2018-19 Nexus Viper Class C

[2CAJUNS]

Does anyone have one and what are your impressions, good or bad? Would appreciate your comments. Thanks

[pnichols]

Desert Captain wrote:

Rubicon06 wrote:

pauldub wrote:
According to Ford, a 2014 cut-away chassis E-450 weighs 225 pounds more that E-350 with the same wheelbase, engine, and DRW. Where does the mythical "several thousand pounds" come from? Assuming they each have the same house built on top of them, the only difference in fuel economy will be because of the small difference in axle ratio.

That's what my research says as well. Not thousands. The Captain should be demoted to to a lower rank. 🙂

Cute, but before you try and demote me remember there are 3 kinds of people on this earth... those that can do math and those that can't. :B

I am talking two Class C's, each loaded to its GVWR. What part of an E-450 with a GVWR of 14,500# vs an E-350 with a GVWR of 12,500 pounds does not come out to 2,000# {last time I checked that is a ton}. Next, you will be quoting dry weights, oh wait, you just did and everyone knows how useful they are. :S

Come on now folks... my point remains that an E-350 loaded to 12,500# will be working a lot less than an E-450 loaded to 14,500# as they both have the same motor and trans.

:R

Hmmmm ... of course what I was trying to address earlier here and in many other older discussions is that an entire E450 chassis loaded to 12,500# will handle the load better than an entire E350 chassis will loaded to that same 12,500#.

It's not about just how much that the identical engines and transmissions work, it's also about how the differences in thicker frame steel, differences in diameter of the driveshafts, differences in brake swept areas, differences in rear differential ring gear diameters, differences in rear dually stance widths, and the (early model) difference of rear/front torsion bars being in the E450 with only rear torsion bars being in the E350, differences in (early model) power brake booster technologies, and maybe subtle other differences ... can bring better road control, better long-term reliability, better overload handling margin, less component wear long term, etc. between the two Ford cutaway van chassis. (These are some of the reasons that we shopped for a 24 foot Class C on the optional E450 chassis.)

Later Ford E350/E450 specs that I've been able to locate don't go into enough detail to show these subtle differences, one way or the other. Ford cutaway van specs 10-15 years ago that I I've read do show these kind of differences in the two chassis. I wish I had copies of those comprehensive earlier specifications.

[Desert_Captain]

Rubicon06 wrote:

pauldub wrote:
According to Ford, a 2014 cut-away chassis E-450 weighs 225 pounds more that E-350 with the same wheelbase, engine, and DRW. Where does the mythical "several thousand pounds" come from? Assuming they each have the same house built on top of them, the only difference in fuel economy will be because of the small difference in axle ratio.

That's what my research says as well. Not thousands. The Captain should be demoted to to a lower rank. 🙂

Cute, but before you try and demote me remember there are 3 kinds of people on this earth... those that can do math and those that can't. :B

I am talking two Class C's, each loaded to its GVWR. What part of an E-450 with a GVWR of 14,500# vs an E-350 with a GVWR of 12,500 pounds does not come out to 2,000# {last time I checked that is a ton}. Next, you will be quoting dry weights, oh wait, you just did and everyone knows how useful they are. :S

Come on now folks... my point remains that an E-350 loaded to 12,500# will be working a lot less than an E-450 loaded to 14,500# as they both have the same motor and trans.

:R

[ron_dittmer]

Rubicon06 wrote:

pauldub wrote:
According to Ford, a 2014 cut-away chassis E-450 weighs 225 pounds more that E-350 with the same wheelbase, engine, and DRW. Where does the mythical "several thousand pounds" come from? Assuming they each have the same house built on top of them, the only difference in fuel economy will be because of the small difference in axle ratio.

That's what my research says as well. Not thousands. The Captain should be demoted to to a lower rank. 🙂

The weight of a cutaway E450 chassis as delivered to the RV manufacture may weigh 225 pounds more than a cutaway E350, assumed most of that extra 225 pounds found in the thicker frame and spring steel. The 2000 pound difference discussed is referring to the load rating limit between the E450 and E350-HD cutaway chassis.

You can order a lighter-duty E350 cut-away chassis, maybe dropping the "Heavy Duty" label, but I don't believe you can order a lighter-duty E450 cutaway chassis. There are at least 3 flavors of the E350 cutaway, the lightest duty having single rear wheels. Somewhere in the mix is the smaller 35 gallon fuel tank. You can actually order a new E350 cut-away with the same 11,500 pound weight rating as a 2007 model year. I think the 55 gallon fuel tank is optional. The lower rating is achieved through lower rated springs. That translates into a softer ride for smaller & lighter RV models. But from what I can tell, RV outfitters generally don't work with that one.

