โAug-08-2012 02:23 PM
โSep-01-2012 01:17 PM
It seems that we all get fairly good mileage from our Chevy Based RVs.
Compared to the Fords.
โSep-01-2012 10:18 AM
โAug-25-2012 06:25 PM
โAug-24-2012 08:58 AM
rjstractor wrote:mumkin wrote:
To be honest, mileage wasn't even part of my calculation. It's an RV... the mileage sucks no matter what.
There are no truer words than that. ๐ People seem to be so hung up about gas mileage you'd think they would just drive a Prius and sleep in a tent.
โAug-24-2012 08:11 AM
mumkin wrote:
To be honest, mileage wasn't even part of my calculation. It's an RV... the mileage sucks no matter what.
โAug-23-2012 07:30 PM
โAug-23-2012 05:44 PM
โAug-23-2012 10:28 AM
JTCHess wrote:
I thought this discussion on mileage was valuable. I never realized how verious configurations can impact mileage so much on the same chassis. I learned that before you make a purchase decision based upon anticpated mileage ensure that you are making an apples to apples vehicle comparion. By that I don't mean Chevy to Chevy or Ford to Ford although important, but RV size, i.e. 24 foot, vice 31 foot and front cap configuration i.e. brick vice areodynamic.
Just for clarification, the best mileage I ever achieved was 8.3 mpg, on a 31C with brick cap, keeping it a 60-65 mph, doing about 2200 -2300 rpm.
โAug-21-2012 02:50 PM
โAug-17-2012 09:01 PM
mumkin wrote:
Just what is a "typical C." I see C's from 21 to 35 feet. I expect that the weight variation depends on whether it is fiberglass like mine... or a wood frame like a Born Free... or whatever else a converter comes up with or how one chooses to have them equipped.
But they are ALL apples. This is why mileage threads are pretty much a waste of time. If one asks a general question on it, you will get the range of mileage rates possible within the range of different types of C vehicles. You just can't declare that a more aerodynamic C isn't a C because it isn't as brick-like as yours. :C
โAug-17-2012 06:22 PM
IAMICHABOD wrote:
On the class C- such as mumkin and gene in ne both have and double didget mileage these are both aerodynamic where a typical Class C is not,and they both have a GVWR of 12300 lbs about a ton lighter than most Class C even the short ones. Most of which have a simular 14000lb or more GVWR
Mine is 26 ft and has A GVWR of 14050 not quite a ton heavier but it
has the aerodynamics of a brick. It Is at least a foot taller,I would guess because I cant stand up in one.
Heavy foot or not pushing a Ton more down the road in a vehicle that is aerodynamic as a brick you can not compare them as equal.
As I said before like compareing an apple with a pear they can be put in the same bag but they are not the same.
โAug-17-2012 09:02 AM
mumkin wrote:IAMICHABOD wrote:
But of course the one that mumkin has will get better mileage than the "normal class C" It has no large overhead,it is more areodynamic more on the line of a class B and only has a GVWR of 12300 lbs about a ton less than most class C s. according to their website.
I can see why it gets better mileage,but to compare it to the normal class C is like compareing an apple to a pear. :B
Kinda the same but NOT.
But it is on a Chevy Chassis so it is keeping with the theme of the thread.
I would disagree with your interpretation. It is the same Chevy cut-away, only with a much better design. After all, I started with a GWV Class B on the Ford E350 with an overhead bed so I chose to buy something more aerodynamic and to get better handling. As far as weight, that is going to go along with length. Naturally if you have 30+ feet, you are going to weigh more. Other than that... a Chevy cutaway is a Chevy cutaway. Many of the RVs being compared here are 22ft.
I suspect that the difference has as much to do with a heavy foot as the overhead cab.
And Jim... I don't have the 6 speed... I got the last of the older platforms. :C
โAug-15-2012 09:14 PM
mlts22 wrote:
I wonder how hard it would be to get service on the Chevies though, especially in rural areas.
โAug-15-2012 09:10 PM
mumkin wrote:
So, you are accusing us of lying? I fear that you will have to admit to being wrong on this one. I don't use the vehicle computer and I too have an Excel spreadsheet where I have listed every fill and the mileage. It's simple math and I've got all the numbers if you want to look.
I averaged 12.5 driving from ND to AZ and 12.8 driving back home. It included mountains, two lane prairie flatland with small towns, winds of all directions and speeds. I don't tow... and since it was very early winter, there was no water on board... except in gallon jugs.
I have been very happy with my mileage. Between these two long trips, I used it as a daily driver in AZ. I got between 8.5 and 9.3 mpg in the city on my trips to the gym and shopping... including exercising the generator.
โAug-15-2012 09:10 PM
IAMICHABOD wrote:
But of course the one that mumkin has will get better mileage than the "normal class C" It has no large overhead,it is more areodynamic more on the line of a class B and only has a GVWR of 12300 lbs about a ton less than most class C s. according to their website.
I can see why it gets better mileage,but to compare it to the normal class C is like compareing an apple to a pear. :B
Kinda the same but NOT.
But it is on a Chevy Chassis so it is keeping with the theme of the thread.