24 ft or less B+ with over head bed.

[Gjac]

In looking on line I notice most B+ MH's eliminate the long overhang over the front cab and the Queen bed. They look more aero dynamic and have less overall height. Some claim they ride better than a C. The ones I looked at have an entertainment center and you lose the overhead storage and bed. What models if any come with a single bed over head and not the entertainment center? Also do any of the B+ models come with a large storage area in the rear like many of the C's have?

[Bordercollie]

I think that the overhead of a standard Class C is a good thing for storage, etc., but would prefer no front or side windows to develop leaks and need re-sealing over time. If you have kids/grandkids or guests sleeping in overhead, opening side windows are probably worth having along with curtains and privacy drapes. Another good thing is shade from overhead, less sun glare. Class C's with overheads are more plentiful used.

Side issue, I prefer a 27 foot Class C with rear RV queen bed to a 24 footer with less storage cabinetry and lesser sleeping comfort overhead and jacknife sofa bed.

[Gjac]

wintersun wrote:
Check out the "Class C" motorhomes from Coachmen in both traditional C types with bunks over the cab and also B+ versions. They use the Ford E-350 chassis for some models and the Chevy 4500 for others so you have a choice of both as well as differing floor plans.

What I particularly like is their use of compressor fridges and propane cooktops and ovens. The 4500 RVs also have a 4000W generator and very large fuel tanks.

Yes, If you are referring to the Leprechaun and Freelander I like the large storage bays in the rear, 50 gals of FW, and the large gas tank. If the actual weight is close the the GAWR front and rear the Chevy would 4500 Chevy would have better weight distribution than the Ford 350. I don't know if anyone else has noticed the axel weight ratings of each chassis or have actual weights front and back for the 21QB models.

[wintersun]

Check out the "Class C" motorhomes from Coachmen in both traditional C types with bunks over the cab and also B+ versions. They use the Ford E-350 chassis for some models and the Chevy 4500 for others so you have a choice of both as well as differing floor plans.

What I particularly like is their use of compressor fridges and propane cooktops and ovens. The 4500 RVs also have a 4000W generator and very large fuel tanks.

[Gjac]

DrewE wrote:
Tail drag is less about overall ground clearance (which is pretty much the same for most class C's, since the lowest point is under the axle), but rather the departure angle--the maximum angle up from the bottom of the rear tires to the bumper without encountering anything. My motorhome has significantly more ground clearance than my car, but it is vastly more likely to scrape the tail end and more likely to be high-pointed by a railroad crossing or similar short, fairly steep little hill.

. I should have been more specific when I mention GC I meant from the hitch where it drags to the ground. I notice some transition up from the rear wheel to the hitch while some start to transition half way then more abruptly to the hitch. It does not appear to be a problem on the sprinter chassis with a longer wheel base and less overhang.

[DrewE]

Tail drag is less about overall ground clearance (which is pretty much the same for most class C's, since the lowest point is under the axle), but rather the departure angle--the maximum angle up from the bottom of the rear tires to the bumper without encountering anything. My motorhome has significantly more ground clearance than my car, but it is vastly more likely to scrape the tail end and more likely to be high-pointed by a railroad crossing or similar short, fairly steep little hill.

[Gjac]

AJR wrote:
I don’t know. But my E350 RV had a lower entry step than my current 4500 chassis. I had to buy a step so entry was easier on this old man.

Gjac

After all these posts of what you are looking for. Are you just looking for responses? Or do you really have a plan for your next RV?

There have been a number of good responses, I think. Maybe you are just overthinking this whole issue.
Peace…

Over thinking is what I do. I made a few mistakes in my younger years for being impulsive. I am looking for a 22-24 ft MH, and have learned a few things from these responses. Chevy chassis have more room in the cockpit than Ford and reportedly ride better than a Ford Chassis without a lot of suspension mods. B plus's ride no better than a C of the same size. I never would have thought that before responses. Tail drag is something to look out for although I still don't know what is a good min GC to avoid this. Some report that newer C's have less of a problem. Storage and water are also important to me. Some C's have a huge storage bay in the rear and 50 gals of FW, B pluses don't. Still thinking about if a rear bed would work or a sideout with a queen is needed. To me going from an A to a small C is a big adjustment with a lot of things to consider. I have a MH now so I am in no hurry to buy a new one. I will wait until the economy changes and people are no longer enamored or can afford RV travel. I think by next year there will be a lot of MH's for sale and prices will be much lower.

[AJR]

I don’t know. But my E350 RV had a lower entry step than my current 4500 chassis. I had to buy a step so entry was easier on this old man.

Gjac

After all these posts of what you are looking for. Are you just looking for responses? Or do you really have a plan for your next RV?

There have been a number of good responses, I think. Maybe you are just overthinking this whole issue.
Peace…

[pnichols]

atreis wrote:

Gjac wrote:

atreis wrote:
I prefer to Chevy 4500. Much less tuning of the chasses required than the Ford, while still retaining the benefits of the wider rear track.

Does the 4500 and 3500 chassis have the same rear track as the Ford 450 and 350 chassis?

