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

[vanGogh]

Thanks to all who responded. I will check tires, alignment and air bags to see if I can get a safer feeling ride at higher speeds.
Elle

[dleslie125]

pnichols wrote:

Gene in NE wrote:
The Ford E350 was at 10,700 lbs for a while.

Boy, that must have been a few years ago. I'll bet it was way back when good old one-ton dually pickups were rated only in that range, too.

It seems like all (U.S.) "1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton" pickup trucks have been getting heavier and heavier ratings over the last 15-20 years. Maybe that's one of the main reasons why they're also outlandishly expensive now, too. Thicker and thicker steel frame platform construction costs more to produce than stamped unibodies.

The RV E-350 is available with a GVWR as low as 10050 but the standard purchase unit for MH's is 12,500 lbs.

One should note that Thor selected the E-350 for its new RUV (I was surprised by this move and would have expected the E-450). One would have thought that if the Chev chassis and engine are as wonderful as its evangelists here claim they are, Thor would have used it. (Thor Axis and Vegas)

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the V10 produces its max torque of 420 ft lbs at 3250 rpm while the Chev 6.0 produces 373 ft lbs at 4400 rpm? Gee, I thought it was only the Ford that was the screamer?

[RvBill3]

vanGogh wrote:


Bill, we just ordered a 2300 on the Chevy 4500, like yours. So it's not too rough with that HD chassis? I was a little concerned about that.

I am very pleased with the ride. Once you have it loaded, put about 50-60psi in the airbags. Adjust up or down a little until you get the ride you like.

We have traveled 550 miles a day several times and are no more road weary than a similar trip in my Chevy Avalanche. I really enjoy driving it.

I'm not going to get into the Ford vs. Chevy wars, but I can say I am very happy with the power, handling, and ride of mine.

[pnichols]

Gene in NE wrote:
The Ford E350 was at 10,700 lbs for a while.

Boy, that must have been a few years ago. I'll bet it was way back when good old one-ton dually pickups were rated only in that range, too.

It seems like all (U.S.) "1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton" pickup trucks have been getting heavier and heavier ratings over the last 15-20 years. Maybe that's one of the main reasons why they're also outlandishly expensive now, too. Thicker and thicker steel frame platform construction costs more to produce than stamped unibodies.

[Gene_in_NE]

Somebody posted specs awhile ago with the dimensions of the frames and the thickness and tensile rating of the steel. AT THE TIME (because it did not include the new GM 4500), Chevy was the weakest, E450 the strongest, E350 in between.
Not that we ever should, but I've heard: "You can overload a Ford but never overload a Chevy."

The source of this statement could be trying to be misleading. I would hope the Ford E450 would be sturdier than the Chevy 3500. That is comparing a 1-1/2 ton to a 1 ton chassis. As to the Chevy 3500 versus the Ford E350 would depend on which version. The Chevy has been at GVWR of 12,300 lbs almost forever. The Ford E350 was at 10,700 lbs for a while.

The comment on dimensions of the frames, thickness, and tensile strength leaves out one fairly important comparison - configuration (i.e. corrugated tin versus flat tin - can be a big difference, or box versus "I" cross section).

[dleslie125]

j-d wrote:
Somebody posted specs awhile ago with the dimensions of the frames and the thickness and tensile rating of the steel. AT THE TIME (because it did not include the new GM 4500), Chevy was the weakest, E450 the strongest, E350 in between.
Not that we ever should, but I've heard: "You can overload a Ford but never overload a Chevy."

That is a CROCK of you know what. PERIOD. Darned if I can figure out who you HEARD it from because that person doesn't know much about RVs. Or, maybe you have a problem with your hearing. 🙂

There is no logic for the UVW of some of the units - on any chassis. When manufacturers add more slides and equipment they simply reduce carrying capacity. We now have our smallest MH of the five we've had - one shallow slide and no levellers. A decent wheelbase to length ratio and lots of carrying capacity because it is only 27 ft 10 inches long. Bump it to 32 ft, add two deep slides and down goes the carrying capacity REGARDLESS of the chassis used.

The E450 has a GCWR of 22,000 lbs which is a couple thousand pounds more than any of the Chevs as I recall. That does not necessarily mean one can put a 7500 lb receiver on it because it will depend on whether or not the wheel base and frame rails were extended and the quality of those extensions. Manufacturers often buy ONE chassis size and then lengthen the wheelbase as required and the frame rails. IMO that is not the best way for buyers but the manufacturers think it is more convenient for them. But then they have to send them out to companies like Mor/Ryde to do the extensions. Those frame rail extensions add to the weight as well.

[pnichols]

Snowman9000 wrote:
How many speeds is the transmission in the newest Chevy Class C's?

edit: Never mind, I found a Chevy commercial brochure. It's a six speed. Cool.

Just as a reference point: The Ford TorqueShift computer controlled transmission (variations of it on all E350/E450 V10 chassis since 2005) also has six gears - five under driver control - but with one of the five being automatically selected from two choices by the computer. This is probably related to the V10 being a relatively high RPM engine (for a truck) with a very broad torque range.

