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]

IMO the key feature on yours is the airbags. I'd never get a C again with airbags on the rear.

Did you mean "I'd never get a C again WITHOUT airbars on the rear."?

By the way, airbags only help if enough of the motorhome's weight is on them so as to have the air in the airbags supporting some of the weight instead of the steel in the leaf springs holding all of the weight. To get airbags to do this you either:

1) Have a motorhome that's level to begin with ... and then inflate the airbags enough to start supporting some of the weight ... hence having the motorhome a sit bit high in the rear when traveling and camped.

or

2) Have a motorhome that's sagging in the rear to begin with ... and then inflate the airbags enough to level it and hence support some of the weight.

or

3) Make your motorhome like the scenario in 2) by having a shop remove rear steel leaf springs to sag it so you can then raise it back up with the airbags.

IMHO, a motorhome that starts out from the manufacturer sagging in the rear when fully loaded for RV trips was not designed/built properly ... and likewise, having a shop remove leaf springs does not sit well with me.

So I'd rather have the best of all worlds by having a motorhome riding on air but not spending a lot of $$$ to do it: After purchasing a Class C motorhome that does not sag in the rear, add airbags to it and pump them up so as to get enough weight riding on air to provide a smooth ride when traveling. But ... make sure you get the airbags installed with the auxillary electric underhood air pump, tubing system, and dash controls so that you can conveniently air them down enough when camped in order to bring the motorhome back to a level configuration. A bonus is that having an airbag system like this will also help to level the motorhome on sloping campsites without using so many wood or plastic leveling blocks being required. Before traveling again, just turn the dash control to pump up the airbags a bit for a smooth ride on the road. Not quite as good as a full-blown air suspension system ... but coming close ... with a way lot less $$$ being required! :C

[dleslie125]

RvBill3 wrote:
Mine fully loaded with water, fuel, and food and gear for 16 day trip had no problems. It is a 4500 chassis with factory installed Firestone Ride Rite airbags on rear. Very stable and comforfable ride.

I can't tell you it is better than the Ford. I only test drove a Ford. I can tell you I am very happy with the ride of the Chevy after 5000 miles. I see no need for any modifications to the equipment as delivered.

IMO the key feature on yours is the airbags. I'd never get a C again with airbags on the rear.

[RvBill3]

Mine fully loaded with water, fuel, and food and gear for 16 day trip had no problems. It is a 4500 chassis with factory installed Firestone Ride Rite airbags on rear. Very stable and comforfable ride.

I can't tell you it is better than the Ford. I only test drove a Ford. I can tell you I am very happy with the ride of the Chevy after 5000 miles. I see no need for any modifications to the equipment as delivered.

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:

pnichols wrote:
IAMICHABOD

Yes! Way less. Took a ride in one, A Ford,thought I would loose my fillings.

.

Soooo .... is your motorhome on the Chevy 4500 chassis?

Soooooo...... To answer your question............NO

I have been test driving the new ones and in the same make and model on the different Chassis and the Chevy 4500 was WAY smoother and didn't rattle my fillings Than the same one on a Ford Chassis.

As for the reason I guess you would have to ask the engineres.

That is why I started this thread to see if any one has had any problems with the Chevy Chassis,so far all I have found out is that they get better fuel mileage, ride smoother,have more leg room and dont have the inherant front end problems.

The rest is just chin waggin. :B

The answer may only be obvious when you load it to capacity and see how the springs hold upon over time. Several of the Chev Kodiaks were delivered with rear springs that "in theory" were adequate as to weight ratings but in practice they sagged and leaned and the owners had to have them bumped from 15.5k to 19k. My Kodiak gasser was 13.5 and it also leaned a bit and the back hung down a bit. Some who had the weaker springs had to get them bolstered so they wouldn't grind their driveways with the hitch because of the approach angle.

These type of problems usually do not show themselves in test drives - especially empty.

[IAMICHABOD]

pnichols wrote:
IAMICHABOD

Yes! Way less. Took a ride in one, A Ford,thought I would loose my fillings.

.

