why so few 7'6" (or less) coaches come on chevy & ford cabs

dgpace wrote:
From my limited experience just the way it feels to drive. The Fuse , being on a Transit chassis just feels more car like than the E series. ron.dittmer hit it, it sits lower and is more mini-van like. The Fuse is also 24 feet long and is narrower (at least it feels that way). I know it is subjective, but my two cents.

I do wish it had a generator that was fueled off the main tank. The Fuse generator is an Onan, but is LP fueled. I think that this is something that really needs to addressed by Winnebago. Without that I would not think that it would be that great for boondocking. I am not sure how it would do off road. Can the Transit even be had in 4wd?

For me, this is the biggest detractor of the Fuse. Here in Texas, where LP gas is relatively hard to find as opposed to diesel, I'd probably have to consider getting a hitch mounted cargo rack, rolling my Yamaha 3000iSEB generator on it, and using that to run the vehicle's electrical system when dry camping. Problem with that method is that I would have three fuels to deal with, and one mistake can mean tens of thousands of dollars in damage.

From my limited experience just the way it feels to drive. The Fuse , being on a Transit chassis just feels more car like than the E series. ron.dittmer hit it, it sits lower and is more mini-van like. The Fuse is also 24 feet long and is narrower (at least it feels that way). I know it is subjective, but my two cents.

I do wish it had a generator that was fueled off the main tank. The Fuse generator is an Onan, but is LP fueled. I think that this is something that really needs to addressed by Winnebago. Without that I would not think that it would be that great for boondocking. I am not sure how it would do off road. Can the Transit even be had in 4wd?

dgpace wrote:
Much better than the E series.

Hmmm ... in what way(s)?

We've put over 61K miles on our E450 24 footer Class C and the only occasional issue we have with it is it's width - especially in traffic lanes that have been blocked off to be very narrow while they're working on the roadway.

We especially like it in the little out-of-the-way campsites in State and Federal parks and public lands. We even take it off-pavement rock hounding out in the middle of nowhere where we wouldn't feel comfortable with any lesser chassis under it. It's built-in and quiet Onan generator is fueled off the main 55 gallon gasoline tank.

I have a fuse 23a. After 2 nights in the coach so far I would say it is just about right. Not too large, not too small. You could loose the slide however since it is plenty big enough inside without having to open it up. It would be nice if it had a diesel generator so it consumed off of the main tank as opposed to the LP. Key for me is the beds are finally big enough.

To be very honest, it drives really well. No complaint with maybe 1000 interstate miles under my belt. no significant miles yet on smaller roads. Much better than the E series. Sprinter from the very little bit I drove felt much bigger. Never test drove the Promaster to compare.

There are some more thoughts on my blog at http://confusedrv.com

Butch50 wrote:
Ron, I am so glad you got to see the frame under these first hand instead of just my comments about it. I think you now see where this may have a pretty good base under them. Maybe you can see why some like these little rigs and they do the job just fine for some of us. Not everyone wants the same thing and that is the reason there are choices. One size doesn't fit all.

Did you also notice the size of the driveline under the Sprinter. I have and unlike some I think it is a pretty hefty one. I have looked at my driveline under my F550 when I still owned it and I have an idea of the sizes of driveshaft and you can't just tell by looking at one how stout they are. I know on the Navion forum I have never heard of anyone having trouble with the driveshaft on a Sprinter. What were your thoughts on the driveline? Is it undersized like some have implied?

Glad to see your post on here.

I'm learning the hard way that pictures on the internet cannot be trusted. Seeing both the Sprinter and Transit C&Cs in person at the show revealed a lot. I wished Chevy and Promaster had cut-aways there but was not the case.

The 3 Promaster reps at the auto show swore there was NO Promaster cut-away chassis and continued to deny it even after I showed them pictures on my phone. It was entertaining to say the least.

Yes Butch, I agree that the Sprinter looked to be a very good RV chassis. It was not flimsy at all. I was actually pleasently surprised and impressed. But I still can't get past the narrow DRW stance. Something will always rub me wrong about that one. I'd love to see the DRW spread apart enough to have a straight frame through to the back.

