460 or V10

[applik]

So hubby and I are looking at some older class C's since that's what we can afford right now. 96 - 01 years We would like to tow our 01 grand cherokee behind whatever we get. So do we need shorter or longer C? We live in northern AZ mountains and frequently travel to the mtns in Utah, CO, and, Idaho. Had a travel trailer but I just didn't fit on the dinette that well! So sold it. And hubby says no 8' wide trailers (ours was a 7) Boondocked most of the time. Only stayed in an RV park two nites. We are retired and 65+ but love to go on little jaunts for a week or so at a time. Never in a hurry just love to see the country.
I've seen some units have a 460 instead of the V10. Will either pull our cherokee? He's a pretty good mechanic and DIY man so we should be able to keep up with maintenance. So many things to consider and I don't know where to start looking. Floorplan isn't such a big deal as bed size. We only sleep in it. The rest of the time we're off jeepin.
Any input and info will be greatly appreciated.

[Gale_Hawkins]

I agree both engines are just fine. Age I find is more of a real concern and it is very hard to find shops with knownledge about 15+ year old chassis of any brand. Non chassis issues can multiply with age and give diminishing return on investment. For the person with the knowledge and health to maintain old MH's they can be OK. When one goes out for MH upkeep anything over 10 years old can be difficult.

[carringb]

IAMICHABOD wrote:


The GVWR for the G3500/Express is 14050.

No, its not. Only the Workhorse badged 3500 was. A regular G3500, from the early 2000's, came short of that by a lot. Your insistence on confusing Workhorse badges is not doing anybody favors. If it has a GMC or Chevy badge on the front, and a 3500 badge on the side, it has a max GVWR of 12,300.

I'll concede that the Workhorse variant did have a higher GVWR, but that did not happen until around 2005, and went away in 2008. Newer GMC/Chevy badged 3500 still don't have that much GVWR. You have to go with a 4500 chassis for that GVWR.

[jaycocreek]

Another question: Will a 27-29' drive easily on mtn roads. I'm assuming the shorter ones are the best.

Depends on the mountain roads your using..Shorter is better on the roads I travel in central Idaho and why I went from a 30ft Trailer to my 21 ft Class C.Used to own a 24ft Class C and while it did well,there were places I could not get into because of the length and clearance and the same goes for my 26rls trailer I also own at the moment.

Good luck in your looking for the right one for you and yours.

[SRockwood]

IAMICHABOD wrote:

applik wrote:
I think a Chevy C is looking better all the time even if it is less hp. Any major issues with them too? Not A's just class C's. I had a 99 suburban with a 454 in it and it pulled our heavy quads all over 3 states with no issues. But I know an RV is heavier.

The horse power is not a that much different between the two as for major issues, Read This Thread it will answer most of your Questions.

carringb wrote:
Watch the weights on a Chevy. The standard G3500/Express chassis had I think a 12,300 GVWR. That's not enough a 30'+ coach.

The GVWR for the G3500/Express is 14050.

Quick Google search found that the GVWR for 2001 (newest MY specified by the OP) Tiogas on the Chevy chassis:

http://fleetwoodrv.com/frvlibrary/docs/2001/2001_tia_b.pdf

is 12,300lbs. Kind of hard to find Chevy G3500 DRW specs though, so maybe there's another model with a higher GVWR. You seem to know more about them than most.

[IAMICHABOD]

applik wrote:
I think a Chevy C is looking better all the time even if it is less hp. Any major issues with them too? Not A's just class C's. I had a 99 suburban with a 454 in it and it pulled our heavy quads all over 3 states with no issues. But I know an RV is heavier.

The horse power is not a that much different between the two as for major issues, Read This Thread it will answer most of your Questions.

carringb wrote:
Watch the weights on a Chevy. The standard G3500/Express chassis had I think a 12,300 GVWR. That's not enough a 30'+ coach.

The GVWR for the G3500/Express is 14050.