[Snowman9000]

RvBill3 wrote:

vanGogh wrote:
We just bought a Coachmen Concord 225LE on a Chevy 4500 chassis. We ordered ours because we specifically wanted a Chevy chassis. We have noticed that it is very comfortable to drive until we get to about 59 mph or faster. Then the coach becomes harder to keep in our lane and the steering doesn't feel very responsive. We have not yet loaded up the coach or filled up our tanks. Will the coach drive differently once it is loaded up? Should it feel more stable and responsive?
Thanks,
Elle

I like the way ours rides loaded vs unloaded but I would not describe it as a problem like you are. Just feels more solid. I would suggest carefully checking tire pressures. Our manufacturer recommends 65 front and 80 rear. I run about 50psi in the rear air bags. It's a comfortable stable ride.

Bill, we just ordered a 2300 on the Chevy 4500, like yours. So it's not too rough with that HD chassis? I was a little concerned about that.

[RvBill3]

vanGogh wrote:
We just bought a Coachmen Concord 225LE on a Chevy 4500 chassis. We ordered ours because we specifically wanted a Chevy chassis. We have noticed that it is very comfortable to drive until we get to about 59 mph or faster. Then the coach becomes harder to keep in our lane and the steering doesn't feel very responsive. We have not yet loaded up the coach or filled up our tanks. Will the coach drive differently once it is loaded up? Should it feel more stable and responsive?
Thanks,
Elle

I like the way ours rides loaded vs unloaded but I would not describe it as a problem like you are. Just feels more solid. I would suggest carefully checking tire pressures. Our manufacturer recommends 65 front and 80 rear. I run about 50psi in the rear air bags. It's a comfortable stable ride.

[Snowman9000]

How many speeds is the transmission in the newest Chevy Class C's?

edit: Never mind, I found a Chevy commercial brochure. It's a six speed. Cool.

[pnichols]

I like our Ford Class C because it has 10 cylinders. I had lived all my life with 8 or less cylinders before we bought our motorhome and it was getting boring ... so I finally moved on and up. :B

[dleslie125]

Vintmxman wrote:
I have owned both the ford V10 chassis and the chevrolet powered chassis and prefer the chevy. Better fuel mileage, less maintenance,, fewer repairs, less cab heat and a much smoother ride in general. Both were were 30 feet .the 6.0 motor is strong running. Great combo in my opinion.

Less maintenance!!! You must be kidding? We've had our 2011 E450 for just over 3 years. Local Ford dealer sold us 5 service visits for $120. So now it has had 6 oil changes (4 coupons left from second batch), filters and lubes and total cost $120 + $20 for $160 over three years. For three years my former Tahoe LTZ was far more than that. Same with my wife's former Equinox.

Repairs - not even one thing has gone wrong. Not a single repair or warranty claim and it has 2 years power train left. Suspension - airbags came with the Impulse and it rides better than the Kodiak 8.1 I traded on it - and it is no noisier than the 8.1 we had. Only complaint, if I have one, 8.5 to 9.0 mpg and I was hoping for a bit more. But then Kodiak was 7.6 mpg so I gained a bit.

[Vintmxman]

I have owned both the ford V10 chassis and the chevrolet powered chassis and prefer the chevy. Better fuel mileage, less maintenance,, fewer repairs, less cab heat and a much smoother ride in general. Both were were 30 feet .the 6.0 motor is strong running. Great combo in my opinion.

[Snowman9000]

vanGogh wrote:
We just bought a Coachmen Concord 225LE on a Chevy 4500 chassis. We ordered ours because we specifically wanted a Chevy chassis. We have noticed that it is very comfortable to drive until we get to about 59 mph or faster. Then the coach becomes harder to keep in our lane and the steering doesn't feel very responsive. We have not yet loaded up the coach or filled up our tanks. Will the coach drive differently once it is loaded up? Should it feel more stable and responsive?
Thanks,
Elle

I would expect it to get worse when loaded, because more weight gets added to the rear. What are the recommended inflation numbers for your tires, as printed on the sticker in the door jamb? Check to see if your tires are set to those numbers.

Next, if that doesn't help, you can play with the tire pressures. With a small coach such as yours, even the recommended numbers are probably quite a big higher than what is needed for the tires to carry the loads you will have. Just guessing, but you might be able to safely run only 50 in the fronts. You can know for sure until you weigh the MH and get numbers for each axle. But let's say you've done that, and you can safely run lower in front. Then you can try say 65 rear, 55 or 50 front, and see if the handling changes. I bet it will.

All that said, it might need a wheel alignment, to be done at a truck alignment shop.

[mumkin]

I'd say that it shouldn't do that either loaded or unloaded. Mine is stable up to the max speed that I have driven it. Caught myself hitting 85 while passing a couple times. I normally set the cruise control at 65 - otherwise I will tend to speed since it handles so well. I'll let those who know recommend what you should be checking to fix this, but I'd be pressing the dealer and manufacturer to help.