Thoughts on manufacturers

My rig is far from perfect. Just another mass produced Fleetwood.

But I will say I looked at a lot of used motorhomes this summer, and it truly comes down to condition. A nice Fleetwood is better than a beat Winnebago.

I focused on particulars (once beyond basics like size and floorplan). I like that my fresh water tank is under a dinette up front instead of under the rear bed (for weight balance), and I like that it's got a relatively large 37 gallon grey tank (relative to other Class C's, it's still smaller than the 40 gallons my old trailer had). It has a 30' length with a 198" wheelbase putting it nicely in the good side of the wheelbase/length ratio.

I ruled out Coachmen, because literally every one I saw (I was looking at 10+ year old rigs) had delamination. Every one. I ruled out Jayco and Bigfoot because they all have basement storage. Which is nice in some ways, but it raises the house relative to the drivers cabin which I do not care for. I didn't like that you couldn't see out the front window from the couch or dinette.

The Winnie's I saw were nice, I appreciate the fiberglass roof and aluminum wheels, but those were not deal maker/breakers. I did find one Winnie I almost bought, but it had slides (which I don't really want) and was a bit more $$ than I was looking to spend.

BFL13 wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:
I agree in that 25 feet is a good cut-off between a Ford E350 and an E450 chassis, a Chevy 3500 and a 4500.

An E350 chassis at 24-11" would be fine as long as the frame was stretched increasing the 158" wheel base to notably more. This would better distribute the weight between front and rear axles, properly utilizing the extra load capability of the front axle.

Most short rigs have too much weight on the rear axle, and too little weight on the front axle causing "rear end sag". The condition also negatively affects handling. Our 11 year old E350 rig is 23'-8" long with a Ford standard 158" wheel base suffers from it. I had to invest in suspension upgrades to get the handling just right. Our rear end sag is very slight, a non-issue.

I don't know much about other Class Cs or Fords, but am curious about the above figures.

The 1991 E350 dually we got last year (see pic in profile) has a wheel base of 176 inches and has 140 inch overhang behind that, the way I measured it. (front to rear axles) That is 26.3 feet and brochure says the Rv is 28.5 overall, so add a couple feet from front axle to front bumper as well.

I have no clue where that 158" comes from. Is our E350 something special? Or is that for newer ones? I can say our rear axle is maxed even before we load anything, and it came with air bags OEM. The RV maker put more "house" on there than the "incomplete truck" was supposed to carry it seems. Still on the road though! :)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there are 3 Ford-standard wheel bases, 138", 158", and 176". The 176" is rarely used in the shorter lengths. Keep in-mind that some RV outfitters adjust the wheel base to fit their particular floor plans. There are Ford & Chevy approved shops doing it for a living. It sounds like a science project given all the specialty parts required, but I believe everything is available from Ford & Chevy in particular increments.

Adjusting the wheel base when needed, helps with the various floor plans and lengths. Personally I appreciated keeping the 158" standard wheel base with our rig. The longest standard 176" would have been ideal, but then the wheel well for the left/rear pair of tires would be in the middle of our bathroom floor. With our low-profile rig with over-all lower ceiling, a step-up raised bathroom floor wouldn't work. :(

pnichols,

It sounds like you stumbled on "That Perfect Unit" for you as did us. That is a very sweet place to be. I know what you mean about a list that can be written down about all the great reasons that make it so. Like you say, our slimmer PC is has it's benefits until parked, but we manage well with the tighter quarters. Our PC is nearly shoe-horned into our garage which is a "personal" benefit.

About our E350 with slight rear end sag. The fresh water tank is in the worst possible place with consideration to weight distribution. It is right above the rear bumper, passenger side corner. We like to travel with it full which creates the condition. A year or two later, Phoenix relocated the fresh water tank in our model, placing it more forward and more centered in between the rear tires. That made a difference in weight distribution and rear end sag, but I feel at a notable sacrifice to the under-bed outside storage compartment. Everything has it's trade-offs.

Where is our dinette, refrigerator, generator, propane tank, and several outside storage cabinets located in our PC? With exception to the outside storage compartment they are all between the axles. I pay attention to what is kept in our outside storage, it primarily stores our barbeque grill, many sacks of lynx blocks, and other light weight bulk.

ron.dittmer wrote:
I agree in that 25 feet is a good cut-off between a Ford E350 and an E450 chassis, a Chevy 3500 and a 4500.

An E350 chassis at 24-11" would be fine as long as the frame was stretched increasing the 158" wheel base to notably more. This would better distribute the weight between front and rear axles, properly utilizing the extra load capability of the front axle.

Most short rigs have too much weight on the rear axle, and too little weight on the front axle causing "rear end sag". The condition also negatively affects handling. Our 11 year old E350 rig is 23'-8" long with a Ford standard 158" wheel base suffers from it. I had to invest in suspension upgrades to get the handling just right. Our rear end sag is very slight, a non-issue.
.

I don't know much about other Class Cs or Fords, but am curious about the above figures.