[DrewE]

applik wrote:
I think a Chevy C is looking better all the time even if it is less hp. Any major issues with them too? Not A's just class C's. I had a 99 suburban with a 454 in it and it pulled our heavy quads all over 3 states with no issues. But I know an RV is heavier.

Frankly, there aren't generally any systematic issues with either the Ford or the Chevy chassis, especially in relatively recent years (i.e. less than maybe 10 years old). Either one is far less likely to give trouble with reasonable maintenance than most of the other systems and appliances in an RV. Both Ford and Chevrolet sell hundreds of thousands of vans, and tradesmen would stop buying them and get a different brand pretty quickly if they were not reliable.

The Ford chassis (at least the E450) offers higher weight and tow ratings than the Chevy one. The Chevy has more foot room in the cab area and apparently rides a little more nicely. The Ford V10 does offer somewhat more power, though perhaps at the expense of fuel economy. I think those are the biggest differences.

There are far more Ford based class C motorhomes made than Chevy based ones. For that reason alone you'll probably hear about more breakdowns and troubles with the Fords, but don't be misled into thinking they are less reliable by that.

[applik]

Don't think we want anything over 27 or 28'. But hopefully I'll be able to find just the right one for us. We're patient and in no hurry so will haunt CL. Hate to buy something in the winter and just have it set but that's the way it goes here. The trailer was an easy winterize, drain the lines, blow the lines with air, and put antifreeze in the traps. Didn't mind that at all.
Another question: Will a 27-29' drive easily on mtn roads. I'm assuming the shorter ones are the best.
I just want to thank everyone for all the helful input. Keep it coming

[SRockwood]

applik wrote:
I think a Chevy C is looking better all the time even if it is less hp. Any major issues with them too? Not A's just class C's. I had a 99 suburban with a 454 in it and it pulled our heavy quads all over 3 states with no issues. But I know an RV is heavier.

4R100 behind a gas motor is going to be the most reliable you can get in a class C, and definitely stronger than the 4L80E and E4OD. The weight and wind-resistance of a Class C (esp 30+ feet) is much harder on the drivetrain than a Suburban and an open (?) trailer.

BTW, "PI" heads (most 2000 chassis MY and newer) are less susceptible to spark plug ejection than the older ones. Unfortunately, 2000MY and newer might be outside your budget.

[carringb]

Watch the weights on a Chevy. The standard G3500/Express chassis had I think a 12,300 GVWR. That's not enough a 30'+ coach.

They did also have a G30-HD chassis, with the old-style van cab, mounted on a P-30 chassis which had a 14,000 GVWR chassis and a big-block, but it wasn't very attractive and parts are hard to find (plus it rode rough and didn't drive very well). Its been a VERY long time since I've seen one on the road.

[applik]

I think a Chevy C is looking better all the time even if it is less hp. Any major issues with them too? Not A's just class C's. I had a 99 suburban with a 454 in it and it pulled our heavy quads all over 3 states with no issues. But I know an RV is heavier.

[carringb]

pnichols wrote:

P.S. ..... OR, I wonder if my repair shop didn't put the wrong type of tranny fluid in it when I had them completely flush it at 25K miles? Ford is adamant about using ONLY SP FLUID in their TorqShift transmissions, but some mechanics may not know, or pay any attention to, this .... and just put good old Mercon fluid into the later year Ford transmissions.

I would be suspicious of this as well. The 5R110 rarely fails from "burned up" clutches. Its failures tend to be more catastrophic. Wrong fluid will certainly cause that kind of damage however.

The good news is wrecking yard units are about $400 for a low-mile 5R110 (in F-series trim at least), because there is so little demand for them.

