Looking to upgrade to a larger Class C

[Leland2]

I have a '02 Lazy Daze. It's always felt too small and no storage. We love the rear with lots of windows -- if it had 2 slides, it could work. IT's 27' and worked OK for p/t but that's changing to closer to full time, sometimes.

Looking at an article called Top 10 RV's, http://rvroadtrip.us/top10/rv-manufacturers.php, I'm beginning a search of owners who have Class C's with slides. A perfect Class C would have lots of windows, quality build, etc. Guess 30' - 32' range, front driver/passenger chairs that swivel -- don't know how common that is.

Anyone in love with what they have? Any suggestions for manufacturer's to look at is greatly appreciated.

[RV747Driver]

Hi John, my name is Bill Ramsey & I'm new to the forum. Thanks for your opinion of the Seneca.

I currently own a 98 Mini Wini 31WM Class C. Looking to upgrade so I went to the Motorhome show in Minneapolis. Fell in love with a 2015 Seneca 37TS with the Cummins 6.7. Drove it and was disappointed with acceleration. It felt barely adequate. I could envision problems towing, especially thru mountains out west. Relucantly backed away from the sale.

Question: now that you own a Seneca what are your major regrets? Any problems towing?

I'm wondering if a Dynamax with the Cummins ISL9 is any better. Replies from any Dynamax owners would be appreciated.

[NAUTIQUE]

wbwood wrote:

John Hufham wrote:
Stay away from Jayco. Purchased a new Seneca a year ago and have had nothing but problems and have had little or no real help from Jayco.

While I am not a Jayco fan, I find it hard to put down a company based on one RV.

Yeah John, Jayco & Dynamax Super C's are on top of my retirement wish-list down the road. What type of probs?

[wbwood]

John Hufham wrote:
Stay away from Jayco. Purchased a new Seneca a year ago and have had nothing but problems and have had little or no real help from Jayco.

While I am not a Jayco fan, I find it hard to put down a company based on one RV.

[Jopops]

Exactly right !

[pnichols]

Jopopsy wrote:
The Holy Grail of Class C's; enough space and glitz to go along with the OCCC. You can grab a Jayco Greyhawk w/ a boatload of comfort features and glitz but suffer in the the OCCC department. Or you can grab a comparatively spartan Winnebago Minnie Winnie and have double the OCCC.

The other alternative - but outside your size criteria, is - you can grab a Class C (not Jayco, BTW) with comfort features and glitz along with plenty of OCCC if you stay under 25 feet while at the same time staying with the E450 chassis. I have a Coach House Class C in mind.

[Jopops]

The Holy Grail of Class C's; enough space and glitz to go along with the OCCC. You can grab a Jayco Greyhawk w/ a boatload of comfort features and glitz but suffer in the the OCCC department. Or you can grab a comparatively spartan Winnebago Minnie Winnie and have double the OCCC.

There is just no free lunch on the E450 chassis if you're over 27-28'. You'll pay one way or the other; its just that simple.

My next RV, whatever it is, will have both - but I know that's going to put me in the Super C category (Jayco builds a rig on the Frieghtliner chassis) or a Class 'A' on the Ford F53 chassis (at a minimum).

[pnichols]

Mich F wrote:
Adding another 33 gal or so to fill the water tank (which I never do) would add about 275# or so. Another 15 gal or so to fill the gas tank would add about 90#. I have two compressors a 12V and an electric pancake style on there , bikes, sat. dish, a bunch of tools, spare tire, a few lounge chairs, fishing rods, tackle boxes, a lot of stuff. We were only going off for four days on that trip, but my wife packs as if we were going off for months, with the clothes, food and whatnot. I honestly have no idea how I could ever get close to the GVWR of this MH.

