Hypothetical Question about a Chassis

[bobojay5]

If you had your choice in ordering a, say, 25-26' class C, whatever brand, would you do an E350 or 450 chassis all things being equal. No special weight carrying requirement, both V-10, and why?

Personally I'd rather do a Chevy 4500, but that's not an option in my question....

[John___Angela]

E450 also comes stock with rear sway bar. We added one to our e350.

[mlts22]

Very true. I should have clarified that for a smaller "C" (22-25 feet), I wouldn't be surprised to see some built on the Transit chassis because the MPG is better.

Long term, I've read rumors of the T-450 and T-550, Transit chassis models which have the GVWR to completely replace the Econoline series... but as of now, the E series for cutaways isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[Dakzuki]

mlts22 wrote:
If you can wait a year or two, there will be Transit chassis in common availability. The vans have the EB, not sure about the cab chassis rigs, but the diesel is still available. The nice thing about either is no doghouse in the cab area. Sprinter versus Transit is for a different thread, but it might be an option.

Right now, I'd go with the E-450, no questions asked. The V-10 is extremely stable, it is very easy to find service on it, parts are relatively inexpensive, and most RV upfitters use that model.

The E series cab chassis isn't going anywhere soon. Per Ford it will be produced until nearly the end of the decade. The Transit will only be for lighter weight stuff for now. It's gross weight right now is significantly less than the Sprinter.

[mlts22]

If you can wait a year or two, there will be Transit chassis in common availability. The vans have the EB, not sure about the cab chassis rigs, but the diesel is still available. The nice thing about either is no doghouse in the cab area. Sprinter versus Transit is for a different thread, but it might be an option.

Right now, I'd go with the E-450, no questions asked. The V-10 is extremely stable, it is very easy to find service on it, parts are relatively inexpensive, and most RV upfitters use that model.

[Gonzo42]

Consider a diesel powered Sprinter. We really like ours. Don't limit your options. Check out floor plans extensively. IMHO nothing is as important as the layout.

[gmctoyman]

You will miss the Sprinter, but enjoy the space !

[pianotuna]

Hi,

I'd go for the E-450, but I'd add new wheels and new tires. 26 feet is the ideal size.

[bobojay5]

Well the responses have solidified my opinion about the 450 over the 350. Heavier duty is better in almost all cases is the way I feel. Didn't realize the 450 had a wider rear axle measurement than the 350.

Just a interesting piece of news here. Most of the EMS, (ambulance), departments around here have gone to the 4500 Chevy. Talking to some of them, seems to be less shop time and they like the drive better overall

[gmctoyman]

Always get as much truck as you can, I've yet to hear anyone complain of having to much truck. To bad the Chev isn't an option for you, the ergonomics of the Ford can suck, and the Alison transmission is so much nicer than the Ford....the V10 is a fine engine though, it does like its fuel though.

[pnichols]

The E450 is also going to have increased transmission cooling (for driving up any grade in any hot temperature with full A/C on and no tranny heating), increased brake size (for more reliable braking anywhere anytime and longer intervals between brake jobs), and a wider rear stance in it's duallies (for improved laterally stability on curves and in high cross-winds).

The Chevy 4500 probably has the same advantages over the Chevy 3500, but it's only offered with a V8 gas engine ... as opposed to Ford's superb V10 gas truck engine and 5-speed (6 speeds internally) fully computer controlled TorqueShift transmission. The E450 chassis under our 24 foot Itasca has easily pulled us at full highway speeds up to and along roads over 9000 feet ...it's overall power and delivered-to-the-ground torque are superb. It idles ultra smooth and vibration free (due to 10 cylinders) and we even idle it sometimes to charge the coach battery bank when drycamping ... we hardly know it's running when it's doing this and any camping neighbors can't hear it idling.

Soon we will be replacing the Ford OEM shocks with this high technology Koni shock to help take the sting out of highway cracks (while still retaining lateral rolling control) in the rear of our over-kill E450 chassis carrying only a 24 foot Class C:

http://www.koni-na.com/uploads/KONI_E350450_Cons_PR.PDF

[j-d]

E450 axle is around 4.56 and E350 around 4.10. Some times the tire sizes are different in a bigger truck, but E-Series is the same, so you'll actually get that 10% difference. The 450 also has more steel in the frame, and of course more rear axle capacity. When we went to move up in the Class C world, I specifically wanted the 450. Turned out that in the size we went for it's about mandatory. I'd still do 450 in a smaller coach, the mid-20's sizes.
But gotta say, Bruce's idea of a Chevy 4500 sounds like a good one.

[BruceMc]

I'd find something I like on the Chevy chassis!

[JaxDad]

If you were going to be doing a lot of driving you might want to look at the specs on both before deciding.

I think you'll find the F-450 chassis has a lower gear ratio in the rear end.

[tpi]

I have a relatively light and low profile 24' on E450. I can not think of anything which indicates "too much chassis." I almost immediately installed heavier sway bars front and rear-obviously to control what I considered excessive body roll. I also feel the shock absorber control is on the inadequate side, although I haven't replaced them yet. Shocks I think are common part w/ E350. I understand rear gearing is a little shorter with the E450 and in my case seems perfectly appropriate. Maybe on a narrower and even lower profile C the E350 taller gearing would be more appropriate.

So I guess to sum up, I'd consider the E350 only on something smaller, lighter and less top heavy than my 24 Lazy Daze.