[SRockwood]

j-d wrote:
In 2002, we have the tail-end of the 4R100 generation. Ford took the venerable C6, a three-speed, added an overdrive that engaged electrically, and called it E4OD. Then in 1997 they added an all-electronic control system (solenoid-operated valve body) and called it 4R100.
C6 was a bulletproof icon. E4OD had lots of failures, at least at first. 4R100 seems to have been good.* Same for 5R110/TorqShift. Very surprised the low-mileage one had a problem. 'Specially Phil's - he seems to take care of things.
*At least behind gas engines. The annoying downshift they do on slight grades take it from 4th-locked to 3rd-locked. That annoyance means the torque converter doesn't run around unlocked. Behind diesels they apparently do, and overheat. This is from a credible third party source. I didn't dig it out myself...

Yep, the 4R100 is pretty reliable behind the gas engines, not so much behind the diesels. I think a large contributor to it is the OD clutches aren't the strongest, and the low-end grunt of the 7.3 allows drivers to haul items in 4th all day. V10's gotta rev, so you end up in 3rd when there's anything more than a slight load, which is perfectly fine with me.

pnichols wrote:
We bought our 2005 Itasca Class C in January of 2006.

The tranny shop will tear our original 5R110 tranny completely apart in a couple of days to find out in detail what went on inside - over and above the burned clutches they discovered early-on. I'll call them just out of curiosity to see what they found.

One thing I may be doing in my driving - that I've been told is hard on automatic transmissions - is generous use the Tow/Haul mode when going down grades so as to take maximum advantage of engine breaking instead of the brakes. The tranny sometimes really spins up when doing this - with the torque coming into the tranny from it's back end (the rear axle) instead of it's front end (the engine). I wonder if I'd better stop doing this - which may consequently increase my rate of brake pad replacement? You can't win for loosin'. :h

P.S. ..... OR, I wonder if my repair shop didn't put the wrong type of tranny fluid in it when I had them completely flush it at 25K miles? Ford is adamant about using ONLY SP FLUID in their TorqShift transmissions, but some mechanics may not know, or pay any attention to, this .... and just put good old Mercon fluid into the later year Ford transmissions.

Failures are extremely rare with these transmissions behind the gas motors. I look forward to your report on likely cause of failure. Now you've got me nervous about my 5R110. 🙂

[pnichols]

WinMinnie02 wrote:
pnichols was your vehicle bough new or used? Just want to know if my 2002 will give me trouble soon? I have had good luck so far since purchasing it new in 2002

We bought our 2005 Itasca Class C in January of 2006.

The tranny shop will tear our original 5R110 tranny completely apart in a couple of days to find out in detail what went on inside - over and above the burned clutches they discovered early-on. I'll call them just out of curiosity to see what they found.

One thing I may be doing in my driving - that I've been told is hard on automatic transmissions - is generous use the Tow/Haul mode when going down grades so as to take maximum advantage of engine breaking instead of the brakes. The tranny sometimes really spins up when doing this - with the torque coming into the tranny from it's back end (the rear axle) instead of it's front end (the engine). I wonder if I'd better stop doing this - which may consequently increase my rate of brake pad replacement? You can't win for loosin'. :h

P.S. ..... OR, I wonder if my repair shop didn't put the wrong type of tranny fluid in it when I had them completely flush it at 25K miles? Ford is adamant about using ONLY SP FLUID in their TorqShift transmissions, but some mechanics may not know, or pay any attention to, this .... and just put good old Mercon fluid into the later year Ford transmissions.

[j-d]

In 2002, we have the tail-end of the 4R100 generation. Ford took the venerable C6, a three-speed, added an overdrive that engaged electrically, and called it E4OD. Then in 1997 they added an all-electronic control system (solenoid-operated valve body) and called it 4R100.
C6 was a bulletproof icon. E4OD had lots of failures, at least at first. 4R100 seems to have been good.* Same for 5R110/TorqShift. Very surprised the low-mileage one had a problem. 'Specially Phil's - he seems to take care of things.
*At least behind gas engines. The annoying downshift they do on slight grades take it from 4th-locked to 3rd-locked. That annoyance means the torque converter doesn't run around unlocked. Behind diesels they apparently do, and overheat. This is from a credible third party source. I didn't dig it out myself...