Class Cs with high rear axle capacity

[ptbtx]

I recently bought a 32' 2010 Winnebago Access (Ford E450 chassis). Prior to leaving for a 4 week trip and prior to loading it up for the trip I took it to a scale and the rear weighed in at about 9400 and the front at about 4000. So the MH itself is taking up so much of the rear GAWR (9500 max) that there isn't much left over for bedding, clothes, food, etc. I had to cut back on what I planned to bring and now have to store everything in the front. I also removed the rear TV and the rear queen mattress and replaced it with a smaller and lighter mattress. This particular MH has plenty of room for storage in the bedroom but it's very disappointing that it can't be used and it's also very inconvenient to have to move everything from front to back at the end of the day's drive and then from back to front at the start of the day's drive.

By the way, when the MH was weighed the fresh water tank light showed 1/3 full, the gas tank had about 45 gallons (out of 55 when full), the propane tank was full, the gray and black tanks were empty, and I was the only passenger. I had two hoses and a few extension cords in the back passenger side hatch. I had some tools, etc. in the left and right front hatches, but nothing out of the ordinary with respect to their weight.

So even though the OCCC at 1866 seemed reasonable prior to purchase I see that most of that CC is available in the front, not the back where it would have been much more convenient.

So am now looking for advice regarding which models to look at with better OCCC especially CC on the back axle.

[carringb]

rjstractor wrote:

pnichols wrote:


It makes me sad to see the the Ford E450 and Chevy 4500 chassis fade into the sunset - they made possible solid, reliable, and realistically sized Class C performers. 😞

I didn't realize that there was an end announced for the E series cutaway- Ford still lists it available for 2019.

For had previously committed the E-series through 2020, but now leaked documents not only state major re-tooling for 2020 model E-series, but also it will be getting the new 7.3L gas motor. So, looks likely it'll be around for along time still. No reason to re-tool for something you're not going to keep going.

[Mich_F]

pnichols wrote:

Mich F wrote:
My MH fully loaded for camping, with my wife and I, weighed 11,940# (6 months after buying it).

Wow .... that was light for a E450 2014 31K with it's big slide!

I was amazed at how light it was at the first weigh in, as well as how much heavier it was at the second weigh in. I should go through it and pull stuff out, that I probably don't need.

With my F 150 hooked up I was at 17,900#, which is well below the 22,000# GCWR. I have to figure out how to tow my little 18' boat, along with the truck. :B

[pnichols]

Yeah ... but a whole bunch of the RV motorhome shopping discussions sure seem to be centered around the new downsized small delivery van chassis being heavily pushed and offered by the motorhome manufacturers.

This probably is primarily due to the (over?) emphasis on fuel mileage by prospective RV buyers. Unfortunately, later in the ownership cycle buyers find out that fuel expenses pale in comparison to the other long term RV expenses.

Additionally, a smaller delivery van chassis also seems to fit in with delivery truck needs being designed around a higher amount of the population being concentrated in tightly packed cities and the surrounding living areas.

Hence RV manufacturers are responding with smaller motorhomes built on these abundantly available smaller chassis - which provide both better fuel mileage and more ease of storage in tight living areas.

My advise to propective buyers who still want a new "good old classic size Class C" motorhome ... better think about getting one on a Ford E-Series or Chevy 3500/4500 chassis soon!

[rjstractor]

pnichols wrote:


It makes me sad to see the the Ford E450 and Chevy 4500 chassis fade into the sunset - they made possible solid, reliable, and realistically sized Class C performers. 😞

I didn't realize that there was an end announced for the E series cutaway- Ford still lists it available for 2019.

[pnichols]

Mich F wrote:
My MH fully loaded for camping, with my wife and I, weighed 11,940# (6 months after buying it).

Wow .... that was light for a E450 2014 31K with it's big slide!

... What does that say about the ~11,800# loaded weight of our non-slide E450 2005 24V (24 foot) Itasca? I guess we must be loaded to the hilt whenever we travel ... so I'm sure glad we bought a small Class C on the optional E450 chassis so that we could have no weight concerns!

I really feel for Sprinter and other "modern van chassis" based Class C owners - how do they manage serious RV trips?

It makes me sad to see the the Ford E450 and Chevy 4500 chassis fade into the sunset - they made possible solid, reliable, and realistically sized Class C performers. 😞

[Mich_F]

ptbtx wrote:
I only ended up with a 32 footer because that's what we found on the lots and it was a decent price, good shape and only 11K miles. Wouldn't mind looking for another used C but was curious to know if there are high OCCC models I could be looking for.

My 32+' class C had a 3,275# OCCC, so there are some high OCCC Cs out there. 9,600# rear axle ratings is the most on newer Fords and Chevy class Cs, although Chevys have a lower front axle rating.

My MH fully loaded for camping, with my wife and I, weighed 11,940# (6 months after buying it). Weighed it again a couple of months ago (5 years after the first weigh) and it was 13,080#. Still under the GVWR, but just older and put on a lot of weight (like a lot of us :B ).

[ptbtx]

I suspect I'd go in the direction of shorter rather than super C. Unless there is something used and reasonably priced in an E550 (though I don't know the GAWRs on that chassis).

[camperdave]

Based on my looking and reading, any e450 based class c that is over 30 feet and has slides is at or very near the rear axle limit from the factory. You'd need to go to a super c to get a beefier rating.

[ptbtx]

I only ended up with a 32 footer because that's what we found on the lots and it was a decent price, good shape and only 11K miles. Wouldn't mind looking for another used C but was curious to know if there are high OCCC models I could be looking for.

[memtb]

carringb wrote:
If you otherwise like the coach, why not just upgrade the wheels and tires?

https://ricksontruckwheels.com/wheels-ford-e350450.php

As far as other models... besides overall length, the biggest factor in rear axle loading is the wheelbase. 32' Class C's should have anything less than 220". Basically, the better the wheelbase to length ratio, the better the rear axle loading scenario will tend to be.

And increase spring rates, and or add air bags!

[carringb]

If you otherwise like the coach, why not just upgrade the wheels and tires?

https://ricksontruckwheels.com/wheels-ford-e350450.php

As far as other models... besides overall length, the biggest factor in rear axle loading is the wheelbase. 32' Class C's should have anything less than 220". Basically, the better the wheelbase to length ratio, the better the rear axle loading scenario will tend to be.

[pnichols]

Do you need a Class C that long?

The obvious way to help with this is to go smaller ... while staying with the Ford E450 or Chevy 4500 chassis under it.