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

For what it's worth, I'm 6'2" and have plenty of leg stretch-out room driving our Ford E450 based 24 foot non-slide Class C. The dinette seat-back right behind the driver's seat folds down so that the driver's seat-back can tilt well back at the same time as the driver's seat itself being slid all the way back. When cruising down the road during conditions where it's safe to do so, I can even place my feet in between the pedals for exceptional stretch-out length. What you get with the Ford engine doghouse extending so far into the cab area is a shorter protrusion of the hood so as to keep the overall length of the vehicle as short as possible for both delivery vans and Class B/C motorhomes ... all this with the big V10 engine still fitting, as opposed to only a V8, or inline 5-cylinder, or in-line 6-cylinder.

This driver's seat situation is probably fairly common with non-slide rigs. Ours is also a "widebody" design so that slides are not entirely needed in order to have enough room to be comfortable for most non-full-time camping. However, it's height is about the same as many Sprinter based Class C rigs, but the wide rear dually stance of the Ford chassis provides additional stability in cross-winds, in curves, and when being passed by big rigs.

There is a need for narrow, but still tall (for cargo volume) delivery vans and box trucks in cities. But for the more open road situations of RV'ing, the added lateral stability of a generous track can have advantages.

I'll provide one answer about the appeal of the Sprinter: the comfort of the cabin. I personally couldn't get along with the narrow footwells of the Ford chassis. Chevy is better but doesn't come anywhere close to the spacious Sprinter cabin. When I was shopping there were zero short class C motorhomes with slideout on Ford or Chevy where I could put the driver seat far enough back with the slideout in. In the Sprinter the seat will slide further back than I need it to. Driving all day with scrunched feet and sitting too far forward was simply not an option for me.

I do somewhat live in fear of the cost of Sprinter repairs. Most owners don't have any major problems, but the few that do get hit hard. As far as stability goes, it's a real handful in a gusty crosswind. I can't make a comparison to Ford or Chevy. I've never felt that there was any danger of the wheels on the upwind side leaving the ground. I once made an unscheduled 2-day stop in western Nebraska because I thought it was unsafe to drive in the winds. After seeing a couple of semis on their side I would have made the same decision with any chassis.

I know what you mean.

When following behind a tall Sprinter motor home, it looks like a gust of wind will lay the rig over on it's side. The pairs of rear tires are placed much closer to the center than any other DRW in the industry. It actually looks quite strange to me. Imagine taking off the outer two rear tires, and placing them on the inside of the inner two tires. It's not so, but it looks nearly that extreme.

One of my main concerns/dislikes regarding the various Class C designs based on the narrow Sprinter (and other upcoming) chassis has little to do with their practicality when parked at a campsite - as slides can eliminate the constraints of a narrow interior.

My big negative against them is when going down the road. A lot of them are as TALL as our E450 based Class C ... while not having anywhere near the rear track width of an E450.

Boy ... do they look laterally unstable to me. Maybe it's my conservative engineering side having too strong of an influence.

WayneLee wrote:
Recently, rumor has it that Forest River will not offer Ford's E350 chassis in the future, but instead has decided to use only Ford's E450 chassis (mine is a 450). The E450 chassis uses Ford's larger V10 (different "chip" give more HP), a 6 speed transmission, and has more weight capacity including a 7500 lb hitch.

I've been told that currently, the Chevy chassis is not available. Apparently, the assembly line at Chevy has two or three different types of vehicles produced on it.

That is correct. Full profile RVs on the E350 chassis V10 chassis would exceed the new CO2 limitations for the 10-14k vehicle class. So the option is to use the V8, limit the frontal area to 72 ft^2, or move up to the E450 which is subject to higher CO2 allowances.

https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/non-html/Q-229.pdf

The Chevy chassis hasn't been produced since the Colorado started production. GM has not committed to resuming production. This would be the 3rd long-term supply disruption in the last 10 years for that chassis, so there isn't a lot of love in the body-builder world.

