Motorhomes on Mercedes Chassis

pnichols wrote:
We travel mostly in the Western U.S. as much as possible not around population centers or major highways, and as such we're in and around small towns, backroads, dirt roads, the deserts, and sometimes in areas with no cell phone coverage. We're also not into towing something because - like a turtle - we want our little fully equipped home with us at all times.

What this means is that for us the RV vehicle type must be a motorhome towing nothing ... with overall chassis reliability and easy access to chassis parts and fuel when on trips being top priorities. Hence, any chassis other than a gasser Ford or Chevy one under our motorhome would be a no-go at purchase time. These considerations rule out the MB Sprinter chassis.

Towing nothing would be highly unusual here, most people who have a Class C tow mainly SUV's here
Keeping with the European theme. Here is a shot from Europe Class C's with Toys that I like

JaxDad wrote:

gemsworld wrote:
To the OP. Do yourself a favor and ignore the opinions of those that have never owned a Sprinter motorhome. Some people like to spout about things they know nothing about. Test drive the Sprinter Winnebago View model you like, spend time in it to make sure it will suit your lifestyle. Good luck!

We’ve got a few of the original dozen Sprinters we bought a few years back still in the fleet of my company. All the rest of them were replaced, mostly with Ford Transit vans, because the bodies were literally rotting off the Sprinters.

One of them failed the annual safety inspection because there were so many holes in the body above and below the windshield they said it was no longer structurally sound.

The drivers all agree the Transit is a far superior truck.

Interesting Transits barely sell in Australia but Sprinters are very prevalent

pianotuna wrote:

I operate on 3 strikes and you are out.

That's fine. The reality is that your strikes are different from my strikes, which are different from somebody else's strikes. IMO the best service we can provide to others is to give first-hand factual accounts as accurately as possible, and let the other RVers make decisions based on their priorities and preference. Choosing an RV is an exercise in balancing benefits and compromises. I never saw a single one that was close to ideal (for me) in all aspects. The Ford chassis strikes out with me, and the Sprinter with you. I want to help others, but definitely don't want to tell others what they should think.

We travel mostly in the Western U.S. as much as possible not around population centers or major highways, and as such we're in and around small towns, backroads, dirt roads, the deserts, and sometimes in areas with no cell phone coverage. We're also not into towing something because - like a turtle - we want our little fully equipped home with us at all times.

What this means is that for us the RV vehicle type must be a motorhome towing nothing ... with overall chassis reliability and easy access to chassis parts and fuel when on trips being top priorities. Hence, any chassis other than a gasser Ford or Chevy one under our motorhome would be a no-go at purchase time. These considerations rule out the MB Sprinter chassis.

How much for def? How much for an oil change? Warranty denial for "bad fuel" (which we, as end users have no control over)? Sky high initial cost? Little in the way of storage?

I operate on 3 strikes and you are out.

road-runner wrote:
Jumping into this late I have a few comments:

- Criticism of handling or stability from somebody who has never driven a Sprinter isn't to be taken seriously.
- Chassis reliability reports look opposite for good reason. Most Sprinters are very reliable and have reasonable maintenance costs. A small but still significant number of owners have been plagued with highly unreasonable reliability problems accompanied by horribly large costs.
- My only first-hand negative wind stability report is from one time when I made an unscheduled multi day stop during a windstorm. The Sprinter was darn squirely to the point I felt is was dangerous. It did make it past a few blown over semis before the next Interstate exit.
- Because of the recurring mechanical problems some owners have suffered through, I am honestly scared it could happen to me. I treat it carefully and try to keep ahead on preventative maintenance.

So why did I buy one and have no intent of changing after 10 years?

1. The horrible claustrophobic front seating of the Ford chassis, and to a slightly less extent, the Chevy chassis. For all of you who aren't bothered by it, that's great.

2. When shopping I was able to find zero shorter class Cs with slideout where I could push the driver seat far enough back for driving.

3. The easy access between the cab and coach.

4. The 6" narrower width when driving on narrow roads with no shoulder.

5. It's darn easy to drive, and the roomy cab is a pleasure.

Agree with everything road-runner said.
25,000 miles and two years and no problems.

