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

[JTCHess]

My Chevy C is level without air in the bags so admittedly the back of my C raises an inch or two when I put 40+ pounds of air in them, however taking the jarring our of the ride means less wear and tear on the unit. I suspect this would be the same for the Fords as well.

[pnichols]

Regarding air bags, I would not be without them. We ordered our unit with this option and they definitly soften the bumps on the road. The ride becomes much more jarring when they lose air.

I've always wondered how air bags could soften the ride in the rear of a Ford E450 cutaway unless you blow up the air bags enough to get some of the motorhome's rear weight transferred onto them.

Our E450 Class C is already slightly raised in the rear without air bags. For us to get a better ride, I'd have to install the air bags and then fill them enough transfer weight onto them - which would lift the rear so as to make it too much out of level.

It seems that air bags should only be used on larger Class C rigs with an already slightly sagging rear. This would get enough weight onto the air bags so as to also realize their 2nd advantage of softening the ride.

[JTCHess]

Regarding the use of diesels in Chevy cutaways, our school district added a bunch of Chevy 4500 micro buses with the duramax diesel to the fleet this year. Looks like they are down sizing from the smaller convential bus body units mounted on class 5 or 6 International and Freightliner chassis.

Regarding the derating of duramax diesels in these applications (if true), Dodge did this as well with the Cummins engines in their pickup truck applcations when they were first introduced in 1989 as the 727 and A518 transmissions couldn't handle greater levels of tourgue these enginse can produce. It wasn't until transmissions were developed that could handle the torgue that power ratings were significantly increased.

As to the use of diesel engines in class c applications, I would think there would be very limited demand since the upfront costs are so great (engine option costs) and maintenance costs are higher, with the only real benefit being greater fuel efficiency, not a big deal for those of us who only put about 5,000 miles a year on the unit which I suspect is the norm.

Regarding air bags, I would not be without them. We ordered our unit with this option and they definitly soften the bumps on the road. The ride becomes much more jarring when they lose air.

[IAMICHABOD]

I have to agree with you on those points.

After all getting a diesel in a rv seems not to be very efficent, considering the extra cost and weight,that is to say on a smaller one like a class C.

It seems that Ford is abandoning the cut away market by going with the Transit. A larger market is out there as seen in europe where they dominated at one time. With the Transit.

They may still go the way of the Sprinter/MB/ Dodge/ Freightliner type and offer that too. In direct competition.

It seems that the Europeans have gotten a handel on the small diesel market and now Ford wants to bring it to the US.

Good move or not I guess time will tell.

But as you said if some one wants that Chassis with a 14K GVWR and a diesel, such as emergency vehicle builders GM will still have one, for now.

At least Ford is putting the plant in the US and keeping some US workers employed as they shut down one plant and move it to another.
Not as bad as in England and other nations that Ford has closed their plants. Putting thousands out of work.

[rjstractor]

To weigh in on the lower hp Duramax issue, just like Ford that engine is detuned for van/cutaway applications. This is likely because of limitations on cooling systems and/or intercooling because of the physical configuration of the van chassis. In pickups, all of the diesels are running at extremely high power outputs for the size of the motor, and it takes pretty fancy engineering to keep these motors running reliably and cool. Both Ford and GM have had some growing pains getting these issues worked out, i.e. Ford 6.0 issues and Duramax LLY overheating.

I would imagine that a main reason for very few diesel class Cs, both Ford and GM is that the detuned diesels offer little or no performance advantage over their gas counterparts and mileage advantage is negated by the extra initial cost. Not trying to start a gas/vs diesel war, it's just my opinion.

On a slightly related note, I would imagine that GM will start selling many more chassis to emergency vehicle builders, since they are the only game in town if one wants a diesel powered 14K GVWR chassis.

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
WOW another rant. That makes 16 posts in this thread, count them folks, with no posts anywhere else.

We seem to be stuck in a flameing rut here,with insults and name calling as the norm.

I guess I will have to put you back on the BLOCK list,it makes it so much more enjoyable to read this thread.

Which was....

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.

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.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen back to regular programing.

Hopefully with no more Flameing Nuts.

Your problem is you are so full of yourself you can't see beyond your nose. Good luck, you need it.

