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

burlmart wrote:
i think a great floorplan would be to lose the sofa and slide, put the galley on the driver's side and the fridge on the curb side, and make the bathroom bigger

But then where would you sit to eat and relax? In the two front cab seats? I am not sure how the public would go for it. Still an interesting idea, especially if swiveling the front seats is easily done, and the floor has no bump between the front cab and house.

About a gas Transit, there were some gas Sprinters in their early years. They didn't fare well in fuel economy or power.

what do you guys think about the gas ford transit for a 24' or less no slide mhome? the fp is of new fuse 23a diesel



i think a great floorplan would be to lose the sofa and slide, put the galley on the driver's side and the fridge on the curb side, and make the bathroom bigger

.

My position on the Sprinter chassis does not require ever having driven one ... as how a Class C handles is only part of the criteria. IMHO, the SRW Sprinter 2500 has no business being under a Class C of any length. As far as the DRW (3500) Sprinter is concerned - unless they now have a heavy duty DRW 4000 series - I personally wouldn't want a Class C that stresses the chassis under it so close to the maximum for the chassis itself and it's systems. It would be similar to the wear and tear from driving a delivery truck near it's full rated load week after week.

The 4500 Chevy and E450 Ford chassis provide a lot more capacity overhead to deal with Class C rigs from 23 to 26 feet. What that means is such things as: Longer brake life per brake set, an overly strong frame that helps to maintain a flatter coach platform plane for off-pavement travel to/from campgrounds, probably more reliable cooling for such situations as full A/C use up any grade in any ambient air temperature conditions, a wide rear track stance for a more substantial "driver and passenger feel" in high cross winds, on highway curves, and for when tipped while driving on rutted gravel or dirt roads, a larger diameter drive shaft for maybe less vibration at certain speeds, and a lower rear differential ratio for better towing up grades.

Also, nearly all Sprinter based Class C motorhomes I see seem to have minimal ground clearance overall. My BIL had a Sprinter Class B motorhome for awhile and I had to crawl under it once to repair a sewer valve. It was a real squeeze moving around down there to do anything ... definitely lower than our E450 Class C. The coach sidewalls were even lower to the ground. This low ground clearance will further limit use of them in many off highway camping situations.

Butch, I am not trying to make a point that one chassis is better than the other. I am just attempting to point out the differences.

Interesting that the Sprinter & Transit both have 2-piece box frames with tack-welded flanges to complete the box. I agree that a box frame is strongest given identical dimensions and materials.

I particularly appreciate your point here.

Butch50 wrote:
Ya know, Ya Know I kind of getting tired of people that have never driven a Sprinter chassis MH. I have and I own one!!!!. I have had Ford E series MH and I have also had Chevy and even the Dodge 300 series MH with a 440. I have had class A MH from a 25' on a Chevy chassis with a 454 and other sizes all the way to a 36' DP on a Freightliner chassis with a Cummins engine. So I have pretty good idea how they handle and drive and I'm here to tell all of you that you really need t drive one on a long road trip to see how they handle. Where I live in Arkansas we have a lot of curvy 2 lane roads and I have taken my Sprinter on a bunch of them and like stated before they handle great. Corner great. This is also towing my Subaru Crosstrek behind it.

Ya know, Ya Know I kind of getting tired of people that have never driven a Sprinter chassis MH. I have and I own one!!!!. I have had Ford E series MH and I have also had Chevy and even the Dodge 300 series MH with a 440. I have had class A MH from a 25' on a Chevy chassis with a 454 and other sizes all the way to a 36' DP on a Freightliner chassis with a Cummins engine. So I have pretty good idea how they handle and drive and I'm here to tell all of you that you really need t drive one on a long road trip to see how they handle. Where I live in Arkansas we have a lot of curvy 2 lane roads and I have taken my Sprinter on a bunch of them and like stated before they handle great. Corner great. This is also towing my Subaru Crosstrek behind it.

I have traveled across the plains from here to CO with strong cross winds and didn't have any problems. Sure I could feel that it was blowing but I still traveled at 65MPH and I was towing also.

I just crawled under my Sprinter to take a look at the frame under it and it is neither a C channel nor an L frame. The rear where I looked over the rear axle and all the way to the rear and as far as I could see to the front it was a boxed frame. This is just about the strongest frame that you can have under a rig. Newer Chevy and Dodge pickups are mostly using boxed frames also.

If people want to know how they handle they need to talk to people that have them or have had them to really get the honest answer without all the guess work going on here. If you want to know how a BMW handles do you talk to someone that has never owned one and drives a older Chevy Impala tanks from the 1970s I don't think you would.

