Frustrated Chevy buyer

[TippleUnduly]

Why do Mfrs. seem to shy away from building on the Chevy? Is it cost? I'm frustrated trying to find our next B+ so equipped.

I have been very pleased with my '06 Chevy chassis under our 30+ foot B+ w/2 slides. And, yes, I've weighed it fully loaded for cross-country travel and it still has 1000+ lbs. of CC.

As I've posted here before, the cab is roomy and the engine cover is cool, the ride is top notch, handling (without the need for added sway bars, etc.) is very good, mileage 10.1 hiway, sweet sounding low-noise V8, great braking, and no road wander. This, as you may know, is not typical of some more popular chassis choices. At least that's what I read online. I'd driven both back-to-back and the Chevy choice quickly became clear. (I own a Ford Mustang and a Ranger.)

Does anyone have real facts behind the mfrs' bias?

Just wondering...
Bill

[Snowman9000]

carringb wrote:

Snowman9000 wrote:
I asked the Forest River rep on the the FR Sunseeker forum about pricing. At retail, the Chevy 4500 is $1500 less than the E350, and $4500 less than the E450.

I believe that is just the cost of the bare chassis. Once the frame modifications are made, the Chevy probably becomes more expensive due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. The liability assumed for having your own design is not cheap to insure. Ford's QVM-18 was written as a result of a failed chassis extension on a limo, and by having those guidelines it makes it easier/cheaper/safer for the Ford chassis to be modified.

No, what I gave were the differences in retail pricing, to the consumer.

[pnichols]

RobertRyan wrote:
Some people here are still trying to sell E350 Class C Motorhomes from the U.S., been two years trying to move them

Robert,

Maybe those folks ought to try their hand at selling the right E350 based RV over where you are 😉 :

http://www.pleasureway.com/prestige/

[RobertRyan]

pnichols wrote:

v10superduty wrote:
Concerning the RV market, makers will stay with the same old tired thing until the buying public demands better, and/or Ford discontinues the E chassis

There is another way I prefer to view the classic E350 and E450 vans and cutaways ... they're been around so long because they are in fact just that ... classics.

I could go on but won't regarding those funny looking and often under-powered trucks from Germany, the rest of Europe, and Asia ... but "classic" they aren't. All in fun and IMHO, of course. 😉

Depends on what is funny looking an underpowered. Some people here are still trying to sell E350 Class C Motorhomes from the U.S., been two years trying to move them, price they are asking is awfully cheap
🙂

[carringb]

Snowman9000 wrote:
I asked the Forest River rep on the the FR Sunseeker forum about pricing. At retail, the Chevy 4500 is $1500 less than the E350, and $4500 less than the E450.

I believe that is just the cost of the bare chassis. Once the frame modifications are made, the Chevy probably becomes more expensive due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. The liability assumed for having your own design is not cheap to insure. Ford's QVM-18 was written as a result of a failed chassis extension on a limo, and by having those guidelines it makes it easier/cheaper/safer for the Ford chassis to be modified.

[j-d]

At those prices it makes sense to go Chevy. First 4500 I saw was under a Class C, maybe a Sunseeker, and I was excited to see it. I think that was before I actually read about them. Or maybe there were a few postings and I just saw Chevy.

[Snowman9000]

I asked the Forest River rep on the the FR Sunseeker forum about pricing. At retail, the Chevy 4500 is $1500 less than the E350, and $4500 less than the E450.

[pnichols]

v10superduty wrote:
Concerning the RV market, makers will stay with the same old tired thing until the buying public demands better, and/or Ford discontinues the E chassis

There is another way I prefer to view the classic E350 and E450 vans and cutaways ... they're been around so long because they are in fact just that ... classics.

I could go on but won't regarding those funny looking and often under-powered trucks from Germany, the rest of Europe, and Asia ... but "classic" they aren't. All in fun and IMHO, of course. 😉

[v10superduty]

bobojay5 wrote:

The GM chassis is a better handling, better riding, more comfortable, quieter chassis, along with one of the best, least problematic V8's still in existence. The 4500 GM chassis is superior to either the 350 or 450 E series except in GVWR in the case of the 450.