[IAMICHABOD]

WOW another rant. That makes 16 posts in this thread, count them folks, with no posts anywhere else.

We seem to be stuck in a flameing rut here,with insults and name calling as the norm.

I guess I will have to put you back on the BLOCK list,it makes it so much more enjoyable to read this thread.

Which was....

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.

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.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen back to regular programing.

Hopefully with no more Flameing Nuts.

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
Geez Git a grip,I never knew that you Canadian's were such an exciteable group.

I never said that ANY manufacturer is useing a 3500 or 4500 with a Duramax. Just that they were available,and I would assume that if you wanted one you could order one. Don't take it out on the messenger.

From your rant I would gather that you are now,after owning 2, an avowed Chevy hater.

As for ordaining me an GM Evangelist,that was un necessary, for I AM an Ordained Minister.

So Go Forth My brother And Sin No More.

As to me being a Chev hater, it appears that you have trouble reading and comprehending.

I've had MANY GM products over the past 48 years since our first Corvair in 1964. The last few decades they've been purchased on the employee plan. They have included, in addition to the Corvairs (2 of them), Camaro, Olds, Montana, Caddy, Olds Silhouette, Colorado, Bonneville, Equinox and Tahoe. BUT each time I buy something I take a good look across the entire spectrum and get what is most suitable to our needs at that time and as a result have had vehicles from all of the D3. I did have a run of 4 Volvos during a decade and a half but prefer to provide funds to the D3 provided they have a suitable vehicle. D3 products have improved significantly over the past couple of decades.

BTW, if you want to behave like an evangelist, then the label fits.

The links you sent indicate an RV package is available for the Duramax option. Did you note the difference in price??? $12,000. And this is for the the puny Duramax with 260 HP. So it is one thing to say it is available from GM, but if no RV manufacturer is offering it what value is there in that statement. Given the price difference (and weight difference of almost 400 lbs) I suspect there would be few takers unless they provided a version with a much greater GVWR than 14,200 lbs. That was the beauty of the 19,500 lb Kodiak and it was a shame that they killed the entire line.

GM also had a 4.5L Duramax geared for production before they hit the wall. I think that would have been a great MH power source if the price was somewhat lower because they were quoting torque of 525 (same as offered with the puny Duramax 6.6). It was also expected to be even more fuel efficient. Hopefully that engine was only delayed and not cancelled. Perhaps some other forum members have info on the future of that engine.

[Grillmeister]

[IAMICHABOD]

Geez Git a grip,I never knew that you Canadian's were such an exciteable group.

I never said that ANY manufacturer is useing a 3500 or 4500 with a Duramax. Just that they were available,and I would assume that if you wanted one you could order one. Don't take it out on the messenger.

From your rant I would gather that you are now,after owning 2, an avowed Chevy hater.

As for ordaining me an GM Evangelist,that was un necessary, for I AM an Ordained Minister.

So Go Forth My brother And Sin No More.

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:

dleslie125 wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:

kaydeejay wrote:
Just being curious - I never hear mention of the Duramax in Chevy based Class Cs any more. I know GM offers that engine in the 1-ton vans, is it not available in the RV Cutaway chassis.
That would be a great combo for drivability AND mileage.
.:B

Yes they do! As no other American Made Cutaway can offer.

As shown here. Great combo for driveability AND mileage.

Express Cutaway 4500

Or Here.

Chevy Cutaway

Interesting video also.

Seems to me that you missed the question - Duramax for Class C motorhomes. I don't see that either the 3500 or 4500 is offered with the Duramax for a Class C. Is that the case.?

.

Seems that YOU did not read all of the post where in the second clickey it says Quote, Special-equipment packages are available for ambulance, RV, shuttle bus and school bus construction.Including the 6.6L Turbo diesel Duramax.

As I recall An RV Built on a Cutaway Chassis is In most cases are called a Class C.

And being available I think would mean that they are offered for that use.

Maybe something is being missed in the translation from American English to Canadian. Ehy.

Please point us in the direction of at least ONE manufacturer who is using the 3500 or 4500 with the Duramax? Can you?