Jumping into this late I have a few comments:

- Criticism of handling or stability from somebody who has never driven a Sprinter isn't to be taken seriously.
- Chassis reliability reports look opposite for good reason. Most Sprinters are very reliable and have reasonable maintenance costs. A small but still significant number of owners have been plagued with highly unreasonable reliability problems accompanied by horribly large costs.
- My only first-hand negative wind stability report is from one time when I made an unscheduled multi day stop during a windstorm. The Sprinter was darn squirely to the point I felt is was dangerous. It did make it past a few blown over semis before the next Interstate exit.
- Because of the recurring mechanical problems some owners have suffered through, I am honestly scared it could happen to me. I treat it carefully and try to keep ahead on preventative maintenance.

So why did I buy one and have no intent of changing after 10 years?

1. The horrible claustrophobic front seating of the Ford chassis, and to a slightly less extent, the Chevy chassis. For all of you who aren't bothered by it, that's great.

2. When shopping I was able to find zero shorter class Cs with slideout where I could push the driver seat far enough back for driving.

3. The easy access between the cab and coach.

4. The 6" narrower width when driving on narrow roads with no shoulder.

5. It's darn easy to drive, and the roomy cab is a pleasure.

EV2 wrote:

pnichols wrote:

EV2 wrote:
Have to love the speculation as opposed to facts, Waiting for all of the photos of MB chassis motor homes blown over along the road

Speculation has nothing to do with it:
Some of us don't need it to have "already happened" in order to try and be proactive at purchase time -> to ensure that it never ever would happen to us.

Yet you speculated on parts availability and oil rather than looking. With your advanced engineering degree, I should have realized that with 100s of thousands of miles over many years, they just haven’t found your wind yet. Sheesh, I give up, Enjoy.

Huuuuuh!!!

You response above is to the wrong poster ... I've posted not a thing about MB Sprinter parts availability and oil. :h

P.S. For me to have done that would have been speculation. :)

pnichols wrote:

EV2 wrote:
Have to love the speculation as opposed to facts, Waiting for all of the photos of MB chassis motor homes blown over along the road

Speculation has nothing to do with it:
Some of us don't need it to have "already happened" in order to try and be proactive at purchase time -> to ensure that it never ever would happen to us.

Yet you speculated on parts availability and oil rather than looking. With your advanced engineering degree, I should have realized that with 100s of thousands of miles over many years, they just haven’t found your wind yet. Sheesh, I give up, Enjoy.

Coach-man wrote:
Well your speculation about their stability may or may not be true. Look at Fords new chassis very similar to the MB, not your grand Father’s E450! In the 3 years I had mine, I never felt insecure in the ride and/or the stability of my Sprinter! I think the engineer’s did their homework, even though it looks to high for the width!

Well ... take a look at the E450 dually rear wheels stance/spacing in this specifications document ... and then compare it to the same specification for the dually 3500 Sprinter rear wheels stance/spacing (you can look that spec up):

https://madocumentupload.marketingassociates.com/api/Document/GetFile?v1=4426928&v2=080718015633&v3=60&v4=99effc36e83f936cc57676f3a6e13786f9ef842ef3da2d870bbec943&v5=False

After you do the above, compare the height (to the top of the air conditioner) of a typical E450 based Class C, such as the Winnebago 22M, to the height (to the top of the air conditioner) of a typical Sprinter 3500 based Class C.

I stand by my thinking that the MB Sprinter chassis was orginally designed and intended for commercial panel truck use on narrow and/or crowded city-type streets (plus at the same time allowing for personel standup-height inside) ... and that it was later asked for in cutaway configuration by motorhome manufacturers for building on in order to competitively respond to improved fuel mileage requests by potential U.S. customers.

As such, IMHO, use of the 3500 Sprinter underneath a full height Class C represents a potential compromise in stability while in motion. It's based on pure physics that can't be gotten around.

(Of course my eyes could be deceiving me whenever I'm following behind a tall and narrow Sprinter based Class C motorhome, as apposed to whenever I observe our Class C from the rear.)