I used to be more up on this stuff. Things do change over the years so I might be off a bit, but I hope you get the idea. If you really want to know, you'll have to get a current E-series spec/data sheet which breaks it all down nicely. The old data sheets I have, covered all E-Series from the E150 E250 E350 vans, E350 & E450 stripped chassis, and E350/E450 cutaway chassis. It was interesting to compare the differences between the 2007 heavy duty E350 and E450 cut-away chassis. Things like the shock absorbers and front stabilizer bar were the same used on an E250 van. That explained why our 2007 motor home had some suspension & control deficiencies.

[Rubicon06]

pauldub wrote:
According to Ford, a 2014 cut-away chassis E-450 weighs 225 pounds more that E-350 with the same wheelbase, engine, and DRW. Where does the mythical "several thousand pounds" come from? Assuming they each have the same house built on top of them, the only difference in fuel economy will be because of the small difference in axle ratio.

That's what my research says as well. Not thousands. The Captain should be demoted to to a lower rank. 🙂

[pauldub]

According to Ford, a 2014 cut-away chassis E-450 weighs 225 pounds more that E-350 with the same wheelbase, engine, and DRW. Where does the mythical "several thousand pounds" come from? Assuming they each have the same house built on top of them, the only difference in fuel economy will be because of the small difference in axle ratio.

[Desert_Captain]

Phil, you and I have knocked this topic around for years... If a 450 weighs several thousand pounds more than a 350 and that is the case with the later models, and they both have the same motor and trans the 350 does not have to work as hard. Add in the differentials {4:10 vs 4:56} and the difference in fuel economy is easy to see.


We agree there isn't all that much difference between the 350/450 except the GVWR/GCWR which is currently a ton. Yours and mine {2005/2011} have slightly different numbers.

:C

[pnichols]

Desert Captain wrote:
The 350 just benefits from having the same motor and trans with a lot less work for it to do.

Hmmm .... :h

For instance with respect to my Class C weighing in at say 11,800 lbs. (or any given weight) -> how can an E350 chassis under it have to do less work carrying it around than an E450 chassis under it would?

Looking at it from another perspective - with whatever heavier duty differences the E450 chassis may possess over the E350 chassis - wouldn't the E450 chassis meet the challenges placed on it better than the E350 chassis would?

The E350/E450 differences appear to be less now than they were back when we bought our 2005. My 2005 detailed E450 specs are no longer commonly available on the Internet, but the earliest now available with some key clicks - for years 2014 on up - can be used here to compare the E350 cutaway chassis to the E450 cutaway chassis by clicking on "VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS": https://fordbbas.com/publications

[Desert_Captain]

Phil, welcome to the thread was wondering when you would be joining us. :B

What I said was: "Obviously, with or without a toad, the 450 is humping 3,000 - 4,000# more than the 350 every mile it rolls down the road assuming they are loaded to, or near their respective GVWR/ GCWR's"

No the 350 - 450's are not all that different and it is a combination of the extra weight and the 4:56 rear end vs the 4:10 that costs the extra mileage. The 350 just benefits from having the same motor and trans with a lot less work for it to do.

:C

[pnichols]

Hmmm ... I really have to disagree on the E450 cutaway van chassis - inherently by itself - being 2000 lbs. heavier than the E350 cutaway van chassis ... as may have been implied in another post (therefore meaning it has slightly poorer mileage as a result of this extra inherent bare chassis weight).

The E450 cutaway van chassis is rated and designed to CARRY MORE weight if required due to coach size and/or coach contents - if needed by the coach manufacturer or RV owner ... but in itself it is not too much heavier than the E350 cutaway van chassis. It's only a bit heavier because of the thicker steel in it's frame, it's larger brake discs, it's longer rear axle's left/right housings due to it's wider rear dually stance, and it's larger rear differential ring gear.

What makes the E450 cutaway chassis slightly heavier is exactly what we wanted under our 24 foot Itasca Class C in order to provide for "chassis overkill". Right from the start we wanted more truck under our small Class C for as much as possible reliable and rugged performance under all conditions, including off-highway use whenever in our RV exploring and rock hunting. Usually the E350 cutaway van chassis is what is used under Class C motorhomes up to around 24-25 feet long.

Our total RV vehicle weight is probably averaging around 1800 - 1900 lbs. UNDER what our year E450 chassis was designed to carry day-in day-out. The result is we have longer brake pad life, and a rock solid, stable, and completely under control feeling when traveling under all conditions. We can load it up with no concern for overall weight - including all tanks full and any equipment - with no affect on handling that I can notice. This sometimes includes probably bringing way too many rocks home!

