Anyone considering the 2014 Minnie Winnie 25B on Chevy 3500?

pnichols wrote:
Regarding Tyrone's(?) 4'30" height: The next time (if ever) you drive an E450 motorhome, perhaps you need to try doing what I do all the time when on the appropriate road: I use cruise control and put my feet IN BETWEEN the pedals way up against the firewall ... plenty of leg room in that configuration!

Do use cruise and even take shoes off to gain what I can but put MY feet between the pedals aint going to happen but I am glad that your feet are dainty enough to pull that off.

Regarding Tyrone's(?) 4'30" height: The next time (if ever) you drive an E450 motorhome, perhaps you need to try doing what I do all the time when on the appropriate road: I use cruise control and put my feet IN BETWEEN the pedals way up against the firewall ... plenty of leg room in that configuration!

5'18'' now that is funny,

I think I will use that when describing my height................

Don't get me started on airline seats.....

The issue of leg room comes up quite often and not meaning to be argumentative but talking about leg room with short people is like discussing what whiskey is the tastiest and smoothest with a Baptist.
IMHO my definition of short is anyone under 5'18" :B.
I have for years had the driver seat taken out of my cars and remounted back, all the way forward is where all the way back used to be and I drive with my arm out the back side window. I have had the drivers seat in my RV raised 4" to be more comfortable, the down side is as I am driving I am looking through the blue strip that is across the top of the windshield I can not sit in standard airplane seats or many concert seats.
So to me any I mean any additional leg room even an inch is important and to the short people I am sure it is not.

TyroneandGladys wrote:
In other posts on this subject it seems that the passenger in the Chevrolet has less heat issues from the doghouse than on the Ford. I do not know about anyone else but if DW is more comfortable then she is probably be happier and remember Tyrone always got smacked by Gladys's purse when she got mad.

Our E450 chassis (under a 24 foot Itasca Class C) has heat shields around the engine exhaust manifolds underneath both the driver and passenger areas. Neither myself or the DW have any interior heat problems coming from the Ford V10. Per the Ford dealer these shields are not a normal factory item so it looks like installation of these may be something Winnebago does, or has done, to the E450 chassis before they build the motorhome on it.

For several reasons we love the Ford E450 chassis with it's superb V10 and 5-speed (6 speeds internal) computer controlled TOW/HAUL transmission. I'm 6'2" and have no problems with the driver's seat going back far enough - but that may partially be the case because the dinette seat back that is right behind the drivers seat can be folded down so that the driver's seat can be tilted back nicely for comfort of a tall driver.

The E450 is chassis overkill for only a 24 foot Class C, but we wanted as much small motorhome as we could get mounted on as short and rugged a chassis as possible. Since we are under-stressing our E450 chassis .... it's (larger) brakes last longer, it's extra transmission cooling is beyond normal 24 foot MH requirements for long term durability, it's power steering is a better design, it's rear differential gear is larger diameter (hence stronger) and has a lower ratio for better pulling up steep grades, and it's rear duals are set at a 4.5 inches wider stance for improved laterally stability in side-winds/passing vehicles/on highway curves/when offroad on canted road surfaces.

Probably a 4500 Chevy chassis would offer some, or all, of the same advantages over a 3500 Chevy chassis for a small Class C motorhome where one could specify - or otherwise shop for and find - the same floorplan on either the 3500 or 4500 chassis. I would never want a small Class C motorhome on the smaller (1 ton) Ford or Chevy chassis over the 1 1/2 ton chassis - regardless of the better ride of the lighter duty chassis. It only stands to reason that the E450/4500 chassis is going to be more safe, reliable, and cheaper to maintain over the long run than the E350/3500 chassis - given the same motorhome weight that either the light or heavy chassis will have to carry continuously over their lifetime.

pnichols wrote:

anno3 wrote:
However, he did not sit in the driver's seat of this Minnie Winnie because I assumed since it was a Chevy that it would have the same leg room. But, now I am wondering, after looking at the specifications on gowinnebago.com, if it does have the same leg room as the 4500 Chevys. According to the specifications chart the Chevy is only one inch longer than the Ford E350 model.

