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

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
It is nice to see at the last gathering of RV MFG that more are offering their products on a Chevy Chassis.

Like these.

Thor

Coachman

Forest River

Roadtrek

Leisure

Just to name a few.

Which of these didn't offer products on a Chev chassis in 2012?

[fred42]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
It is nice to see at the last gathering of RV MFG that more are offering their products on a Chevy Chassis.

Another thing that may drive more Chevy sales is that if you are looking for a short Class C, some manufacturers keep their short ones on the E-350 (12,500 lbs.) for Ford but have them on the 4500 (14,200 lbs.) for Chevy.

[IAMICHABOD]

It is nice to see at the last gathering of RV MFG that they are offering more of their products on a Chevy Chassis than they previously offered in the last few years.

[RobertRyan]

dleslie125 wrote:
Did see a Super Duper C yesterday and then saw it again today headed for Monument Valley. European plates, 3 axles (no dualliy) and it appears to have 6 wheel drive. DW thought it was at the Arches to pump out the toilets. I had to tell her what it was - a raely seen MH in North America. Looks like it was up in Alaska earlier in the summer as someone saw it and posted a video on youtube. Had to key this in so hope it right. What a brute.

An European expedition vehicle normally built on either MAN/SCANIA or Mercedes MDT Platform. European MDT's can be like our Class 8 trucks.

[dleslie125]

Looks? Chevy? Someone needs an eye doc.

We have been travelling the past week. Left MOAB today and headed south. Have seen a very large number of MH's the past week. Lots of class C units. Very very few on a Chev chassis - like ONE.

I'm also surprised at the number of rentals on the road. Not even ONE on a Chevy chassis. I wonder what the rental companies know that some people don't know?

Did see a Super Duper C yesterday and then saw it again today headed for Monument Valley. European plates, 3 axles (no dualliy) and it appears to have 6 wheel drive. DW thought it was at the Arches to pump out the toilets. I had to tell her what it was - a raely seen MH in North America. Looks like it was up in Alaska earlier in the summer as someone saw it and posted a video on youtube. Had to key this in so hope it right. What a brute.

Action Mobil

[IAMICHABOD]

Perception is only an Illusion 🙂


Politial Correctness,Although it tries,Will never replace the Truth.

[pnichols]

Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Here's the more Politically Correct scorecard:

Towing -> Ford, the V10 is mighty
Comfort -> Ford, it's cab A/C keeps the whole coach cool
Noise suppression -> Ford, idles quieter than my little Honda genny
Cool doghouse -> Ford, just keep the dash control on MIX
Gas mileage -> Ford, compare gallons per foot-pound of you-know-what
Handling -> Chevy ... huuuuuuh? Someone's Got To Be Kidding
Looks -> 1st-Ford, 2nd-Dodge, Distant 3rd-Chevy or Sprinter

Perception is, and always will be, everything. :C

[IAMICHABOD]

Another Idiot for my block list..

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:

dleslie125 wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

Gee under the US constitution you have the right to be wrong. Pity you exercise that right so frequently. 🙂

It seems that Canadian's can be wrong too. :B

I would dare say YOU know nothing about OUR Constitution,this is not the place to throw stones at my Country. Or misinterpret OUR Constitution just because you disagree!

Wow wrong again. 🙂

[TyroneandGladys]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

Thats right the winner is ........................Dodge :S

[IAMICHABOD]

dleslie125 wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

Gee under the US constitution you have the right to be wrong. Pity you exercise that right so frequently. 🙂

It seems that Canadian's can be wrong too. :B

I would dare say YOU know nothing about OUR Constitution,this is not the place to throw stones at my Country. Or misinterpret OUR Constitution just because you disagree!

[Grillmeister]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

You Forgot one:
Margaritas -> Ford

:B

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

Gee under the US constitution you have the right to be wrong. Pity you exercise that right so frequently. 🙂

[IAMICHABOD]

Let me see if I have the scorecard right:

Towing -> Ford
Comfort -> Chevy
Noise suppression -> Chevy
Cool doghouse -> Chevy
Gas mileage -> Chevy
Handling -> Chevy
Looks -> Chevy

Hmmmmmmm...:B
__________________

[dleslie125]

pnichols wrote:

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

Few start out sagging from what I've observed. My Itasca didn't and doesn't. Airbags were installed at the factory. Over bumpy roads the ride is much nicer than without airbags - which was the case the the two DPs we had - a four bagger and an 8 bagger. Our first MH was a gasser with rear airbags but we could not determine at that time if they made a difference give we were new to the game.

My Kodiak didn't sag at the start but did start to sag as time went on. GAWR for rear was 13,500 and springs were 13,500.