ON EDIT: I forgot to tell why the frame is flat over the rear axle. This is built for a flatbed and the hump over the axle makes it harder to put a flat bed on the truck. Take a look at the Ford F450/550 and Dodge 4500/5500 commercial rigs and guess what they have flat frames over the rear axle also. Done for a reason. There are more of these rigs used for box and flat beds especially overseas than for MH chassis.

wbwood wrote:
But from what we understand, Mercedes does not allow their frames to be stretched or altered. As others mentioned, you do have the new Ford transit in the lineup now as well as the Dodge Promaster.

Don't rule out the possibility that I have my facts wrong, but you are correct about the Mercedes frame. The wheel base is not allowed to be altered. I recall reading somewhere that a little can be added behind the rear axle as long as it is bolted utilizing specific holes, not welded on. It has something to do with the welder's heat weakening the strength of the steel. Given the Sprinter has a box frame with flanges, welding would also be extremely difficult to assure proper strength & longevity.

I also think drilling a hole in the frame is not allowed. The Sprinter frame is made with a thinner, higher strength steel to cut down on chassis weight. I wonder if by it's very nature, that type of steel is more resistant to barnacle rusting.

I believe the same rules apply to the Transit for the same reasons. I can't imagine adding anymore to the Promaster given it has only a Single Rear Wheel (SRW) axle.

For the record, the E-Series frames are are big & thick. The E450 steel is thicker than the E350. I don't believe the type of steel used is as strong as the Sprinter and Transit but the extra thickness, the shape and dimensions compensate for it, therefore offering heavier load limits. The type of steel and the "C" shape of the frame, accommodates for welding and drilling which allows outfitters to stretch the frame.

We've driven a Roadtrek RS Adventurous, Class B. It drives nice. Turning radius is awesome. But from what we understand, Mercedes does not allow their frames to be stretched or altered. As others mentioned, you do have the new Ford transit in the lineup now as well as the Dodge Promaster.

Apples to oranges
So few Sprinter owners comment on driving their rigs.What a pleasure to travel in one .Nimble,quick,solid on the road,crazy power turbodiesel motor,turns sharp,stops fast.I like my work Chevy express van but I love my MB m/home.
About the narrow dually rear wheels-looks like it'll fall over on a sharp turn or in a strong wind.In fact it feels like it's glued to the ground in all circumstances.I don't know the engineering but it works.(Waddles like a duck when crossing a sidewalk onto the street...?)
This is a 2014 Citation 24sa.(It thinks it's a sportscar.)

I read countless comments that the Sprinter cab is the most comfortable compared to the Ford E-Series and Chevy, and I agree. When sitting in a Sprinter cab at auto shows, they just feel better. It would be real nice if our E350 driver foot well offered more room side-to-side, but the big V10 engine needs the space. Not only is the foot well tight, but the gas & brake pedals are skewed to one side. At the same time, I cannot say our E350 is uncomfortable. We all adapt. But when shopping around, those things are easily noticed.

About driver seat travel, forward and backward. Regardless of the chassis, I think the design of the motor home is most influential, primarily the transition wall between the steel front cab and the fiberglass sides of the motor home.

If the transition wall is at an odd angle as shown here, this places the slide out further back which provides a lot of space for the driver & passenger seats to travel back and recline.


If the transition wall is at a right angle, this moves the slide out much closer to the driver seat as shown here. This is where you can have limitations with seat adjustment.



About the Sprinter Duel Rear Wheel Axle Design....

The narrow dual rear wheel axle of the Sprinter moves the pairs of rear tires closer together. This narrow stance is very Euro-friendly for their old world narrow road systems. But here in the USA where roads are much wider, a wider stance makes more sense for better stability. Yet Sprinter owners claim the narrow stance does not have stability issues which is good to hear so.

It is all about give here, take there. There is no clear winner for every type of motor home. We are being a bit hard on the Sprinter chassis in this thread, bringing out concerns over it. But every choice has issues of one kind or another.

If I were to scream loud over any chassis at all, it would be the new Promaster where the rear axle comes only with single rear tires. Now that is a real RED FLAG to me. By it's very nature, it is less-stable, under-rated, and over-loaded. They might be okay if traveling alone and light. But two adults and all their stuff quickly over-loads the chassis and it's single tires in back. I don't know how the RV industry can legally offer a Promaster motor home. They appear to have "LAW SUIT" written all over them, not so different from the late 70's early 80's Toyota C&C pickup truck chassis days.

Here is the Promaster chassis. It comes one way, with single rear tires. That is too much to ask for a typical motor home application.