Chevrolet Based Class C *UPDATED AGAIN*

[IAMICHABOD]

I do not want to start a war or a bunch of flaming, but I have to ask. What are the problems with a Chevrolet Based Class C? Other than they are hard to find. They are easier to find now

I have read a lot the posts about the Ford based Class C over the last year. They seem to be the majority of the ones out there.

It seems that the Fords have problems with the front suspension and are plagued with handling problems that are costly to fix and have to be worked on a lot. I have not seen any posts about these problems on a Chevy Based Class C.

The noise and heat that is generated by the Fords seems to be a factor especially on the passenger side. I drove several of the same type that I bought, all on Ford chassis, and I really noticed the noise and heat and handling differences of the two.

The power and pulling and GVWR seem to be very close from what I have read by authors that have had both, also the fuel mileage seems to be close.

One thing that the Chevy has over the Fords is the Leg room up front. If you’re tall like me at 6’6’’ 225 then you need that room.

As an added bonus you can install a
Swivel Seat that cannot be added on most Fords, Giving you even more room in the RV.

So give it to me guys. Where are the problems? What do I have to look out for?

So far no problems at all, drives straight with no expensive add-ons to the suspension, rides really smooth for what it is, it is quiet and cool up front with plenty of leg room. Plenty of power when needed and gets looks from other Class C owners.

As a disclaimer, I bought a 2006 Chevy based Tioga Class C 26Q, I test drove about a dozen or more of the same or similar types all on Ford Chassis and just one test drive in a Chevy based one and I was sold.

UPDATE is on page 16 :B

*NEWEST UPDATE* Is on page 20

[pnichols]

It seems that we all get fairly good mileage from our Chevy Based RVs.

Compared to the Fords.

I'm now beginning to see postings in the forums by owners who have Class C motorhomes based on the Chevy 4500 chassis - a much better chassis for a Chevy-based Class C beyond about a 24 foot length, IMHO.

I'll bet the 4500 Chevy chassis has lower differential gearing than the Chevy 3500 chassis does - just like the Ford E450 does as compared to the Ford E350.

Hence, I'll bet that Chevy 4500 Class C's get worse gas mileage than the Chevy 3500 Class C's do.

Can anyone report on their Chevy 4500 Class C motorhome's gas mileage?

[IAMICHABOD]

Well I'm glad that we have about exausted the mileage debate. It seems that we all get fairly good mileage from our Chevy Based RVs.

Compared to the Fords.

When it makes a a large differance in the amount you spend, such as Scroller that is using it as a business and the savings help his bottom line, that is GREAT.

So on to the next subject.I asked in the beginning if there were any problems with a Chevy Based RV.Well I have had one and I wonder if anyone has had the same thing.

The check engine light came on and I hooked my little annelizer to it and came up with this code.
P0122 throttle/pedal position sensor switch a low.

I asked a friend that is an ASE certified Chevy mechanic about it,and his answer was to take off the air intake and clean the throttle body to get out the soot,there was some in there,and I used carb cleaner to clean it,and the contacts. I did and all the symptions that it caused went away.

Now here is my question,has anyone else had this happen and if so, what did they do?

Thanks.

[TippleUnduly]

We are now camped in our Chevy B+ in Maine after a great trip to Canada. I have been very very pleased with the stability, roominess, ride, and MPG of our 31' BT Cruiser. On a 7200 Mile trip crosscountry, we achieved 10.1 MPG on every kind of road you can think of. On this trip we are getting about 11, but waiting until we get back to NJ to do a final calculation. Engine compartment is never ever hot, good footroom, and a better-than-Ford ride. Gotta love it!

[scroller95969]

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. 🙂 People seem to be so hung up about gas mileage you'd think they would just drive a Prius and sleep in a tent.

Well in my case gas mileage played a small role in deciding which unit to buy. I use our Chevy base class C RV for business and get between 10.5 and 11 mpg pulling a 3000# cargo trailer. I drive about 20000 miles per year which means that I use about 1800 gallons of gas per year. At say 3.70 per gallon that's $6600.00 per year on gas. If I was getting 10% less mileage on a Ford base that would be about $660.00 less im my pocket at the end of the year. This may not seem like alot of money to some folks but for us it is a huge chunk of change. With our F-150 that we used to pull with I was getting 10mpg. tops. Saving money on hotel rooms was a much larger factor on our decision to buy a motorhome but the gas does figure into it also.