The 1991 E350 dually we got last year (see pic in profile) has a wheel base of 176 inches and has 140 inch overhang behind that, the way I measured it. (front to rear axles) That is 26.3 feet and brochure says the Rv is 28.5 overall, so add a couple feet from front axle to front bumper as well.

I have no clue where that 158" comes from. Is our E350 something special? Or is that for newer ones? I can say our rear axle is maxed even before we load anything, and it came with air bags OEM. The RV maker put more "house" on there than the "incomplete truck" was supposed to carry it seems. Still on the road though! :)

Ron, where are the dinettte, refrigerator, generator, propane tank, and several outside storage cabinets located in your PC?

In our Itasca these items are all located between the axles. This definitely helps to counter-balance the fresh water tank and 55 gallon gas tank - which are heavy weights behind the rear axle.

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.

pnichols wrote:

bobbyg123 wrote:
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 about the different Class C makers?

I'm in the market for a 25-31' camper, and the makes I'm consistently running into here in the Pacific NW are Thor, Sunseeker, Minnie Winnie, Tioga, and Jayco.

Any input on these would be helpful.

If you are considering a small one close to the 25 foot length end of your criteria, make sure it's on the E450 chassis (Ford) or 4500 chassis (Chevy). The respective E350 and 3500 chassis are not heavy duty enough for a 25 footer.

I agree in that 25 feet is a good cut-off between a Ford E350 and an E450 chassis, a Chevy 3500 and a 4500.

An E350 chassis at 24-11" would be fine as long as the frame was stretched increasing the 158" wheel base to notably more. This would better distribute the weight between front and rear axles, properly utilizing the extra load capability of the front axle.

Most short rigs have too much weight on the rear axle, and too little weight on the front axle causing "rear end sag". The condition also negatively affects handling. Our 11 year old E350 rig is 23'-8" long with a Ford standard 158" wheel base suffers from it. I had to invest in suspension upgrades to get the handling just right. Our rear end sag is very slight, a non-issue.

pnichols......
I am not sure the balance of your list exists in a single motor home. I am trying to be funny, but it's not working well :) It's good to keep such things in-mind if you narrowed your selection to a final two or three. Though I beg to differ on a few of your line items.

ernie1 wrote:
.....But after I found a one year old PC at an rv dealer and actually saw and touched the cabinets, interior and viewed the exterior, I was totally appalled at the shoddy workmanship and cheap materials that was used in the interior. The surfaces of the interior paneling had contact paper looking material that was already peeling and curling. The overhead cabinets above the driver/passenger looked like they were made of wood from a scrap pile in that they were made of different materials or woods and they did not match! The exterior trim and paint was already fading and the plastic pieces were brittle and curled. Needless to say we did not see a need to spend anymore time looking at PCs. Now there are going to be others who will have a comeback and say I'm wrong, as a matter of fact one party in particular who is constantly singing the praises of PCs will surely have something to say.

I think you are referring to me as the "one party in particular".

Wow, that would surely turn me off as well. I wonder why that one year old PC is as you describe. I am humbled by your finding. Some of your comments might be because you simply expected "better". But it surely seems something went wrong with that PC. Phoenix officially switched ownership around that time and I did read about some quality control problems. Maybe that had some influence. The two new owners Jim and Chuck responded quickly and seemed to get the company back on it's old rails.

Our PC HERE looks as good today as it did when we bought it 11 years ago. Other PC owners have similar experiences. We do "garage" our PC which helps immensely. Also our full body paint job helps with exterior plastics. Many plastic components on a PC are the same used across the RV industry. If they don't get painted, they "yellow" and even get brittle with age. But plastics yellowing one year later as you found is strange.

Hi Ernie, If I buy again it will be a class A, but the tone and questions of my post certainly appears as though I'm interested in purchasing a PC. I just enjoy learning about all the products out there, but you are certainly right about checking any rig out before you buy. I find your opinion valuable, as I do Ron's. Ron has achieved something that we all strive for; and that is a rig we truly love and enjoy. It makes me happy to hear him talk about it. Maybe someday we could all be as fortunate. Don

T18skyguy:
I think before you invest a lot more time researching the Phoenix Cruisers you should go look at one up close and check out the build quality especially the interior. Of course this might be hard to do because there are no dealers and sales only occur through the manufactuer. I was all set to travel across country to the factory and buy one after putting down a deposit. All the factory videos are very convincing and the factory seems very flexible towards your needs. But after I found a one year old PC at an rv dealer and actually saw and touched the cabinets, interior and viewed the exterior, I was totally appalled at the shoddy workmanship and cheap materials that was used in the interior. The surfaces of the interior paneling had contact paper looking material that was already peeling and curling. The overhead cabinets above the driver/passenger looked like they were made of wood from a scrap pile in that they were made of different materials or woods and they did not match! The exterior trim and paint was already fading and the plastic pieces were brittle and curled. Needless to say we did not see a need to spend anymore time looking at PCs. Now there are going to be others who will have a comeback and say I'm wrong, as a matter of fact one party in particular who is constantly singing the praises of PCs will surely have something to say. All I'm saying is do yourself a favor and check them(PCs) in person before committing. If I'm wrong,please tell me so.