WB longer than 159 ins in a 23-25 ft Class C

ron.dittmer wrote:
Gjac,

You've posted great conclusions. There are so many variables which translate into trade-offs. Each person has to decide his own priorities while understanding what that means in trade-offs. A few trade-offs like "poor handling" and "lack of outdoor storage" for example can be addressed with additional investment, but you simply deny yourself most others. It comes down to "I can live with this" and I can live without that".

You are so right Ron, buying a small Class C, takes a lot of research to find the right set up for you and there are a lot of things to consider. I have some more questions so will start another thread.

Gjac,

You've posted great conclusions. There are so many variables which translate into trade-offs. Each person has to decide his own priorities while understanding what that means in trade-offs. A few trade-offs like "poor handling" and "lack of outdoor storage" for example can be addressed with additional investment, but you simply deny yourself most others. It comes down to "I can live with this" and I can live without that".

bobndot wrote:
Gary, I was thinking a difference in the frame build. Then I found a 2017 thread with frame info in one of the posts.

Gary, as a side note, some class queen beds are really not QB's they are only 54" wide not 60" Winnebago vs Sunseekers 60" QB is one example. The difference is in the shower size, Winnie is 6" wider.
Im 6' 200 and the Sunseekers shower is fine for me.


Here is the link with the frame info.
If outdated, Maybe others can add updated info.

https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/29503089/print/true.cfm

Bob, this was an informative post and realize everything is a trade off in these short C's. I test drove a MB Sprinter MH and it did ride much nicer with more cockpit room than the Ford, but had much less CCC. So everyone has to establish what are the most important trade offs you are willing to make. For me the drivability, storage, sleeping arrangement, CCC, room for 2 6v batteries/ access and FW capacity is important. I noticed your point about Queen beds I would rather have a full queen and a smaller shower, 10 mins in the shower vs 8 hours in a bed is a good trade off. 3500 lbs of CCC and small storage bays is not a good trade off. I like the large storage bays in the rear of the Sunseeker and others.

Phil, Ron your posts clarify things. I just assumed all the floors just rested on the frame rails. The pass thrus on Phil's MH are nice and would explain why Ron's is lower in ht. I guess every thing is a trade off, and sometimes we see things in absolutes, like lower profile is better because lower CG, or longer WB gives a better ride, etc. One would hope the engineers would compensate for known design issues. The only concern is Ford does not know what the MH makers are going to put on their chassis and how it will effect the weight distribution front to rear or the CG that would effect the cornering etc. Several on here posted about having to make suspension mods on these short C's to get them to ride right. That was my main concern about the longer WB.

Gary, I was thinking a difference in the frame build. Then I found a 2017 thread with frame info in one of the posts.

Gary, as a side note, some class queen beds are really not QB's they are only 54" wide not 60" Winnebago vs Sunseekers 60" QB is one example. The difference is in the shower size, Winnie is 6" wider.
Im 6' 200 and the Sunseekers shower is fine for me.


Here is the link with the frame info.
If outdated, Maybe others can add updated info.

https://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/29503089/print/true.cfm

Our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser 2350 on an E350 has a 1.5" step up from the cab to the house floor, but many class-Cs on a E350/E450 have a higher step to avoid having rear wheel wells protruding through the floor. In our case, the wheel well protrusions are under the kitchen base cabinet and inside a closet, so there is no concern. But with the longer 176" wheel base, one wheel well might be a trip hazard in the bathroom. On the other side, the rear tires would severely impact our generous outdoor storage compartment.

Our small Phoenix Cruiser has the largest outdoor storage compartment of any model Phoenix Cruiser ever made.

Phoenix has a low set floor to lower the center of gravity and to reduce the over-all rig height. Our PC is only 9'-10" to the top of the a/c unit making it shorter than most other class B+ and C rigs.

Gjac wrote:
I guess I still don't understand it. A 24 ft sprinter chassis has the same layout as a 24 ft 350/450 chassis and a longer WB. What am I not seeing?

Gary ... it may have something to do with whether or not any given 24ft. Class C coach is, or isn't, built as a "basement" type.

For instance our 24 footer is of a basement type design ... and hence has a step up of 4-5 inches into the coach from the cab. This means that our coach floor does not rest directly down on the top of the chassis frame rails, hence the rear dually wheel wells don't protrude as much up into the coach's interior.

FWIW, it also means that all of our exterior storage cabinets are taller inside so as to provide more storage volume and - two of our storage cabinets go laterally clear across the width of the coach tucked between the top of the frame rails and the underside of the coach floor. These two long storage boxes are excellent for fishing poles, shovels, beach umbrellas, etc..

ron.dittmer wrote:

bobndot wrote:
I’m sure this has been tackled by rv engineers over time. I was under the assumption that the coach was designed to fit around the wheel- wells.

Isn't that why so many 24/25 footers are of only a very few floor plan designs ?

In other words, if you made the WB longer on the 24/25’ , the interior wells would dictate where and how appliances and such will fit. The whole interior design would have to be reconfigured and everything the old had might not fit in the new. The weight distribution might not work too well either.

Building the whole new rv at 24/25’ on a basement would make the entire package too tall.

I understand the same as you. The floor plans are based on where the RV outfitter can place critical features. They can't place a toilet above dual rear tires for obvious reasons, nor can they place a toilet on one side of the rear axle, and the black tank on the other side.

Just about everything else is much more forgiving.

I guess I still don't understand it. A 24 ft sprinter chassis has the same layout as a 24 ft 350/450 chassis and a longer WB. What am I not seeing?

bobndot wrote:
I’m sure this has been tackled by rv engineers over time. I was under the assumption that the coach was designed to fit around the wheel- wells.

Isn't that why so many 24/25 footers are of only a very few floor plan designs ?

In other words, if you made the WB longer on the 24/25’ , the interior wells would dictate where and how appliances and such will fit. The whole interior design would have to be reconfigured and everything the old had might not fit in the new. The weight distribution might not work too well either.

Building the whole new rv at 24/25’ on a basement would make the entire package too tall.

I understand the same as you. The floor plans are based on where the RV outfitter can place critical features. They can't place a toilet above dual rear tires for obvious reasons, nor can they place a toilet on one side of the rear axle, and the black tank on the other side.

Just about everything else is much more forgiving.

Gjac wrote:

carringb wrote:
One more... Leisure Travel Wonder all is on the 178" wheelbase:

https://leisurevans.com/wonder/

I wonder why Ford can make a longer WB for the 3.5 eco boost engine and not the 450 or 350?

As I mentioned above, the 176" wheelbase is an option on the E-series. It's up to the RV makers to use it. I've long suspected they tend to avoid longer wheelbases in order to keep the step-up only at the back bedroom. The Transit has flat frame rails so it doesn't need a step up, only wheel-well boxes. The E-series frame kicks up over the rear axle. I think it's a combination of larger frame-rails, more travel, and a larger axle tube that requires that kick-up. Pickup-based chassis have the kick-up in the frame at the back of the cab, but that makes the whole coach floor higher, and make a poor transition into the cab.