Thor Axis drivability

WDW.BWV wrote:
We also liked the Axis, but the shower and lav configuration is poorly designed and became the deal killer for us. As I recall, the CCC was not too hot either. But I will say it was fun to drive for the trip we made with it as a demo at CW.

Thanks for the reminder. UVW (unloaded vehicle weight). At the Tampa show we looked for stickers and in the past they have not been difficult to find. This year found virtually none which made me wonder if the numbers were very low and they weren't fond of showing them.

Don

We also liked the Axis, but the shower and lav configuration is poorly designed and became the deal killer for us. As I recall, the CCC was not too hot either. But I will say it was fun to drive for the trip we made with it as a demo at CW.

kgray, I'll be interesting in reading your report on drivability of the Axis. I agree that it is hard to justify the extra $20 for the 24V Sprinter. In Canada, because of the drop in crude's price and thus our currency the gap in list prices will be even wider.

I thought the layout was very nice. I now realize that I didn't give the Axis any time at the recent Tampa Super Show.

Towing is interesting. The Axis comes with an 8,000 lb receiver. The GCWR less the GVWR is 6,000 lbs so in theory it should be able to tow the 6,000 lbs. Our E450 has a GCWR of 22,000 lbs and GVWR of 14,500 so in theory we are good for 7500 lbs - BUT the receiver is rated at 5,000 lbs. What has to be considered is wheelbase extensions and frame rail extensions. Our E450 has been extended and I don't know what that does to the towing limit as it is not Ford that does the extension. (Ford does have what appear to be pretty tight upfitters rules though).

From what I can see with a wheelbase of 188 to 194 they will have extended the wheelbase as the E350's longest wheelbase is 176 inches. I sure do like the wheelbase to length ratios though - over .60.

So, do let us know how it drives. I'm kind of kicking myself for not taking a good look at the Axis and Vegas at the Tampa Super Show last month.

One headache considering either the Axis or Vega is the distance to the nearest dealer - way too far. From our point of view, Thor does a terrible job of product allocation.

Don

Ductape Dave wrote:
I believe they chose the E350 instead of the E450 is because the E450 chassis is 4.5" wider and The Axis is only 96" wide at the back. I checked one out at a show and did not like the flimsy bathroom double door and large windshield. I had an A and that would let in a lot of sun and more area to get stoned. After switching to a C I like the fact that I have a nice sun visor (overhang) easy windshield to replace, airbags and our own doors. I didn't like the fact the front dash was so far extended and hard to judge and see compared to the C. I did like the twin rear beds and couch though.

This is my first post here. My understanding on the E350 vs. E450 chassis is twofold, the E450 has a higher rear gear (4.56 vs. 4.11) and is a higher cost chassis. The E350 chassis has a 18,500 # capacity vs the 22,000 on the E450. This extra load capacity is from a heaver duty frame and the higher gear which would increase weight, cost and fuel consumption. The E350 still provides a towing capacity over 6,000 pounds, how much more towing does this unit really need?

My Wife and I recently sold our older Chevy Class C and were looking at a new Winnebago Navion 24V. At at recent camping show, we walked into the Thor Axis model and liked the layout better than the sprinter chassis class c. It is also nearly $20K less for a very similar layout. That $20K is a lot of diesel fuel.

We have not drove either model yet and scheduled a test drive for next weekend on both models at our local RV Dealer. I have read quite a bit about the driving characteristics of the Ford Chassis. It seems very common for the model to exhibit wandering due to improperly inflated tires and miss-alignment from the factory. I have also read where some people have added a "Safe-T-Plus" to assist with any push/pull effects, particularly on bumpy roads. has anyone else had anyone else had any issues here?

As a note: we did not like the Ford Class C Van because the engine hump was much more intrusive than our previous Chevy Class C. Particularly on the Passenger side where the foot room was very small.

I have not had any issues with my Vegas's steering/tracking. I can literally drive with my pinky finger that's how straight it drives. Even on bumpy roads it tracks well. Maybe because I am used to driving my Jeep I find that the Vegas is easy to drive haha!

Sometimes you have to put "steer" tires on the front to solve the tracking problem. I bought a 2004 24 foot C on a 450 chassis. It was pulling to the right when I test drove it so I asked for an alignment, which I was told was done. When I picked it up it now pulled to the left. Rats! I had a great alignment specialist for my Class A so took it there. Still pulled to the left. Bought new shocks and tried another alignment shop. They concluded the shocks didn't need changing, and that my problem was that the aggressive tread on the front tires was squiggling and suggested I try steer tires. Had two installed and it drove straight as an arrow thereafter. Just becomes a bit of an issue if you have to rotate them to the rear for some reason.

I agree with ron.dittmer. I now drive a 30' B+ after a series of 4 class A's. All the A's were difficult to get serviced or repaired. They suffered from a mish mash of after market parts no mechanic wanted to deal with. My Chevy B+ is all Chevy up front and service and parts are readily available. A BIG advantage!

That Axis looks like a very nice rig. If it's a "Best Pick" for stevent1967, I would not let "poor handling" prevent the purchase because for just a little more cash, it can be completely resolved. Just plan a few thousand extra into the budget. Our older E350 rig had the same troubles of which we were able to get it as good as an SUV.

A personal note next. In-general, I'd much rather get a motor home on an E350 cut-away chassis with the van front, rather than a stripped chassis with an RV made front. This for crash safety & easy entry/exit for front occupants, good working door windows, and having a very familiar mechanical standard. Typically class A rigs lack that level of quality in those areas, and many shops won't work on class A rigs because of the mechanical customization up front.

Ductape Dave wrote:
...more area to get stoned.

So that's a plus. ;)

Sounds like Ford may be relying on the coachbuilder to do a wheel alignment after the build and it's not happening, thus the hit and miss driveability issues on these.