I just recently downsized from a Class A to a Class C. After some research, I liked the offerings from Forest River with their Sunseeker and Forester line of C's. I settled on the Sunseeker, which is offered in the Chevy, Ford and Sprinter chassis. Recently, rumor has it that Forest River will not offer Ford's E350 chassis in the future, but instead has decided to use only Ford's E450 chassis (mine is a 450). The E450 chassis uses Ford's larger V10 (different "chip" give more HP), a 6 speed transmission, and has more weight capacity including a 7500 lb hitch.

I've been told that currently, the Chevy chassis is not available. Apparently, the assembly line at Chevy has two or three different types of vehicles produced on it. So the cutaway chassis used in Class C's are only produced for a short time. On the other hand, Ford's assembly line only produces E450's and E350's in a variety of types including the cutaway chassis.

Forest River is an interesting company. Started in 1996, it is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a Warren Buffet company, that owns a diverse conglomerate of companies including newspapers, GEICO Insurance, Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, and a whole lot more. Forest River manufacturers Class A and C coaches, towables (5th Wheel and TT), park models, and transit vehicles like you see at airports taking people to hotels or car rentals. I was told that Forest River has 26 manufacturing plants in the US with a brand new one just opened in Michigan.

Forest River has two "Grand Touring Series" Class C's in a 97" width and their Sprinter chassis C's in a 95" width. The standard width for their C's is 101".

Like many various product life cycles, motor homes migrate over time.

I know Phoenix Cruisers were originally class "B" motor homes around year 1999. To keep up with the market trend at the time, they migrated into the skinny B+ market to provide more comfort & practicality with a wider width and some additional length, marketed as a "B" alternative. As time passed, that concept continued with longer and longer models. Since 2004 (maybe even further back), the PC line up is the exact same motor home structure made at different lengths, now from 21'-7" to 30'-10". I don't know what happened to their shortest 2100 model but not long ago it used to be made 5" shorter.

As far as the Sprinter versus the Ford-E350 & Chevy-3500, I wonder like Burlmart, scratching my head why the Sprinter diesel has taken such a huge lead. I always felt the Chevy 3500 was the clear winner. But then...unlike the masses, I feel slide outs are a bad idea, so I surely don't know what the heck I am talking about. :)

Happy New Year To All!!!

i am naturally curious about the trend of things and what are the primary forces influencing them. i am not pushing any specific chassis, but i am curious about the dominance of sprinters in the 90" width 24' class C market over the last decade.

it seems like for much less cost, the bigger gas chevy or ford could have continued to serve the slimmer Cs while providing higher payload. is it sprinter's style, diesel, or what?

i've been youtubing sprinter, transit, and promaster Cs and like a lot of the features. i know LTV and PC offered a chassis choice on some slim C models in days past. PW's very well crafted new Plateau started on a ford E350 (?), but now it's on a Sprinter. What is gained/lost in this chassis switch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDR5k8ecI7E

I've seen some quite puny OCCC ratings on Sprinter chassis based "C"s when at the last RV show a few months ago. Sprinters are nice rigs. Especially when it comes to the cab doghouse department.

Phoenix Cruiser makes some decent rigs on the E-450 chassis, and they are marketedly slimmer than other makes. If I had the cash for a custom "C", I'd definitely look at what they offer. With a slide-out or two, the 6-12 inches lost in width wouldn't be noticed.

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.

The Sprinter chassis achieves this. The GVWR is 1,130 pounds less than the sum of the GAWRs. AFAIK it's the only Class C you can load to GVWR without busting either of the GAWRs. Tire-wise, at full inflation, the front tires can carry 950 pounds over GAWR, and the rear tires 2160 pounds over GAWR. When I'm loaded 150 pounds over GVWR, I'm 560 pounds under GAWR on the front, and 420 pounds under on the rear. Left-right balance is close to perfect, which will of course vary from rig-to-rig.