The overkill leaf springs in the rear did make for a lot of up/down pounding back there for a few years until I had Koni FSD shocks installed in the rear. Now stuff stays put in the rear - i.e. stuff now stays put on open shelves and the latch to our shower door in a rear corner stays latched.

The only thing I occasionally wish it had was 4WD, for a more feel-good effect whenever we're out there off-highway.

[Desert_Captain]

"I can turn my 31 ft into any spot that a 24 ft can. It's not the length of the coach, its the experience of the driver or lack thereof. "

LMAO... Then you can utilize all of that experience to back it back out and go find a 31'parking space.

:B

[Expyinflight]

We specifically wanted our 25ft Class C to be on the E450 chassis. Just over 26ft, bumper to bumper. The 182" wheelbase seems to be the perfect fit for this size. Absolutely love it. Three cross country trips now, along with some closer trips also, and we constantly comment on how smooth it rides. Very quiet also. I had the alignment corrected when new. Drives like an SUV. Handles well in the wind. Trucks don't bother it at all. Just a pleasure to drive it. Comfortable all day.

[bob_nestor]

rockhillmanor wrote:

I can turn my 31 ft into any spot that a 24 ft can. It's not the length of the coach, its the experience of the driver or lack thereof.

True, but mechanical setup also helps. I've owned similar size RVs built on the Ford E-350, Chevy 3500 and Sprinter 3500. The Ford had the tightest turning circle, followed by the Sprinter. I could turn all three around in my backyard pretty easily, but the Chevy required a lot more jockeying.

[rockhillmanor]

I doubt we have that different a driving style {speed - heavy right foot etc.} and there is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel.

Apparently we do! :C

I understand that handling, at least in a straight line, is probably better with the longer wheelbase of a 31" C but have trouble believing it can compare with a 24 foot C in close quarters or windy conditions {the extra windage of the larger coach being the issue here}.

I can turn my 31 ft into any spot that a 24 ft can. It's not the length of the coach, its the experience of the driver or lack thereof.

[Desert_Captain]

"Currently have the 450 albeit on a 31 ft. Handling is much better. AND I tow a toad with power to spare climbing grades AND I get 12 mpg."

I never doubted you had the power to spare as the 6.8L V-10 is a beast. My point was that two comparable Class C's, one an E-350 the other and E-450 of the same age will have the same motor and transmission. Yes, the differentials vary with the 450 coming with a 4:56 and the 350 a 4:10 due to the difference in weight and it is that weight that makes a huge difference in performance. The 4:56 has to cost you about a 10 percent increase in fuel consumption vs the 4:10. Note that in any C over about 26' the 350 is just not an option.

My 2011 chassis 350 has a GVWR of 11,500 {Ford upped them to 12,500 starting with the 2012's}. Most late model 450's come in at a GVWR of 14,500 with both rated to tow 5,000#.
most Toads run around 3,200 - 4,200# which are well within the GCWR of the typical 450 at 18,500#. My 350 has a GCWR of 14,450 and my motorcycle cargo trailer and bike weigh 2,220#. At the CAT scale, fully loaded {bike trailer etc} I come in at 13,808#.

Obviously, with or without a toad, the 450 is humping 3,000 - 4,000# more than the 350 every mile it rolls down the road assuming they are loaded to, or near their respective GVWR/ GCWR's

What puzzles me is that you are reporting 25 to 33 percent better mileage than I have ever seen in 5+ years and 52,000+ miles. I average 9.5 loaded {cruising 63- 65} but not towing and 8.5 - 9 towing {cruising 60 - 63}.

Since we probably have the same motor and trans {your profile doesn't disclose your actual coach or toad} I have to wonder just how is that possible? Have you modified your drive train with a 5 Star Tune or something similar? I doubt we have that different a driving style {speed - heavy right foot etc.} and there is only so much energy in a gallon of fuel.

I understand that handling, at least in a straight line, is probably better with the longer wheelbase of a 31" C but have trouble believing it can compare with a 24 foot C in close quarters or windy conditions {the extra windage of the larger coach being the issue here}.

Happily, we all seem to love what we have, why else would we have them but unless you are loading and or towing heavy a lot I maintain that a 450 chassis in a C 25' or less tends to be overkill... unless you are like Phil whose idea of fun is to go out into the desert and collect copious quantities of rocks... jump in anytime here Phil. :B

Hopefully, this discussion from folks like us who have been there done that will be of benefit to the people who are shopping. Such is the beauty of this Forum and the exchange of information and of course...

As always... opinions and YMMV.

:C