memtb wrote:
I guess that Bigfoot didnโt account for the โBig Guyโ.....only the average rvโer! ๐ Sorry that Winnebago eliminated your preferred pkg. It seems that many manufacturers quit the good models in search of the โHoly Grailโ!
Off-roading......Winnebago builds a good solid unit....do you think your slide cautions are justified? Also, how much ground clearance do you have? We couldnโt clear a tall ant hill! I would really love to do the 4x4 conversion with a slight lift.....but itโs hard to justify. Weโre just not using it enough at this time! So....about all I can do, is go with a little taller tire next time. But, that will only buy an inch or so!
Slides are just more mechanisms to get jostled around and maybe mis-aligned from travel on rutted and tipped dirt/gravel roads. They also add additional weight, and that weight can be off-center/off-balance if single or double slides is/are only on one side of the coach. Slides also compromise the shear strength of the coach walls they're in and compromise the overall strength of the frame box that surrounds the coach.
Our 24 foot E450 Class C came new with about the ground clearance of a stock pickup truck without nerf bars. Getting down on my hands and knees and looking horizontally across the undercarriage areas - there is no plumbing or tank bottoms showing, no built-in generator frame bottom showing (the generator's exhaust pipe is even right up tight against the coach's skirt wall edge) , no propane tank bottom showing, and no retracted automatic coach step mechanism showing ... just like there would be none of this showing under a stock pickup truck without nerf bars. Also, the bottom edges of the coach wall skirt areas from the rear axle on back to the rear bumper height starts tapering upwards immediately starting from the back axle - with no horizontal run for a few feet before starting it's taper up to the rear bumper height. This helps to improve the approach angle in the rear of our rig.
I've also increased the ground clearance of everything by using tires that are larger diameter than what came on it ... which is superior to merely lifting a vehicle because lifting a vehicle does not increase ground clearance of the axles, the spring mounts, the differential(s), the steering components, the lower shock mounts, etc.. Lifting a vehicle - unfortunately usually necessary to provide mechanical clearance for added 4X4 drive components - also introduces the big negative of raising the overall center of gravity.
The bottom line is - going with larger diameter tires is not only a quick and inexpensive way to gain ground clearance - but IMHO the best way. However, larger diameter tires on a small Class C for moderate off-highway use (whether it be a 2WD or 4WD setup) are best if the chassis is an E450 one instead of an E350 one -> due to the E450's lower rear differential gear ratio being better able to offset the slight loss in drive axle torque introduced with larger diameter tires. Of course maintaining gas engine drive axle torque via proper overall drive system gearing is important for slow speed off-highway travel, especially in high ambient air temperatures that are hard on transmission cooling during slow travel speeds. What this means is, an E450 chassis is superior to an E350 chassis if one wants to employ larger diameter tires on a Class C.
All the above being taken into account, a lot of the newer small Class C motorhomes on their modern van chassis types that I see on the highway and in the adds really seem not well suited at all for any off-highway use due to their low-slung coach wall skirts and low hanging undercarriage coach components. They definitely appear to only be suitable for use how most of them get used - as low slung streamlined highway queens. They would never do for us when we're out 2WD exploring and camping while looking for rocks or fishing ... with all the comforts of home!
2005 E450 Itasca 24V Class C
