Small Class C on a Ford 350 vs Transit chassis

Our next rv will be a LTV on a Transit.

I think the Transit has a little less GVWR , you would need to watch what you pack into it regarding payload. Just double check on those numbers to verify.

People we know had one , it gets about 16 mpg. It did not need any aftermarket on-ons for suspension flaws. It drives more like a van/suv than a class C.

The cab footwell on the pass side seemed to have more room but the overall cab space is smaller than a 350 cutaway. When you need to go from the cab to the rear of the rv, its a tighter squeeze between the seats. It seemed easier to have a conversation while driving bc it is narrower , so you sit closer to be able to hear voices and it seems to be a more quiet cab.

If i remember correctly the Transit offered at least a pass side swivel seat. The drivers side swivel might be floorplan contingent.

It also seems closer to the ground, it was easier to get into the cab.

Thinking out loud :
What i do not know is the ground clearance or rear overhang situation. That is what i still need to explore bc i do use my rv on dirt roads off grid. I also think i will lose my hydraulic jacks for leveling. But, my new rv will have a comp fridge. Should not be an issue. I think.

Regarding the Cross Trail, or other similar floorplan.
It appears as that corner bed is tight. We need at least a full queen 60x80 or short queen 60x74 would work but not a double bed of 54”.

I would also check the shower dimensions. Even though they advertise 24x30, Some are only really 20-21” interior width x 28”. If you drop the soap, you’re not picking it up unless you get out of the shower.

Those curved backrests on that type of dinette are not very comfortable. Its ok for a quick bite to eat but as a tv watching or sitting longer term, we had to redesign ours.

We removed the cushions and replaced them with reclining gaming chairs from Amazon. We used screws and pipe clamps to secure the round bases of the new chairs into the OEM plywood. Now we have nice comfy chairs to sit in during cold or inclement days.
We kept the cushions for resale purposes.

One other thing to be aware of in this type of floorplan are huge skylights in the front portion of the coach. In the past, many owners have complained that the AC units can't keep up with the heat that’s produced by the skylight on hot days. Just something to look into.

Ah, the myth that will not die... :S

"Does it handle any better than the 350 without a bunch of suspension add ons? "

I have owned our E-350 24' Class C for 7.5 years and 70,000+ miles. it has 3,363# of payload, 420# of torque, 305 HP, 7' of headroom throughout and it rides and handles just fine with no, none, zip, nada after market suspension add ons. Proper alignment and psi for the load it carries are all you will ever need.

As to your original question I think you can expect a lot less payload, towing capacity, storage, headroom etc. in exchange for improved mileage but then every RV is a series of compromises. Go with what will work best for your intended usage.

:C

Newer Transits can be upgraded to swivel seat since they moved the parking brake.

IMHO, Transits need a wider rear axle. The factory passenger van comes standard with a rear A/C unit. Does that mean you have to run the roof A/C on a Class C while you are on the road ?

theoldwizard1 wrote:
Newer Transits can be upgraded to swivel seat since they moved the parking brake.

IMHO, Transits need a wider rear axle. The factory passenger van comes standard with a rear A/C unit. Does that mean you have to run the roof A/C on a Class C while you are on the road ?

Since a class C is built on a cab and chassis and not a passenger van, the class C probably doesn't have rear A/C while driving.

bobndot wrote:
Our next rv will be a LTV on a Transit.

I think the Transit has a little less GVWR , you would need to watch what you pack into it regarding payload. Just double check on those numbers to verify.

People we know had one , it gets about 16 mpg. It did not need any aftermarket on-ons for suspension flaws. It drives more like a van/suv than a class C.

The cab footwell on the pass side seemed to have more room but the overall cab space is smaller than a 350 cutaway. When you need to go from the cab to the rear of the rv, its a tighter squeeze between the seats. It seemed easier to have a conversation while driving bc it is narrower , so you sit closer to be able to hear voices and it seems to be a more quiet cab.

If i remember correctly the Transit offered at least a pass side swivel seat. The drivers side swivel might be floorplan contingent.

It also seems closer to the ground, it was easier to get into the cab.

Thinking out loud :
What i do not know is the ground clearance or rear overhang situation. That is what i still need to explore bc i do use my rv on dirt roads off grid. I also think i will lose my hydraulic jacks for leveling. But, my new rv will have a comp fridge. Should not be an issue. I think.

