E-350 vs. 3500 promaster

[SkiMore]

I am looking at getting a new Class C/B+ and were wondering what the consensus was regarding E-350 vs. 3500 promaster RVs. Is there a clear reason why one is better? I am looking at something 24' or less.

[mrshowtime3]

Buy a single rear wheel RV at your own peril.

[j-d]

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.

[ron_dittmer]

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.

[Dakzuki]

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.

[RobertRyan]

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

[CharlesinGA]

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

[rjstractor]

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.

[ron_dittmer]

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.

[Mich_F]

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.

[SkiMore]

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.

[SoCalDesertRid1]

Our old E350 with 6.0 diesel and 3.73 axle had 20,000 lbs GCWR, which meant it could tow 10,500 lbs while the van was also loaded to it's 9500 lb GVWR. It was a single rear wheel cargo van. The E350 cutaway chassis with dual rear wheels has higher GVWR and similar GCWR. I believe the V10 gas engine with 4.30 axle also had 20,000 lbs GCWR.

[ron_dittmer]

The Dodge Promaster platform motor home reminds me of the Toyota based motor home from 1979 to 1988. Both having single wheel rear axle load limitations, the curb weight was so close to the limit that you couldn't take anything with you on a trip including your own family. Of coarse people ignored the numbers and drove around the country with their rigs over-loaded.

I would never consider any motor home built on a Promaster cut-away chassis. I can't understand why they are permitted to make them. The NTSB should not have approved that chassis for motor homes. Make box trucks that haul Styrofoam and children's backyard slides and such..... bulky, light weight cargo. Not a house with people, water, and all the rest.

[rjstractor]

Something that hasn't been pointed out yet is that the Promaster is front wheel drive. Mechanically it's really just a huge minivan. Front wheel drive provides great traction in passenger vehicles but in a truck or motorhome you can easily end up with the drive axle being too light to have good traction on hills or in slippery conditions.

[j-d]

To me, the RV's built on Promaster have a very limited audience, because of he very limited OCC. A couple, on a trip, is almost guaranteed to be overloaded.

Transit? Maybe. Promaster? Nope. Just because something CAN be done (RV on Promaster) doesn't mean it SHOULD be done (Trend and Friends).