E-350 vs. 3500 promaster

Buy a single rear wheel RV at your own peril.

I think the convention for those capacity labels has changed, or some builders provide more info than others.

Lately, they provide an "empty" weight which I think is a unit with full oil and fuel but nothing else. And a disclaimer saying any dealer options will reduce capacity. Then some show capacities with given numbers of passengers. The most with just two, down to least with say six.

Reminds me of the ingredients of diet soda. They're required to print them, but they can choose a print style that discourages reading them. It's as if the coach companies don't want us to be able to compare across brands.

Dakzuki wrote:
I'm seeing lots of noise here about the low OCCC of the Promaster RVs. Somebody on this forum a while back looked at door stickers. One was 1300 lbs and the other was 1430 or so. That is pretty workable for a small RV.

I think that was considering an empty fresh water tank.

Every motor home should have enough CCC to handle the quantity of seat belts times an average weight per person, plus water and supplies.

I'm seeing lots of noise here about the low OCCC of the Promaster RVs. Somebody on this forum a while back looked at door stickers. One was 1300 lbs and the other was 1430 or so. That is pretty workable for a small RV.

CharlesinGA wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:
All Dodge has to do is tool up a free spinning dual rear axle assembly for the Promaster to address the majority of the load deficiency for RV and commercial applications. I wonder if they don't offer it because maybe the front wheel drive engine & transmission combo wouldn't be able to handle the load. There could be multiple dynamics as to why the chassis is what it is today.

Like SkiMore says, The Dodge Promaster van is fine for a class B application, but not the cut-away chassis for a B+/C.

The tandem rear axles are quite common in Europe on the Fiat Ducato chassis motor homes (which is the exact same as the Promaster) (this chassis is also used by Peugeot, with a Peugeot engine in it).



https://youtu.be/33opsx1NLRU

Charles

Charles only difference is their all Diesel engines , no Gas ones. Illustrative photo is of a Trakka 700, 29ft Class C, which is made in Australia

ron.dittmer wrote:
All Dodge has to do is tool up a free spinning dual rear axle assembly for the Promaster to address the majority of the load deficiency for RV and commercial applications. I wonder if they don't offer it because maybe the front wheel drive engine & transmission combo wouldn't be able to handle the load. There could be multiple dynamics as to why the chassis is what it is today.

Like SkiMore says, The Dodge Promaster van is fine for a class B application, but not the cut-away chassis for a B+/C.

The tandem rear axles are quite common in Europe on the Fiat Ducato chassis motor homes (which is the exact same as the Promaster) (this chassis is also used by Peugeot, with a Peugeot engine in it).



https://youtu.be/33opsx1NLRU

Charles

ron.dittmer wrote:
All Dodge has to do is tool up a free spinning dual rear axle assembly for the Promaster to address the majority of the load deficiency for RV and commercial applications. I wonder if they don't offer it because maybe the front wheel drive engine & transmission combo wouldn't be able to handle the load. There could be multiple dynamics as to why the chassis is what it is today.

I suspect it has to do with the front wheel drive platform. It would be easy to increase the RGAWR by a couple thousand pounds just with bigger tires, wheels and springs, dual wheels wouldn't even be necessary. But adding 2000 pounds to the rear without nothing more on the front you'd end up with a vehicle with poor traction, like an empty 2WD pickup but twice as heavy.

All Dodge has to do is tool up a free spinning dual rear axle assembly for the Promaster to address the majority of the load deficiency for RV and commercial applications. I wonder if they don't offer it because maybe the front wheel drive engine & transmission combo wouldn't be able to handle the load. There could be multiple dynamics as to why the chassis is what it is today.

Like SkiMore says, The Dodge Promaster van is fine for a class B application, but not the cut-away chassis for a B+/C.

I think it's a shame that they will build a C on a platform like that. With two people and really watching the weight you put into the MH, you're at best, a few hundred pounds under the GVWR.
That could conceivably shorten the life of the vehicle, being so close, if not over, the vehicle's weight rating.

I see what you mean about the low CCC# on the promaster when used as a class C. It's a shame that the spec isn't listed on the Winnebago or coachman websites. It looks like the numbers aren't so bad if you were getting a classB. I found a review of the Travato 59G on motorhome mag that lists the CCC as 1910 lbs. Too bad I'm looking at a C.

Thanks, I'll be looking at E350 and Transit platforms.