Soooo .... is your motorhome on the Chevy 4500 chassis?

Soooooo...... To answer your question............NO

I have been test driving the new ones and in the same make and model on the different Chassis and the Chevy 4500 was WAY smoother and didn't rattle my fillings Than the same one on a Ford Chassis.

As for the reason I guess you would have to ask the engineres.

That is why I started this thread to see if any one has had any problems with the Chevy Chassis,so far all I have found out is that they get better fuel mileage, ride smoother,have more leg room and dont have the inherant front end problems.

The rest is just chin waggin. :B

[pnichols]

IAMICHABOD

Yes! Way less. Took a ride in one, A Ford,thought I would loose my fillings.

.

Soooo .... is your motorhome on the Chevy 4500 chassis?

If so, I'd sure like someone to explain the mechanical reasons as to how a Chevy 4500 with the classic leaf-spring-shock rear suspension can ride softer in rear than a Ford E450 with the classic leaf-spring-shock rear suspension can (given that both are carrying about the same size motorhome). It seems to me like supporting up to 14,000+ lbs. in both cases would dictate identical up-down load carrying stiffness? (Remember that the difference in torsion bar setups between the two chassis does not come into play - as torsion bars only affect tipping differences between the two sides of the vehicle with any given load that they might be carrying.)

[Handbasket]

dleslie125 wrote:
I did not have airbags on my 2007 Jayco Greyhawk on Kodiak as they were not an option with Jayco. I have airbags on the rear of my Itasca Impulse (an option selected by the dealer on the Silver models he orders) and given the difference we found compared with the Kodiak, if I still had the Kodiak the first thing I'd do is have airbags installed. The Itasca rides much nicer than the Kodiak - especially over rough surfaces. A lot of Kodiak owners have had rear airbags installed and all reported a good improvement in the ride quality.

Not a Kodiak but FWIW, I installed 5,000# Airlifts on the rear of my Silverado-chassised Tiger, and it improved the ride very noticeably. Just 15-20 psi of air unloaded the thickest, shortest leaf in normal hiway driving, and changed the jarring to bouncing. Then changing to better shocks (Rancho 9000's from Bilsteins) took much of the bounce out.

Jim, "The purpose of the nose is to smell. But don't the feet do that as well?"

[IAMICHABOD]

pnichols wrote:

...and the extra leaf spring that the Ford has that the Chevy does not

Does the 4500 Chevy in fact still pound less in the rear from bumps and cracks in the road surface?

Yes! Way less. Took a ride in one, A Ford,thought I would loose my fillings.

[dleslie125]

I did not have airbags on my 2007 Jayco Greyhawk on Kodiak as they were not an option with Jayco. I have airbags on the rear of my Itasca Impulse (an option selected by the dealer on the Silver models he orders) and given the difference we found compared with the Kodiak, if I still had the Kodiak the first thing I'd do is have airbags installed. The Itasca rides much nicer than the Kodiak - especially over rough surfaces. A lot of Kodiak owners have had rear airbags installed and all reported a good improvement in the ride quality.

[snowdance]

My 2000 Chevy has rear leaf Springs. My rear springs are not curved high in the center like the Fords I have seen (Have not seen them all) but a normal spring stack and leafs are near flat. It was made by the Mor-Ride company as all the Chevys that were done by Fleetwood then and has thick teflon pads between the springs. So they move easy. I also went with a softer shock so using Monrow shocks. Mine does ride far better in the front and rear than the 3 Fords I have been in. But with some work I am sure the Fords could be fixed.. I also have heavy sway bars as 25 to 50 mph winds are common here and most of the roads I run have no sholders just a drop off often 10 feet or more. So go for every advantage I can get..

[pnichols]

...and the extra leaf spring that the Ford has that the Chevy does not

Since sway bars have nothing to do (they only prevent one side from "tipping" more than the other) with straight up-and-down vertical load bearing capacity as both sides of the vehicle try to sink the same amount from weight at the same time - how can the 4500 Chevy with one less leaf spring be rated at the same 14K+ lbs. as the Ford E450? (Maybe each Chevy leaf spring is thicker - thus containing the same amount of total steel in the leafs as Ford?)