Concerning the RV market, makers will stay with the same old tired thing until the buying public demands better, and/or Ford discontinues the E chassis

You present this info as fact but in reality it's just your opinion. :h
Many would have a different one I believe. :W

I do however agree with your opinion regarding the last part of your
quote.
Seems like you are saying the only way the GM chassis will exceed the Ford numbers is "if" Ford discontinues production.
That's coming in a few years... So if Ford have no suitable replacement maybe the GM will become the #1 "C" chassis?

[IAMICHABOD]

Snowman9000 wrote:
Ichabod, if that is current, the 4500 is 4.10. That's what I have.

Opps I was looking at the 3500 like mine....:S

[Mich_F]

I would guess those rear axle ratios are part of the reason for the Chevrolet having better gas mileage, but lower GCWRs. The only Chevy based MH I had was a 1995 22'er with the 5.7L and a 4.10 rear end, which got horrible gas mileage. If I remember correctly, it had a 10,500# GVWR and a 13,500# GCWR. If it had a 4.56 rear end, it would have had a 15,500# GCWR, but I can't imagine how bad the gas mileage would have been.

[Bird_Freak]

Mich F wrote:

snowdance wrote:
Chevy bashing is common here.

You're joking, right ? Most threads I read on this site are bashing Fords, while praising the Chevrolet. :h

Exactly

[Snowman9000]

Ichabod, if that is current, the 4500 is 4.10. That's what I have.

[pnichols]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
HERE is the spec sheet for the Chevrolet Motor Home Chassis. It would seem that they have the 3.73 and the Ford has the 4.10

Thanks much for that spec sheet.

I sure like the size of the stock alternator and gas tank ... very nice.

Regarding the listed rear differential ratio for the 4500 ... I wonder if Chevy uses the same ratio for both the gas and diesel version? If so, that would be strange, IMHO.

[pnichols]

I have some tonque-in-cheek/FWIW comments with respect to several points in posts above:

- The Chevy option for a Class C may cost more, but that in no way makes it an "upgrade" when buying new. It appears to me that it's a market competitiveness issue for Chevy.

- Regarding Chevy chassis Class C stability in crosswinds ... what is the 4500's lateral rear width measured to the outside of it's duals as compared to the same dimension for a Ford E450? (As a side note, the E450's rear width is wider than the E350's rear stance.)

- Many Ford V10 engines go to 300,000 miles and beyond in delivery, ambulance, etc. service.

- The V10 is a higher revving engine than the Chevy 7.4. Maybe that's one of the reasons that the E450 has the aggressive rear differential ratio that it does - to make sure that one can get the V10 into it's highest horsepower output range.

- I believe that the V10 was designed to provide a fairly broad and flat curve of torque versus RPM. This may have been to provide consistent lugging torque for truck use at all horsepower output levels, which of course are RPM dependent. How do the Vortex curves compare - more peaky or about as flat?

- I use oversize tires on my Class C to get it's top gearing overall ratio up there for improved gas mileage (and ground clearance). I could go even larger on tire diameter - since the fender wells and suspension allow it - but don't, so that the DW can still get up into the cab. Since my small Class C under-loads the E450's GVWR so much, the larger tires' negating some of the rear differential's aggressive 4:56 ratio advantage does not cause any noticeable pulling power problem.

- My E450 Class C needs no rebuilding of anything for it to drive like it does ... "like a van". Ford's Twin I-Beam front suspension must have something going for it or they wouldn't have stuck with it for so long. I'd like for once for someone to offer a clear, accurate, and short defense explanation of the advantages of Twin I-Beam suspension in a light/medium-duty truck chassis. All I read is Twin I-Bean bashing from folks who offer no engineering perspectives supporting their bashing. My old 1965 Ford Ultra-HD 3/4 ton pickup even had Twin I-Beam front suspension and I would carry, in our mountains, up to 6,000 lbs. of rock in it's bed with narry a handling problem.

[IAMICHABOD]

Snowman9000 wrote:

pnichols wrote:
I'm curious: What's the rear differential ratio of your Chevy 4500 small Class C?

4.10 according to this:

http://www.gmfleet.com/chevrolet/express-4500-cutaway-van/features-specs/powertrain.html

HERE is the spec sheet for the Chevrolet Motor Home Chassis. It would seem that they have the 3.73 and the Ford has the 4.10