I don't know where to find the exact dimensions. Given that Thor builds the exact same motorhomes on the E350 and Chevy 4500 (and there's no visible difference at the rear) I'd guess it's close to the E350's width.

I also appreciate the 4500's much higher OCCC (vs. the E350 version). 🙂

I wonder why Thor doesn't build on the E450 Ford cutaway chassis?

As I understand it Ford will still deliver E450 cutaway chassis, with their new V8, to Class C motorhome builders - but that Ford no longer offers complete E-Series vans.

[atreis]

Gjac wrote:

atreis wrote:
I prefer to Chevy 4500. Much less tuning of the chasses required than the Ford, while still retaining the benefits of the wider rear track.

Does the 4500 and 3500 chassis have the same rear track as the Ford 450 and 350 chassis?

I don't know where to find the exact dimensions. Given that Thor builds the exact same motorhomes on the E350 and Chevy 4500 (and there's no visible difference at the rear) I'd guess it's close to the E350's width.

I also appreciate the 4500's much higher OCCC (vs. the E350 version). 🙂

[Gjac]

atreis wrote:
I prefer to Chevy 4500. Much less tuning of the chasses required than the Ford, while still retaining the benefits of the wider rear track.

Does the 4500 and 3500 chassis have the same rear track as the Ford 450 and 350 chassis?

[atreis]

I prefer to Chevy 4500. Much less tuning of the chasses required than the Ford, while still retaining the benefits of the wider rear track.

[ron_dittmer]

I agree that the E450 is the best of the bunch. The only thing I would do concerning the extra rough ride in back on the lighter weighted rigs would be to "tune" the rear suspension to better match the actual load it carries. Too much extra capability will make a rough ride even more rough. Many RV owners complain about their rig thrashing around. Maybe something can be done to soften the ride.

How to "tune" the rear suspension is another topic involving the removal of the proper amount of E450 leaf springs. I have no personal experience to provide, only theories. I imagine it would begin by comparing the leaf spring packs of the E450 to the E350, learning what you can from the differences. Also compare your E450 actual rear axle weight to the limit of the E350 of the same model year. If you are rear axle weighs 1000 less than what an E350 rear axle can handle, then you want your leaf stacks to be that of an E350. Again, my theory alone.

[pnichols]

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
Interesting point, how much wider is a 450 chassis compared to a 350? Is this still true with the newer chassis?

For 2021/2022 as appropriate, for dual rear wheels, per manufacturer's specifications....and I think all recent years are the same, but I don't absolutely know that for certain.

Ford E450: 77.7" rear track
Ford E350: 75.4" rear track
Ford Transit T350: 65.7" rear track
Sprinter 3500XD or 4500: 60.7" rear track

Based on my experience with a decidedly not short, not B+ class C, I think you'll have trouble with comfort and stuff not staying put long before the chassis is in any danger of being too tippy for safety. The main places where I have any trouble at all are things like exiting some gas stations or other parking lots where there's a significant transition between the street and the driveway and I go somewhat obliquely, causing a significant but sill controlled sway. Stuff rattles in cabinets in such circumstances. I've never had any trouble negotiating mountain road curves at appropriate speeds, for roads that are halfway sane to take a motorhome over. It is, of course, not a Jeep, and dose have a pretty horrible minimum turning radius (mine worse than the ones you're considering since it has a longer wheelbase with the same wheel cut angles).

Andrew, thanks for those dual rear wheel width specs above.

Those numbers make it obvious that the E450 duallies are wider than the rest, and it sure explains why some Sprinter motorhomes I've seen on the highways always look "too tall for their width" for use on open country Western U.S. highway cross-winds. That chassis appears to be more suited for use in delivery trucks that travel heavily on narrow town streets. Of course the Ford E-Series was probably intended for that kind of use in primarily the U.S., but wound up coming out wider than later designs intended for world-wide delivery van use.

[DrewE]

Gjac wrote:
Interesting point, how much wider is a 450 chassis compared to a 350? Is this still true with the newer chassis?

For 2021/2022 as appropriate, for dual rear wheels, per manufacturer's specifications....and I think all recent years are the same, but I don't absolutely know that for certain.

Ford E450: 77.7" rear track
Ford E350: 75.4" rear track
Ford Transit T350: 65.7" rear track
Sprinter 3500XD or 4500: 60.7" rear track

Based on my experience with a decidedly not short, not B+ class C, I think you'll have trouble with comfort and stuff not staying put long before the chassis is in any danger of being too tippy for safety. The main places where I have any trouble at all are things like exiting some gas stations or other parking lots where there's a significant transition between the street and the driveway and I go somewhat obliquely, causing a significant but sill controlled sway. Stuff rattles in cabinets in such circumstances. I've never had any trouble negotiating mountain road curves at appropriate speeds, for roads that are halfway sane to take a motorhome over. It is, of course, not a Jeep, and dose have a pretty horrible minimum turning radius (mine worse than the ones you're considering since it has a longer wheelbase with the same wheel cut angles).