Does the 4500 Chevy in fact still pound less in the rear from bumps and cracks in the road surface?

[IAMICHABOD]

Yes the Chevy has leaf springs and a sway bar in the rear, as does the Ford.

After compareing mine (Chevy) with my neighbours Ford the differance that I can see is that his has one more leaf spring,but I think the real differance is the sway bar.
Mine is a lot larger and is mounted way differently.

The Ford is mounted a bit away from the rear end housing and is not as wide as the frame. The tips go at an angle to match up with the frame rails. The front is mounted straight up to the frame on a long bolt. It looks a lot more flimsy.

Where as the Chevy is mounted on to the rearend housing, is as wide as the frame and the front is mounted on a long pivet on the frame rail so it can flex more for and aft.

This is my guess why it rides better than a Ford. There is a vast differance between the two sway bars and how they are mounted. That and the extra leaf spring that the Ford has that the Chevy does not.

[pnichols]

However for those with good roads the firmer ride of a Ford may be good.

That's hints at a very subtle but important point!

Let's take a Chevy 4500 cutaway van under a ~14000 lb. Class C motorhome and compare it to a Ford E450 cutaway van under a ~14000 lb. Class C motorhome.

Now compare them on typical CA roads. What is the difference in the rear end suspensions between the two that would make the Chevy have less pounding in the rear than the Ford? Wouldn't they both have just leaf springs with shocks ... and maybe torsion bars for side-sway control? How could the Chevy take freeway roadcracks in the rear any better than the Ford?

By the way, my E450 with front coil springs rides fine in the front over roadcracks - it's the rear where the problem is, and I really wonder how Chevy does it any better back there? I'm betting that a Chevy 4500 does no better in the rear on CA roads.

[snowdance]

When I bought our MH I was not looking at newer rigs. I passed on the Fords for two reasons. First was my size 14 extra wide shoe.. No place on the drivers side in the Ford to put both on the floor at once. The other was the ride. Our roads and highways around here are very rough. 1 to 1 1/2 inch difference in the cement slabs and big holes. The Fords were just to rough or firm as some call it, for us.. And sad to say our roads are just getting worse. Lucky we have Road Hazard Adjustments on tires as we are having problems on cars, pickups and our Motorhome.. However for those with good roads the firmer ride of a Ford may be good..

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
WOW THIS THREAD HAS TAKEN SOME WEIRD TURNS.

I started out asking about problems with Chevy Based R/Vs.
IT turned to a discussion on the mileage and merits of B+ vs Classic C, then to Mileage,Then Ford VS Chevy...

Then handleing like a sports car, then sports cars, then aqua sports in a Class C and THEN potty breaks and showers.....:@ WOW

A lot of give and take and some good info and some funny stuff....

No harsh words, all in fun,now that is why I like this Forum.

But But I gotta ask. Does anyone have anything to say about reliability of the Chevy or any real problems. If not, I'm gonna declare Chevy Based R/Vs best in the field........:W

Roomy, Quiet,Smooth Riding, Easy on Gas,and Goes straight down the road without a lot fiddleing with front end........

All documented in this thread :B

Darned if I know where you get your concerns. WE have a 2011 E450 based MH.

No problems wandering down the road - as straight as our prior unit - a Chevy Kodiak Super C with Vortec 8.1. Have had no need to make any front end adjustments. The E450 has airbags and the Kodiak did not - much better support in the rear. No nosier than our Chev Kodiak. Gets slightly better MPG than the Kodiak about 8.5 towing to 7.6 towing for the Kodiak. Tows with no problem - GCWR is 22,000 lbs as of 2011 model. Heat for co-pilot? DW says no problems and prefers it to the Chev. Gets warmer than pilot's side but not uncomfortable. No problems getting service. Chev was a problem as even our MDT dealer wouldn't touch it. Had to take it to a Workhorse Dealer. Ford dealer gave us the five oil change, filter and lube special for $99.

So, as to your declaration, I think the only plus is better mileage with the 6.0.