides for more lateral stability versus whatever height the RV is built up to. This means that higher interior ceilings can be offered while not sacrificing as much stability in highway cross-winds and with passing trucks.

You couldn't give me one of those narrow and tall Sprinter-type Class C motorhomes - scary to look at and more tricky to control in high cross-winds.

That is a valid point, the wide stance of a platform in which to build the RV on is a plus.

As he said Ford has adopted the wider duals, 4.5 inches wider than the E350.

This may be the reason that the CHEVY BASED CLASS C does not have as many handling problems as the Ford E350.

The CHEVY 3500 duals are 4.5 inches wider than the E350. The front track is 4 in. wider. This change by Ford may help the handling problems that have plagued the Ford based Class C.

I have to also agree on what pnichols says "You couldn't give me one of those narrow and tall Sprinter-type Class C motorhomes".

Having driven the Sprinter Type package vans I would in no way want to have one under a Class C, they are very scary in cross winds, even when loaded and seem to feel top heavy.

I have to agree with the OP More CHEVYS are needed. :B