Be careful thinking that the Chevy 3500/4500 cutaway van chassis offers more "free" leg room than than the Ford E350/E450 cutaway van chassis .... there is a price to pay. That Chevy extra leg room (because their doghouse is further forward) has to come from somewhere. The "nose" of the Chevy sticks out further than that of the Ford, hence a Class C motorhome of the same coach size built on a Chevy chassis will probably be an overall longer vehicle length than that built on the Ford chassis. If you want the most compact (shortest) Class C possible for a given floor plan (i.e. to fit into garages and/or to fit into the very smallest campsites), you probably better choose the Ford chassis.

Here's a quote from another discussion on this very issue: "... I assume it has to do with the cost of the chassis. The Chevy/GMC offers more interior comfort than the Ford, but not as much as the Sprinter. It's power & weight ratings are a little less than their Ford counter-parts making them a great chassis for all but the heaviest of class Cs. They are also a little better on fuel consumption. One thing to keep in-mind, if you are counting inches to store your rig, the Chevy/GMC adds an additional 9" to the front bumper compared to the Ford. I learned that researching rigs that could fit in my 25'-0" deep garage. By default, the Ford gave me 9 more inches to work with."

Here's a link to the entire discussion thread - the quote above is from comments by ron.dittmer starting about a third of the way down:

http://forums.trailerlife.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/26314101/gotomsg/26314316.cfm#26314316

I confirmed what anno3 stated there is a WHOPPING one inch difference between the Ford and the Chevrolet. As I am five foot and eighteen inches in height the additional leg room is worth the one inch. In other posts on this subject it seems that the passenger in the Chevrolet has less heat issues from the doghouse than on the Ford. I do not know about anyone else but if DW is more comfortable then she is probably be happier and remember Tyrone always got smacked by Gladys's purse when she got mad. Back to seating comfort it is not just leg room but seat height also. I had a fabrication shop fabricate an adapter for the drives seat that raised the seat height by four inches and that makes a world of difference in driving.
You might also want to look at the 2014 Forest River Sunseeker 2450 . It is one foot longer than the Winnebago but it does have a rear window is available with the Chevrolet 4500 chassis has a residential size queen mattress a pantry and like the Winnebago a fiberglass roof. To me it does have one downside and that is it that it has a slide but that is just me.

CHEVY 4500-4500 accept no substitutes. i would NOT get chevy 3500 but 4500 yes.

As an alternative, perhaps go for a Winnebago View? You do pay more for it, but you have no doghouse whatsoever to be concerned about.

anno3 wrote:
However, he did not sit in the driver's seat of this Minnie Winnie because I assumed since it was a Chevy that it would have the same leg room. But, now I am wondering, after looking at the specifications on gowinnebago.com, if it does have the same leg room as the 4500 Chevys. According to the specifications chart the Chevy is only one inch longer than the Ford E350 model.

Be careful thinking that the Chevy 3500/4500 cutaway van chassis offers more "free" leg room than than the Ford E350/E450 cutaway van chassis .... there is a price to pay. That Chevy extra leg room (because their doghouse is further forward) has to come from somewhere. The "nose" of the Chevy sticks out further than that of the Ford, hence a Class C motorhome of the same coach size built on a Chevy chassis will probably be an overall longer vehicle length than that built on the Ford chassis. If you want the most compact (shortest) Class C possible for a given floor plan (i.e. to fit into garages and/or to fit into the very smallest campsites), you probably better choose the Ford chassis.

Here's a quote from another discussion on this very issue: "... I assume it has to do with the cost of the chassis. The Chevy/GMC offers more interior comfort than the Ford, but not as much as the Sprinter. It's power & weight ratings are a little less than their Ford counter-parts making them a great chassis for all but the heaviest of class Cs. They are also a little better on fuel consumption. One thing to keep in-mind, if you are counting inches to store your rig, the Chevy/GMC adds an additional 9" to the front bumper compared to the Ford. I learned that researching rigs that could fit in my 25'-0" deep garage. By default, the Ford gave me 9 more inches to work with."

Here's a link to the entire discussion thread - the quote above is from comments by ron.dittmer starting about a third of the way down:

http://forums.trailerlife.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/26314101/gotomsg/26314316.cfm#26314316

carringb wrote:
Keep in mind the floor plan will affect cockpit room regardless of chassis.

I have a fridge behind the drivers seat and dinette behind the passenger seat that prevents the seats from moving fully backwards, unless the seat-backs are nearly vertical. Retracted slides can also affect cockpit room.

For the OP at 6'4", both depth and headroom should be considered.