I never studied the Sprinter drive line and have nothing to compare it against. I would learn so much if all the different C&Cs were lined up in a row for easy comparison.

Comparing the Sprinter to the Transit, the Sprinter is a clear winner for capability. But I am not knocking the Transit either. Though not as big & beefy, it could be better for the smallest of B & C class motor homes. The cab is smaller and sits lower, more like a mini-van than a standard van, feeling more domesticated than the Sprinter. Older folk would appreciate not climbing up in and out from that cab.

burlmart wrote:
Might the adhesive be a water seal between tack welds?

I would never guess that a public auto show would display 'work horse' truck cutaways. show must be HUGE,

I would think the goop where the flanges meet is an adhesive used primarily to reduce flexing and abrasion between the two halves and eliminate potential creaking sounds, but also additional strength & corrosion resistance. They don't want ice and salt spray doing damage. As for protection specifically against water infiltration, there are holes about the frame. The goop minimizes water getting inside the box, but it will get in other ways.

I am not sure how true it is, but I hear the Chicago auto show is the biggest in the country, exceeding the Detroit auto show.....maybe just in recent years.

Ron,

I so glad you got to see the frame under these first hand instead of just my comments about it. I think you now see where this may have a pretty good base under them. Maybe you can see why some like these little rigs and they do the job just fine for some of us. Not everyone wants the same thing and that is the reason there are choices. One size doesn't fit all.

Did you also notice the size of the driveline under the Sprinter. I have and unlike some I think it is a pretty hefty one. I have looked at my driveline under my F550 when I still owned it and I have an idea of the sizes of driveshaft and you can't just tell by looking at one how stout they are. I know on the Navion forum I have never heard of anyone having trouble with the driveshaft on a Sprinter. What were your thoughts on the driveline? Is it undersized like some have implied?

Glad to see your post on here.

good work and nice pics (as always).

good to see they have closed steel member cross sections (rectangles, tubes) rather than open cross sections (channels, angles). especially when using hi-strength steel w/ thinner walls.

might the adhesive be a water seal between tack welds?

i would never guess that a public auto show would display 'work horse' truck cutaways. show must be HUGE,

Oh Boy, I have some serious correcting to make in previous replies.....and I just cleaned them up for accuracy.

I learned a lot at the Chicago auto show today. I got a real good look at the cut-away Sprinter and Transit. The Sprinter was bare, the Transit had a utility body on it's back. Here are the pictures and my observations.

The Sprinter has a 2 piece tack welded (and maybe adhesive) box frame. It is made up of two "U" channels, one inverted over the other, with flanges that meet in the middle, one on each side of the beam. The tack welding is done on those two flanges.











The Transit also has a box frame but is different in that it has a single deep "U" channel with flanges at the top. The box is completed by tack welding (and maybe adhesive) a flat top piece, much in the same manner as the Sprinter.








Kicking the tires of each, the Sprinter felt much more durable which is reflected in the higher GVWR number.

I understand now why the Sprinter & Transit chassis are NOT allowed to have their wheel base changed. Cutting a 2-piece tack welded box frame would quickly get unpredictable and ugly.

i kinda got side tracked. i am interested in the merits/demirits of the transit chassis frame compared to sprinter.

on edit: on second review i got what ron refers to as C, L. and box - the structural steel members' cross section shape. (not the member layout.) for sure box beats C beats L w/r torsional shear and even axial stresses due to twisting, and same order for deformation resistance (member stiffness). whether hi or lower steel strength, the material stiffess (E = modulus of elasticity) is the same. and sice the rigidity of a steel member is the product of its cross-sectional size and E, a lower strength steel w/ thicker cross-sections may be stiffer overall.

w/r a fp for the transit, i think i'd like a no-slide coach house 221xl plan, but w/comfy twin beds and removable back cushions, and one or 2 positions to place pedistal tables for eating or computing. bath away from beds gives more two-room privacy for early risers.

http://www.coachhouserv.com/img-content/floorplans/large/221XL-SD.jpg