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?

[Gjac]

Gjac wrote:

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

I don't think there's any solid advantage or disadvantage, since the "B+" designation is just a marketing distinction for a smallish class C that (generally) has no cabover bunk and maybe an above-average trim level. It's hard to say one is inherently better than the other when they're basically just different names for the same thing.

That being said, if you find a unit that meets your needs and has a layout you like, does it really matter if the maker decides to call it a class B+, or a class C, or a class F4, or...well, anything? To my mind, that seems to make about as much of a difference as whether the model is named after a summer resort area rather than a species of tree (or, should it be a toy hauler, a military aircraft).

I don't care what they call it either,. I just thought that a lower profile B + MH, 9 ft 10 ins vs 11 ft 3 ins for a C would have a lower CG and feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners. If the ride is the same the "solid advantage" of the C is more exterior and interior storage and more FW capacity. The aero front end does not seem to help the ride as some have posted.

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

[ron_dittmer]

When it comes to handling, motorhomes are not much different than rental moving trucks.

Imagine setting a 4 ton machine in an empty box truck right at the overhead door, then another time, place it right behind the cab, then another time left or right of center. Then do everything in a short box truck and again in a long box truck.
That is how motorhomes vary.

[pnichols]

Gjac wrote:

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

I don't think there's any solid advantage or disadvantage, since the "B+" designation is just a marketing distinction for a smallish class C that (generally) has no cabover bunk and maybe an above-average trim level. It's hard to say one is inherently better than the other when they're basically just different names for the same thing.

That being said, if you find a unit that meets your needs and has a layout you like, does it really matter if the maker decides to call it a class B+, or a class C, or a class F4, or...well, anything? To my mind, that seems to make about as much of a difference as whether the model is named after a summer resort area rather than a species of tree (or, should it be a toy hauler, a military aircraft).

I don't care what they call it either,. I just thought that a lower profile B + MH, 9 ft 10 ins vs 11 ft 3 ins for a C would have a lower CG and feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners. If the ride is the same the "solid advantage" of the C is more exterior and interior storage and more FW capacity. The aero front end does not seem to help the ride as some have posted.

Also, a C on an E450 chassis of the equivalent length of a B+ on either a E350, or Sprinter, or whatever dually chassis is going to feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners because the width (stance) of the E450's rear duallies will be wider than those of other chassis types used for B+ and C motorhomes.

Our 24 foot Class C on it's overkill E450 chassis feels generally very solid and well-anchored on curves, in high cross winds, and when caught in the air side-push from passing trucks. The rear dually width versus coach height is very important geometry for good side-to-side stability in a motorhome.

[Gjac]

DrewE wrote:

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

I don't think there's any solid advantage or disadvantage, since the "B+" designation is just a marketing distinction for a smallish class C that (generally) has no cabover bunk and maybe an above-average trim level. It's hard to say one is inherently better than the other when they're basically just different names for the same thing.

That being said, if you find a unit that meets your needs and has a layout you like, does it really matter if the maker decides to call it a class B+, or a class C, or a class F4, or...well, anything? To my mind, that seems to make about as much of a difference as whether the model is named after a summer resort area rather than a species of tree (or, should it be a toy hauler, a military aircraft).

I don't care what they call it either,. I just thought that a lower profile B + MH, 9 ft 10 ins vs 11 ft 3 ins for a C would have a lower CG and feel less tippy going around mtn roads with corners. If the ride is the same the "solid advantage" of the C is more exterior and interior storage and more FW capacity. The aero front end does not seem to help the ride as some have posted.

[ron_dittmer]

Every motorhome, brand, length, wheel base, etc. has it's own unique driving characteristics.

I got gutsy last year and decided to optimize our rig further than most people would consider. CLICK HERE to read about it which includes many descriptive pictures. Again.....Every rig is different so you will need to do your own research on whether your rig would benefit from doing something similar.

[DrewE]

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

I don't think there's any solid advantage or disadvantage, since the "B+" designation is just a marketing distinction for a smallish class C that (generally) has no cabover bunk and maybe an above-average trim level. It's hard to say one is inherently better than the other when they're basically just different names for the same thing.

That being said, if you find a unit that meets your needs and has a layout you like, does it really matter if the maker decides to call it a class B+, or a class C, or a class F4, or...well, anything? To my mind, that seems to make about as much of a difference as whether the model is named after a summer resort area rather than a species of tree (or, should it be a toy hauler, a military aircraft).

[rlw999]

Gjac wrote:
I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

The same as comparing two different class C's of the same length -- features and layout. The class B+ might give a small increase in gas mileage, but you're still pushing a big brick down the freeway, the B+ is just a bit more efficient at pushing the air out of the way.