[rjstractor]

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. 🙂 People seem to be so hung up about gas mileage you'd think they would just drive a Prius and sleep in a tent.

[mumkin]

Not everyone needs to sleep more than one or two people, so the small C's are nice. I chose a C because I had already had a B and it was too small to live in for months on end as I do. To get what I wanted - a separate shower, a more usable galley, and a large enough fridge - I had to move up to a C. (there is IMHO absolutely nothing B-like about it... which is why I find it both bizarre and ridiculous that some - including my manufacturer - insist on inaccurately calling it a "B")

To be honest, mileage wasn't even part of my calculation. It's an RV... the mileage sucks no matter what. :B

[rjstractor]

Well said. Lighter weight and good aerodynamics help mileage and driveability, but if you don't have room inside to change your mind, what's the point? Everything is a tradeoff. I really like a lot of the Sprinter based Cs and the non cabover Cs (aka B+) but it boils down to those types of rigs being too cramped inside to meet my needs. So I go slower up hills than the Ford and Chevy B+ rigs and burn more gas than all 3 B+ or smaller C chassis brands. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept for more sleeping and living space.

[IAMICHABOD]

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.

Sometimes these threads go off in a different direction,which is good.
As it does open it up to different discussions.

As for the mileage question when you compare a Class C like we have been talking about and a Class B like Mumkin has(as described by new and used sales reports)you are right. You have to compare apples to apples.

The Class B is 2000 lbs lighter,a foot shorter in height, and half a foot less wide. It is also aerodynamic in its construction.

Add to this it also carries about half the fuel that a normal Class C does. It has a 33 gal tank while most Class C have 50 or more. So less weight to move also.

So what you have is a RV that is lighter, smaller,and is aerodynamic.
Of corse it will get better fuel mileage. :S

True it is on the same Chevy Cut Away Chassis with the same engine and trans but that is where the simularity ends.

If what you want is fuel efficency that is what you will get. Also at a much higher price, on average they cost 20 thousand dollars more than your average Class C as I have done a quick look at NADA retail prices.

I opted for a Class C, for the money It suited my needs. I have room to sleep more people than a Class B. I am tall so a Class B would not work. It has a larger fuel tank so I can get farther and I will pay a little more for fuel, that 20 thousand will buy a lot of it. So it all comes down to what you want.
And what you are willing to pay for. But always do your homework.

[JTCHess]

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.

[IAMICHABOD]

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

I have to agree to a point that they are all pretty much all Class C and mine IS a Brick 🙂

And mileage threads are really a waste of time. Which wasn't my intent.

My original thread was to try and find out if there were any real problems with the Chevy Based Class C that I haven't seen discussed.
Like all of the many many things that the Ford owners seem to have to fix.

It seems that WE don't have many problems.

Or at least no one has come forward with any real problems,so I think
WE are ahead of the game,not having to spend our hard earned money on
fixes. More to spend on Camping :B

[mumkin]

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.

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

[IAMICHABOD]

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

I would have to disagree on a few facts stated,true they are both on a cutaway chasis but that is where the simularity ends.

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.

[mumkin]

mlts22 wrote:
I wonder how hard it would be to get service on the Chevies though, especially in rural areas.

I have had no problems getting service. I called the local Chevy garage and he said that I was too big for his facility, but he referred me to their truck facility which is also the GMC truck sales.

Most any decent sized town should have service. After all, even if it is a rural area, there are lots of farmers with trucks.

[rjstractor]

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.

Of course I beleive your figures, but you have to admit that gas mileage is one of those things that you have heard your share of "fish stories". I'm sure you have heard some guy with a diesel pickup tell you he gets 18 mpg towing his 35 foot 5th wheeler.

I'm glad your 6.0 has been fuel efficient for you. Mine is powerful and reliable but has always been thirsty. Solo around town I get around 11, towing the small trailer 10, and towing a 6K equipment trailer maybe 8. It probably makes a difference that the area that I live in is very hilly. Just my driveway is a 22% grade.

To tag onto the last reply, it does seem to me that owners of non-cabover Cs (AKA B plus) motorhomes consistently report better mpg than owners with cabovers, regardless of whether they are Chevy or Ford.

[mumkin]

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