concerned about wheelbase diff of 2 rigs on my short list

[Dieter_Heinzer]

Hello fellow RVers,

Looking for opinions to help me make an informed choice. 🙂 I will be buying a new motorhome, replacing my 29 foot class C Coachmen Catalina Sport 28Q (yup, about the cheapest MH I could find back then!) that we bought new 16 years ago. It's all been good, but I want something with more space, more storage and up the the task of getting a LOT of use over the next 20 years.

My current favorite floor plan is the Coachmen Leprechaun 319DS (same-ish plan as the Forest River Forester 3011DS ) because it has REAL counter space in the kitchen especially without the TV option. But I also just found almost the same floor plan in the Itasca Sunstar 31KE class A.

So here's my main question (I know, finally.... 😉 ) : the Wheelbase on the class C is 223 inches, but on the class A it is only 190 inches!!!!! ...since both have the same-ish floor plan and overall length, is the DRIVABILITY of the class C going to be significantly better than the almost three feet shorter wheelbased class A? They're both about the same purchasing cost and use the same engine. The class A has LOTS more storage, but I plan to put over a hundred thousand miles on my new MH so how it drives is gonna be important.

Thoughts? Thanks!

[snowdance]

Living in mt. country and driving endless miles of corners. I would go for longer wheel base.. But, look under and find the water tanks. All 3 on both. Water tanks ahead of the rear axle are a plus. Behind the rear axle with water in them can cause rear steer. Meaning you end up counter steering in corners to keep the rear from going around. Ours has fresh forward but two others rear so when full we end up having to steer the other way in a corner to keep the rig from going around on us. We do our best to keep those tanks empty when traveling. And running corners all the time we do corner faster than most.

Other than that choose the one you like best..

[Gale_Hawkins]

The conversion bus is really the only MH style safe in a crash.

While most trailers, C and A MH's can be become a pile of trash all over the interstate the real danger is what is behind the cabin that can wind up in the cabin that concerns me.

For that reason trailers and truck camper based RV's give the riders the most safety. Any MH other than a bus conversion is going to crush in a roll over. A 30-40 year old bus converted to a MH would be the most safe option for many of us that do not have $2 million for a new one.

WB is always a safety related concern. White knuckle MH driving is often related to poor wheel base to length ratios.

Longer/taller MH's tend to get a little more respect when on the road but many do not have truck handling skills and would be safer for them selves and others to go with a van based class C. I expect the edge a Class C would offer that group of drivers would end when they are longer than the 22-25 foot range however.

For many concerned about safety in a major way would be best to travel /vacation by SUV/condo method especially if they have no trucking experience earlier in life. Some will get upset at that statement because it applies to them.

Riding in a house built on the back of a cut away van or larger truck chassis at 70 MPH should NEVER be considered safe when things go very wrong. Thankfully relative few while ever ride an a MH of any type and be in a major accident.

If you are not comfortable with the handling of any vehicle then it would be best to never drive it. Wheel Base is a huge factor in handling comfort in my book.

[wolfe10]

Yup, the formula is Wheel Base divided by Overall Length. Obviously, the shorter the wheelbase for a given length coach, the more the overhang, so the terms are certainly related.

[mm047]

The ratio you are thinking of is 55%. So the original post has one ratio of about 56% (Assuming a model 31 is about 33 feet long), but the other is well under 50%. I wouldn't drive a rig like that.

Gale Hawkins wrote:
There is a ratio of WB and over hang rule of thumb but do not remember it. I would not want a 30+ foot Class A with less than the 208" WB.

[bsinmich]

You can't compare a Class C van chassis to a truck chassis under a Class A. Wheel and tire size is totally different, suspension is not the same. You are comparing apples and oranges and trying to find similarity. Look at the width of the wheel spacing and actually take one for a drive before making a decision. Check the size of the frame components.

[carringb]

Gale Hawkins wrote:


Do you know if they walked down the steps, died, etc?