Good info Bob, I did not realize they would get 16 MPG That is a significant increase over the 350. As far as the rear overhang the WB to length ratio is 55%. A 24 ft 3 in C on a 350 with a WB of 158 ins would also be 55%. I would miss the hyd jacks also but as some have said with short C's you can jockey the MH in the camp site until it is level. I like the large rear storage bay in the rear, don't like the small corner bed but I guess I could sleep in the upper over cab bed like Phil does. Every thing is a trade off. I did not see an overhead window on the cross trail. The cross trek has one along with other B plus's. The cross trail has an small cab with a single overhead bed.

Gjac, I'm not sure how much weight the rear axle can support.
you would have to be careful loading-up that big 'easy to overpack' rear storage compartment.

Yes, I won't miss the jacks either Leveling at a campsite is real easy now. I installed a small set of bubble levels the cab of my 24' C. I have one screwed into the dash and the other over the passenger window. The bubbles tell me at a glance from the drivers seat. I can view N-S-E-W as I pull into a site or parking spot. Hardly ever use my levelers for leveling.


I only use my jacks to lift my rv when doing the tires. I lift it, then use jack-stands to the frame to support its weight.

bobndot wrote:
Gjac, I'm not sure how much weight the rear axle can support.
you would have to be careful loading-up that big 'easy to overpack' rear storage compartment.

Yes, I won't miss the jacks either Leveling at a campsite is real easy now. I installed a small set of bubble levels the cab of my 24' C. I have one screwed into the dash and the other over the passenger window. The bubbles tell me at a glance from the drivers seat. I can view N-S-E-W as I pull into a site or parking spot. Hardly ever use my levelers for leveling.


I only use my jacks to lift my rv when doing the tires. I lift it, then use jack-stands to the frame to support its weight.

Rear axels can support 7275 lbs front 4630 lbs DW is 8290 lbs. That leaves 3615 lbs of fluids and stuff which sounds good to me. Seems a lot better than the MB chassis. It sounds like fuel economy is a wash also.

Are you going by the advertised dry weight when calculating the payload ?
If so, a trip to a scale from the dealers lot would be in order before you load it up.

Most class C’s in this size will roll down the road, loaded for s trip in 12,000lbs range.
Incl : Fluids, gear , food, people , optional rv equipment.

The Transit is more car-like with easier access, both concerning inside and outside access. It is like stepping into a minivan rather than stepping up into a standard van like the E350 and Sprinter. It will also yield roughly a 20% improvement in fuel economy compared to the E350 with the new V8 as long as the house it carries has excellent aerodynamics. If the Transit has a large wind-catching over-head cab bunk, then the gap in fuel economy closes.

The Transit diesel has been dropped by Ford for some time now, replaced with a twin turbo gasoline engine. This change in the power plant drops it's fuel efficiency significantly, bringing it down to that 20% improvement over the current-day E350 with 7.3L-V8 engine and 6-speed transmission. I personally would rather have the E350 with it's normally aspirated engine. The slight drop in fuel economy compared to it's benefits in power and chassis rating, it is something to think about.

If your goal is to be as "car-like" as possible, the Transit is the one to consider. But it would concern me, after owning it a while, you might say something like......

"Why didn't I go for piles more power & capability for just a slight drop in fuel economy? My engine works so dang hard just to maintain cruising speed. The turbo is always singing in boost-mode. My fuel economy is not what I expected.
My chassis is always over-loaded! Why didn't I just get that E350? I would have gotten used to its inconveniences."

It took some effort and about $4000 to get our 2007 E350 to a good place with some suspension upgrades and front coil spring reduction. I wouldn't know how the ride and handling compares to a Transit, but compared to a stock E350 motorhome, it is a monumental change for the better. The house is not getting all shaken up and it handles very nicely. It climbs up mountain passes while towing our Jeep Liberty. It does everything it should without feeling like it's being over-worked. Our 2007 E350 with 6.8L-V10 engine fuel economy "trip average" without towing is 10.5mpg. Reports of the current more powerful 7.3L engine are coming in at 1mpg better....more power, better fuel economy, and more quiet too. That is a 3x win for the 2022 E350.

So what is most important to you?