[Gjac]

I guess the next logical question is if a B+ and C of the same length ride the same as some have posted and the two still need the same suspension mods what is the real advantage of a B+ over a C?

[ron_dittmer]

I would not know how the E350 and the 3500 compare for any particular model year. I only have the E-series spec sheets.

[IAMICHABOD]

Not Ron but it may be,they have a completely different front suspension and the rear on mine has one less leaf spring than the E350 of the same vintage.

I bought a 2006 Chevy 3500 based Tioga Class C 26Q, I test drove about a dozen or more of the same or similar types all on Ford E350 Chassis and just one test drive in a Chevy based one and I was sold. The ride and noise level inside with no banging was the greatest thing that I noticed.

[Gjac]

Ron would the Chevy 3500 have a lower spring rate than the Ford 350 providing a better ride? I notice most newer short Class C's only come with the 350 or 3500 chassis.

[ron_dittmer]

A small motorhome built on a Ford E450 or Chevy 4500 chassis will provide a very rough ride because the chassis is designed to carry a lot more weight than is actually being carried.

Our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser 2350 is 23'-8" long, is built on a 2007 Ford E350 chassis, and even it was over-capable in the front axle, making a more rough ride for us sitting up front. I finally got brave and addressed it last year.

CLICK HERE to read all about it. I included many pictures for clarity.

[bobndot]

If I had it to do over, I would like to try the GM cutaway . I towed a 6500# TT with a 2016 Silverado with the 5.3 and HD tow package and it had plenty of power on the hills with a combined weight of 13k or so. The new 6.0 should be fine in a class C.
Both my old B conversions were GM's and they were a pleasure to drive over 200k miles and they did offer more foot room for the passenger. My wife never complains about the lack of space in the Ford but I have heard others mention it was tight.

My friend owns a diesel shop and strips and rebuilds medium duty trucks to sell them. Talking to his customers who also drive pickups all say that the Ford and GM's are equally balanced as far as dependability . I think the GM parts might end up being a little less expensive over time.

[Gjac]

bobndot wrote:
IMO, I think the E450 is an E450 no matter class c or B+. You have to have the correct alignment which might be a little difficult to find the right shop to do that.

Maybe the Transit drives better but not sure about the payload. Same thing with the Pro-Master which is FWD .
Loading up the rear on that model might causes the wheels to spin on loose gravel or very wet surfaces, at least that's what dealer told me. Spinning on gravel was the Pro Master owners biggest complaint when the rear was loaded up.

The P. Cruiser seems more aero dynamic and has less cabover which I would think would drive better from an engineering point of view but Ron did all the same mods as I did to allow his rig to handle and ride better. Mine is a class c square box which drives very well now after the mods. I wish they would build these things to drive correctly from the get-go.

mods:
-shocks, Bils front - FSD rear
-Roadmaster steering stabilizer
-alignment with caster kit
- rear track bar
- heavy duty sway bars front and rear
- experiment with PSI in all tires

I tried a set of wireless Air bags with compressor $1700 but had them removed bc they did not raise my MH more than level. I was looking to gain some driveway clearance of and inch to 2 inches but the bags only offered 1/2", if that, above normal and the compressor constantly malfunctioned causing massive air loss. Swapped the bags out, swapped the compressor and leak tested all the lines and connections and never found the leak source, so I had them removed. Go figure that one out. All the air leaked out in 3 hours but no bubbles anywhere. Maybe Rod Serling built my rv. The dealer was very helpful in trying to resolve the issue but even the AirLift folks didn't understand it.

Rod Serling, you are showing your age Bob. I don't understand why all these mods are necessary either. Many on here that have had both Ford and Chevy claim the Chevy drives much better without all these mods and claim the front cab has more room for your feet. I see some of these shorter C's come with the Chevy chassis although more are on the Ford 350. 323HP on a 24 ft C should be more than enough.

[klutchdust]

Drew wrote:
"The somewhat improved aerodynamics probably would contribute to a bit better cruising at highway speed (better acceleration when passing, etc.). Likewise, if a little less tall overall, they logically should do a bit better with crosswinds and not getting pushed around by passing semis."

Having driven mine with the aerodynamic looking front for 50K miles plus and driven those with the front bunk I noticed no difference in handling, wind, or trucks passing. it still got sucked towards them until i reworked the suspension. The key is to stop the side roll. Conventional and original shocks do not do that. Once in a severe headwind coming out of Phoenix and pulling a 16ft. trailer, i was in a lower gear, eating fuel and getting no where. If there are any aerodynamic advantages they are minimal. A c behind me could barely keep up and he had no trailer.