Fortunately the wife stayed home on that trip. It was only 10 miles from their home, and the husband/driver was just running some errands. He was not injured since it happened at such a low speed. He barely drifted over the fog line and couldn't get the coach to steer back onto the roadway. If she were in the passenger seat, it likely would have been a fatality.

The pic below (not mine) was an E450 ambulance that struck a tree at speed. Much of the cab had to be cut away for extraction of the medics in the cab. The driver was treated and released. The passenger-seat medic did not require treatment. The most serious injury to the medics was the one seated in the rear. Unfortunately, the patient did not survive, likely being thrown into the bulkhead. This particular crash was one of triggers into current discussions about improving patient safety in crashes. But the cab did its job, even though it looks completely mangled.

[Gale_Hawkins]

Bryan I agree but your photos are not of a chassis impact but of house impacting a tree when leaning at a steep angle. Since it was not a chassis impact the house would have taken the impact had it been a class C but it being lower may have not got the same level of damage. The seat moving some could be good or bad depending on other factors.

The should be some data as to where an A or C is more safe. Falling over into the path of a tree was not something I had thought of but clearly it can happen.

Do you know if they walked down the steps, died, etc?

[carringb]

Gale Hawkins wrote:

j-d wrote:
Dual airbags, steel body with engineered, tested crumple zones. Engineered, tested shoulder belts. Even a real bumper.

I agree that is important in a down low in the traffic vehicle like a class C MH.

So far as I have read there is nothing that supports one assuming a Class A is less safe than a Class C MH.

In my view there are more factors that could support a Class A to be more safe. Being more aware visually and out of the typical crumple zones are two factors that I assume makes an A more safe than a C.

Not all Class A's are built equally, and here is the problem. They have NO safety requirements they need to meet. I've seen the aftermath of low-speed crashes with even high-end diesel pushers, and you might as well be driving a cardboard box, because that is all that is protecting you. Yes, there is some advantage to being being higher up in a crash with a car, but not if your front seats get launched out the windshield because they are bolted to plywood (again... not all are, but some are because they can.... and it doesn't necessarily correlate to purchase price).

Even though Class-4 cab-chassis also don't have to meet many safety requirements, Ford (and others) maintain the same safety features that come in the lighter versions of the same platform which do have to meet crash-safety requirements.

This coach was going under 40 MPH:

[Gale_Hawkins]

j-d wrote:
Dual airbags, steel body with engineered, tested crumple zones. Engineered, tested shoulder belts. Even a real bumper.

I agree that is important in a down low in the traffic vehicle like a class C MH.

So far as I have read there is nothing that supports one assuming a Class A is less safe than a Class C MH.

In my view there are more factors that could support a Class A to be more safe. Being more aware visually and out of the typical crumple zones are two factors that I assume makes an A more safe than a C.

[j-d]

Dual airbags, steel body with engineered, tested crumple zones. Engineered, tested shoulder belts. Even a real bumper.

[Gale_Hawkins]

How is a lowdown C safer than an A in a typical crash?

[Dieter_Heinzer]

Thanks for all the responses! Very much appreciated. One of the comments struck an important key note I had forgotten about: passenger safety! Since it will be The Wench and I 99% of the time, those crash safety standards are important. ...and I do anticipate towing some small 4x4 so the longer wheelbase must win.
Thanks again and happy motoring!

[carringb]

Coachmen puts swivel seats in the Cs. The As has more Hp but also they weight more empty for the same floor plan. And adding the banks power pack to the 2-valve will give it similar Hp and more torque than the 3-valve. But yes As have more storage. But Cs have better occupant protection. I suspect it's easier to add storage than crash protection.

[dicknellen]

This is not about wheelbase, this is A vs C, the A may have more livable space since the capt chairs swivel and become part of the living area, also A's usually have more outside compartment storage. As previously pointed out the A has a better engine. My personal opinion is, C's should be no longer than 30' unless a super C. My 2 cents worth, Dick