Jayco goes Renault and other Oddities from Aust

[RobertRyan]

Jayco, the Gerry Ryan owned Company not the US one, is offering a lightweight C on the Renault Van Chassis

As well many builders are building on the IVECO Chassis, that gives considerably better GVWR/GCVWR and ride than the Sprinter

[RobertRyan]

PNichols wrote:
Regarding handling ... I'd had no bad experiences with that in our two Class C motorhomes: We've owned a 1969 ~21-22 foot Chinook on a wide-stance GMC 1-ton dually and now own a 2005 24 foot Itasca on a wide-stance Ford 1&1/4-ton E450 dually. Both handled and handle superbly, and both rode and ride superbly in their driver and passenger cab areas.

Most here who bought.them ,thought they dreadful.,unstable, slow, heavy on fuel even when on LPG, they were quickly withdrawn as they were well shy of being acceptable. I agree with your Sprinter critics, there should be a lot better alternatives than the now fairly substandard E series Vans. Ford is working on the on the heavier T550 models, that should compete with current Sprinter at least in handling and have an advatanage in towing and payload capacity

[pnichols]

Robert,

I didn't mean to imply that a wider dimension between the rear duals has anything to do with ride comfort. It doesn't, and we've had this discussion before.

What it has to do with is lateral stability, as it relates to the magnitude and height-location of a Class C's center of gravity and what the affects of that center of gravity are when the vehicle is subjected to side-ways forces resulting from curves, cross-winds, and weight shifting on laterally (side-ways) sloped road surfaces. As for myself, I'd never buy one of those high and narrow Class C motorhomes: Low and narrow, yes. High and wide, yes. But high and narrow - too much testing of the rules/laws of mechanics and hence restrictive in various travel situations for my tastes - when all aspects of safety are kept in mind.

Regarding handling ... I'd had no bad experiences with that in our two Class C motorhomes: We've owned a 1969 ~21-22 foot Chinook on a wide-stance GMC 1-ton dually and now own a 2005 24 foot Itasca on a wide-stance Ford 1&1/4-ton E450 dually. Both handled and handle superbly, and both rode and ride superbly in their driver and passenger cab areas.

In the front cab area (where the coil springs are) of our present E450 Class C chassis the ride is equal to or BETTER THAN my DW's high-end and heavy Lexus touring sedan. She has a bad back and has for years been able to ride in only certain vehicles for extensed time periods (we've not bought vehicles and returned brand new ones we did buy due to this). Her testimony as to the E450's front cab ride is all I need to boldly state that it's ride is superb in front due to all that weight on those stock coil springs, the stock sway bar, the classic I-Beam struts, and the stock steering shock absorber.

Where the ride IS BAD is in the rear of the E450 Class C ... due partially to an E450 being overkill on suspension stiffness versus the weight back there. It's also partially due to my making it worse by running a full 80lbs. of air pressure in the rear duallies to maximize gas mileage. Around 65 lbs. of air pressure in the rear duallies would take some of the sting out of the ride in the rear, and eventual retrofit of the stock shocks with Koni FSD shocks will also take some of the sting out of the ride in the rear.

The new design of Michelin's LTX MS2 tires on our Class C ... plus their being of a slightly taller size (than stock) - to put a taller air chamber between the rim and the road surface - have taken some of the sting our of the ride in the rear, too.

[RobertRyan]

pnichols wrote:
Robert,

Studying your photos ... it looks like the rear duals are set in quite a bit from the outer walls of the coach? If so, I'm wondering if those nice looking coaches shouldn't be built on a chassis with a bit wider stance in the rear for improved lateral stability.

Regardless of the suspension technology being used width between the rear dual tire sets can be very important, overall. Of course it also depends upon how far in-board the heavy coach items are mounted.

In a word NO they ride better and handle as well as the Sprinter, which is considerably better than the ESeries Vans in the US. That is why they are replacing the Sprinter. Their towing and load capacity is vastly better

[pnichols]

Robert,

Studying your photos ... it looks like the rear duals are set in quite a bit from the outer walls of the coach? If so, I'm wondering if those nice looking coaches shouldn't be built on a chassis with a bit wider stance in the rear for improved lateral stability.

Regardless of the suspension technology being used width between the rear dual tire sets can be very important, overall. Of course it also depends upon how far in-board the heavy coach items are mounted.

[RobertRyan]

Nice night shot of new Motorhome. Company has its own patented slide system from a small rear slide to a full wall slide Full wall slide heavier IVECO model

[RobertRyan]

dsteinman wrote:
I really doubt they design motorhomes for cold weather in Australia. Yes, I know it can get cool in the mountains and further south, but not like here.

Both our motorhomes have had bunk beds and master bed in a slide and we have stayed in them with temperatures below 10 degress F without any discomfort. The current motohome has insulated windows, but the previous one did not.

David

They use a lot of insulation anyway, so MH does not get too cool or hot. You can get a reverse cycle air conditioner or diesel heater as standard Not a MH, but you get the idea

It can get very cold in some parts of Australia, people have died in Blizzards

[RobertRyan]

magnusfide wrote:
Nice rigs. But I still wonder why manufacturers insist on putting the bed in the slideout instead of the closet in the slideout? Beds in slideouts get colder during winter camping. IMO that's poor design.

Basically does not get that cold in Australia, but if you do live in a Colder climate in Australia you can get other floor plans

[pnichols]

Too bad it has a slide ... regardless of what side it's on. :B

[kaydeejay]

mowermech wrote:
Very nice.
But, the entrance door is on the wrong side!

Not for their market or the other 70+ countries around the World that drive on the left!
Countries that drive on the left

[dsteinman]

I really doubt they design motorhomes for cold weather in Australia. Yes, I know it can get cool in the mountains and further south, but not like here.

Both our motorhomes have had bunk beds and master bed in a slide and we have stayed in them with temperatures below 10 degress F without any discomfort. The current motohome has insulated windows, but the previous one did not.

David

[magnusfide]

Nice rigs. But I still wonder why manufacturers insist on putting the bed in the slideout instead of the closet in the slideout? Beds in slideouts get colder during winter camping. IMO that's poor design.

[mowermech]

Very nice.
But, the entrance door is on the wrong side!

[RobertRyan]

AVIDA's best selling Motohome, the Esperance is IVECO based