Thoughts on manufacturers
Since I'm in the market for a used Class C, out of necessity, I'm open to a variety of different manufacturers. Without wanting this to turn into a brand loyalty debate, what can you guys tell me abou...
Forum Discussion
Ron,
FWIW and amazingly so, our 24 foot E450 Itasca meets every criteria on my list, plus it has several other nice features and characteristics not on the list. I only became aware of what it offered after owning it for several years and after reading in these forums about the complaints others had of shortcomings in their other brands and models of Class C motorhomes.
It was by pure accident - or by pure blessing - that we wound up with such a combination. We did a no-no by seeing it and making the decision to buy it new on the spot from a dealer while at a local RV show. This was after looking for a year across the nation for a decent used small Class C on the heavier duty Ford chassis. It was an extremely rare basement model, but short in length, and nearly fully loaded options-wise - but had been sitting on the dealer's lot for a year before we bought it.
I'm guessing that it had not sold at the dealership for a year because it did not have any slides - but short with no slides is what we wanted for coach structure strength, long term leak proofness, and compactness in navigating to and fitting into small campsites if needed - and for occasional off-highway use exploring and drycamping. I study new RV specs on the Internet constantly, and the layout and specification combination we have has not been available new in any brand or model for several years now. In particular, Winnebago quit offering our exact setup in their 2006 or 2007 model years.
Those little just-right used Class C rigs our out there, but boy can they be hard to find. IMHO, so far all new models fall short. If we were younger, we might like a Tiger. If we were rich and younger, we might like an Earthroamer.
The main dislike with our Itasca is - it's widebody width when driving. Your PC's width is much preferred when driving. But when camped we prefer our wide body configuration.
FWIW and amazingly so, our 24 foot E450 Itasca meets every criteria on my list, plus it has several other nice features and characteristics not on the list. I only became aware of what it offered after owning it for several years and after reading in these forums about the complaints others had of shortcomings in their other brands and models of Class C motorhomes.
It was by pure accident - or by pure blessing - that we wound up with such a combination. We did a no-no by seeing it and making the decision to buy it new on the spot from a dealer while at a local RV show. This was after looking for a year across the nation for a decent used small Class C on the heavier duty Ford chassis. It was an extremely rare basement model, but short in length, and nearly fully loaded options-wise - but had been sitting on the dealer's lot for a year before we bought it.
I'm guessing that it had not sold at the dealership for a year because it did not have any slides - but short with no slides is what we wanted for coach structure strength, long term leak proofness, and compactness in navigating to and fitting into small campsites if needed - and for occasional off-highway use exploring and drycamping. I study new RV specs on the Internet constantly, and the layout and specification combination we have has not been available new in any brand or model for several years now. In particular, Winnebago quit offering our exact setup in their 2006 or 2007 model years.
Those little just-right used Class C rigs our out there, but boy can they be hard to find. IMHO, so far all new models fall short. If we were younger, we might like a Tiger. If we were rich and younger, we might like an Earthroamer.
The main dislike with our Itasca is - it's widebody width when driving. Your PC's width is much preferred when driving. But when camped we prefer our wide body configuration.