By the way, I pointed out the HP and torque offered for the Duramax and perhaps in your role as GM Evangelist you didn't consider the fact that the diesel weighs much more than the Vortec. The result is likely similar to what MH manufacturers found with the Ford E450 with Powerstock - a much higher price (the diesel is NOT cheap) and less CCC (due to the engine weight). The use of a higher HP and torque Duramax version would also require a really expansive transmission upgrade to the Allison, which we had on our Kodiak units (several thousand $$$ more). So, would buyers shell out something like $20,000 extra without getting ANY increase in the GVWR (note in the specs you linked it was still 14,500 lbs). My gasser Kodiak Jayco Greyhawk had a GVWR of 19,500 lbs (8.1 Vortec) and had great CCC. The diesel version (Seneca) was much heavier with a GVWR of 22,000 lbs but that meant I could not tow my Tahoe LTZ (GCWR remained at 26,000 lbs) - so that is why we went with the gasser which was able to tow the Tahoe reasonably well.

[IAMICHABOD]

dleslie125 wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:

kaydeejay wrote:
Just being curious - I never hear mention of the Duramax in Chevy based Class Cs any more. I know GM offers that engine in the 1-ton vans, is it not available in the RV Cutaway chassis.
That would be a great combo for drivability AND mileage.
.:B

Yes they do! As no other American Made Cutaway can offer.

As shown here. Great combo for driveability AND mileage.

Express Cutaway 4500

Or Here.

Chevy Cutaway

Interesting video also.

Seems to me that you missed the question - Duramax for Class C motorhomes. I don't see that either the 3500 or 4500 is offered with the Duramax for a Class C. Is that the case.?

.

Seems that YOU did not read all of the post where in the second clickey it says Quote, Special-equipment packages are available for ambulance, RV, shuttle bus and school bus construction.Including the 6.6L Turbo diesel Duramax.

As I recall An RV Built on a Cutaway Chassis is In most cases are called a Class C.

And being available I think would mean that they are offered for that use.

Maybe something is being missed in the translation from American English to Canadian. Ehy.

[dleslie125]

IAMICHABOD wrote:

kaydeejay wrote:
Just being curious - I never hear mention of the Duramax in Chevy based Class Cs any more. I know GM offers that engine in the 1-ton vans, is it not available in the RV Cutaway chassis.
That would be a great combo for drivability AND mileage.
.:B

Yes they do! As no other American Made Cutaway can offer.

As shown here. Great combo for driveability AND mileage.

Express Cutaway 4500

Or Here.

Chevy Cutaway

Interesting video also.

Seems to me that you missed the question - Duramax for Class C motorhomes. I don't see that either the 3500 or 4500 is offered with the Duramax for a Class C. Is that the case.?

I'm somewhat familiar with the Duramax use in motorhomes have had a Kodiak Super C and also being the owner of the Yahoo Kodiak Class C Group. I've heard no mention in the Group of a Duramax being available in a Class C chassis at this time. Note that the specs for the Duramax in these links indicate a lot less HP and torque than the Duramax engines used in the Kodiak before GM discontinued its MDT line.

Ford put its diesel in a Class C cutaway and I believe one of the last to use it was Triple E. Only problem, IMO, was it was also a low HP and low torque unit.

Using the higher rated Duramax (as used in the late Kodiak line) in a 4500 would likely be an excellent combo - the question is why isn't it offered? I think it would be a big seller.

[IAMICHABOD]

kaydeejay wrote:
Just being curious - I never hear mention of the Duramax in Chevy based Class Cs any more. I know GM offers that engine in the 1-ton vans, is it not available in the RV Cutaway chassis.
That would be a great combo for drivability AND mileage.
.:B

Yes they do! As no other American Made Cutaway can offer.

As shown here. Great combo for driveability AND mileage.

Express Cutaway 4500

Or Here.

Chevy Cutaway

Interesting video also.

[Old_Hickory_Tro]

Lets see a number of items missing from the scorecard:

Who "ACTUALLY" runs Chevy: US government...advantage FORD
Who paid to keep Chevy in Business...US Taxpayers....advantage FORD

Just my two cents but those two items keep me clear of Government Motors regardless of some of those "so called" superior features and lastly there must be a reason FORD owns 83% of the market share with their product