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

pnichols,

I agree with you.

I feel it would be ideal if after you and your family are riding down the road all loaded up with people, gear, food, water and fuels, that the rig would have 500-750 pounds of extra margin per axle. Less than that seems too close a call. More than that and you'll be getting a rougher ride. A rig loaded to the limit will have a much smoother ride than an empty rig. But being at the limit is concern for safety and long term durability of the chassis.

nice transit is $23k less than vue/navion

that is a huge saving - way more than i would guess

Personally, I don't care for Class C coach designs that load the chassis under them close to maximums. A healthy margin of the chassis components above the actual loaded weight of the coach helps ensure reliability, long wear rates, and safety. Brake wear, engine and transmission cooling, and driveline ruggedness all benefit from having a chassis weight-rated for as much as possible more than what the coach with it's contents will ever weigh.

The U.S. market stills needs an available Class C chassis with a GVWR well above, say, 13,000 lbs. I for one would never buy a Class C that weighs 95-100% of it's chassis GVWR. I guess thousands of RVs and their owners are out there getting away with it, but it's not for me.

IMHO, the Ford E450 and Chevy 4500 chassis with their 300+ HP engines still have a place in the U.S. Class C market.

would there be a $10k+ saving if the skinny winnie style C/B+ coaches were put on a ford E350 or chevy express 3500?

i guess i am wondering how, after the sprinters sorta brought the smaller euro-style rigs, the north american RV builders didn't try and continue to use the tried and true US built chassis that covered all class C sizes before..

is it simply about throwing as much sq. ft. on the truck as is possible? so, let the big trucks be for 30' MHs, and the lighter duty sprinters get the small C market...sounds uncompetitive.

unless sprinters don't actually cost the RV builder that much more than the ford/chevy. the newness of the sprinter+euro small MH created a desire for a new form of 'upscale' rig that all RV builders could cash-in on, perhaps?

what were other reasons that led to excluding the traditional ford E 350 and chevy 3500, thereby giving most of the 24' market segment to the sprinter?

likely the transit will nibble at the 27-24' boundary, and ducato will eat at the 21-24' end of things. ( the video actually said the sprinters are now carrying 25'8" MHs.)

Many people shop for a motor home, much the same as they do a brick-n-mortar house.....square footage. They think bigger is a better value. Therefore many manufactures appease to that way of thinking.

We own a Phoenix Cruiser 2350 (2007 E350 chassis) that measures
93" wide
23'-8" long
9'-10" tall

It feels massive driving it around the past 8 years. I can't imagine something bigger yet, taking it through the places we travel. Mobility is critical, but functionality/facility is equally critical. Our rig HERE is "Our" middle of the road....and it just fits in our garage too as seen HERE.

Tiger Bengal models, 87" wide, on full-size Chevy, Ford, or Dodge pickup chassis. No slides.

Clearance required for the Average North American Backside?

I was looking at the specs on the Ford Transit cab and chassis, it is overall width of 81" for single rear wheel and 83" for DRW. Rear axle 'trac' is 68.6 for SRW and 65.7 for DRW, meaning the center of the tires side to side. So the rear axle overall is 17" wider than the center to center of the dual rear wheels. 83" would be the minimum width without the tires sticking out beyond the body width.

For the E-350, SRW, rear track is 72.1 and DRW is 75.4. E-450 is even wider at 77.7, reflecting the desire of most RV builders to have a wider 'stance' on the rear axle, so the tires are not stuck under the sides of the RV by more than a few inches when the body is 102" wide.

I did not get a overall width of the rear tires side to side, though that was what I was looking for. The Transit seems to be about 12" skinnier than the E-450 and 10: skinnier than the DRW E-350.

Outside to outside tire width on the E-450 seems to be around 92", so a body less than 8' wide might need fenders to cover the wheels and keep mud from splashing on the sidewalls. The E-350 should have a overall width of about 7'6" and that will fit nicely with the smaller coach that you are looking for. Yes it can be ordered with the 225 HP 5.4L V8 or the 305 HP V10.

The 12,500 GVWR for the 158" WB E-350 and curb weight of only 5,135 pounds leaves a lot of cargo capacity for the body builder and owner to use up. The GCVWR is 18,500 pounds. So with a overall curb weight of 11,000 pounds, the E-350 can still tow a impressive 7,500 pounds.

The 156" WB Transit T-350 dually with gas engine and 10,360 GVWR has a max payload of 5,930 pounds, indicating a 4,430 curb weight. This is about 700 pounds less than the E-350 with 158" WB. GCVWR is 12,000 pounds for the Transit gas or 13,500 pounds for the diesel engine. With a ready to travel curb weight of say 9,500 pounds, the towing capacity is limited to only about 2,500 for the gas version or 4,000 for the diesel version. Transit still is not coming with the Ecoboost 3.5L in the cab and chassis models.

I think that you will find that many manufactures will keep building 8' wide and 8.5' wide class C's on the Ford E-350/450 chassis due to the overall width of the rear axle tires. You will have a lot more towing ability with the E-series van based RV's. If that is important to you, then the wider RV is going to also offer more space inside while traveling. The RV sure seems to shrink a lot when the slides are in.

Have fun camping!

Fred.

Click here --> For an article on some of the new Transit-based units.

burlmart wrote:
why don't we see the full size chevy and ford chassis sporting 'skinny winnie' coaches like this nice sprinter C

They do.

Several manufacturers build 90" wide Class C's on the Ford Transit full-size DRW chassis.