That's reminds me of how we load for most trips in our 24 foot Itasca Class C ... except we always start out with every tank full that should be full and every tank empty that should be empty ... plus such things as: One 120V compressor, bunch of tools, spare tire, spare parts for coach appliances, spare main engine serpentine belt, spare oil for the main engine and both generators, two lounge chairs, four regular chairs, full size beach umbrella, fishing rods, tackle boxes, rockhound equipment, portable generator (plus gas for it) to back up the built-in generator, portable battery charger to back up the main converter, full size shovel, leveling boards plus 5 leveling steps, two complete sewer drain hoses, 100 feet of freshwater hose, 80 feet of shore power cord, long handled pruning shears, hand saw capable of an 18 inch tree trunk, folding outside table to seat 6 people, 3 folding chair-side tables, hardened steel towing chain, 12 ton extended range hydraulic jack, outside BBQ, single burner outside propane stove, vacumm sweeper, full size broom, 2 drop cord lights, electric heater, outside dog playpen, outside carpet, and a portable fan with extension cord for outside use.

We basically load up with no weight concerns. On top of our equipment weight, we sometimes carry a couple hundred pounds of rocks (we're rockhounds) on the way home.

Probably to do this with a longer Class C with slides would require moving to a Super C format. As I said earlier, it's too bad Ford discontinued the E550.

[Mich_F]

Rick Jay wrote:
Mich F,

Thanks for posting the weight ticket. Nice numbers. 🙂

Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your weight ticket shows that you actually have far less cargo carrying capacity than the 2,500 lbs. you think you do. Here's why.

Your rear axle limit is 9,600 lbs. Your ticket shows 7820 lbs. on the rear axle. The difference is 1,780 lbs. Your front axle has 880 lbs. to reach its GAWR (5,000 - 4120). The problem is that most likely you can't use much more of that 880 lb. surplus from the front axle. To make matters worse, every pound you put behind the rear axle takes weight off the front axle and transfers it to the rear axle. So, realistically, that 1,780 lb. surplus on the rear axle is near your maximum cargo carrying capacity. If most of your storage is behind the rear axle, then this number could easily be reduced further.

So your numbers are much better than many long E-450 C's, (kudos to Winnebago/Itasca for the long wheel base). But your actual cargo carrying capacity is going to be quite a bit less than the 2,500 lbs. your scaled gross weight suggests, probably around 1,500 lbs. if you fill your water tank.

For two people not full-timing, should be fine. For most full timers, or larger families, 1,500 lbs. is not enough, in my opinion.

Again, thanks for posting.

Safe travels,

~Rick

I think you missed the part where I was already loaded up for camping. :B Adding another 33 gal or so to fill the water tank (which I never do) would add about 275# or so. Another 15 gal or so to fill the gas tank would add about 90#. I have two compressors a 12V and an electric pancake style on there , bikes, sat. dish, a bunch of tools, spare tire, a few lounge chairs, fishing rods, tackle boxes, a lot of stuff. We were only going off for four days on that trip, but my wife packs as if we were going off for months, with the clothes, food and whatnot. I honestly have no idea how I could ever get close to the GVWR of this MH.

The next time I'm in my 31C, I'll have to get a picture of the weights for that unit. It would be super easy to go over the 14,050 GVWR on that vehicle.

[Rick_Jay]

Mich F,

Thanks for posting the weight ticket. Nice numbers. 🙂

Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your weight ticket shows that you actually have far less cargo carrying capacity than the 2,500 lbs. you think you do. Here's why.

Your rear axle limit is 9,600 lbs. Your ticket shows 7820 lbs. on the rear axle. The difference is 1,780 lbs. Your front axle has 880 lbs. to reach its GAWR (5,000 - 4120). The problem is that most likely you can't use much more of that 880 lb. surplus from the front axle. To make matters worse, every pound you put behind the rear axle takes weight off the front axle and transfers it to the rear axle. So, realistically, that 1,780 lb. surplus on the rear axle is near your maximum cargo carrying capacity. If most of your storage is behind the rear axle, then this number could easily be reduced further.

So your numbers are much better than many long E-450 C's, (kudos to Winnebago/Itasca for the long wheel base). But your actual cargo carrying capacity is going to be quite a bit less than the 2,500 lbs. your scaled gross weight suggests, probably around 1,500 lbs. if you fill your water tank.

For two people not full-timing, should be fine. For most full timers, or larger families, 1,500 lbs. is not enough, in my opinion.

Again, thanks for posting.

Safe travels,

~Rick

[pnichols]

Hmmmm .... it looks like Winnebago has lightened up their construction techniques. For the owners' sake, I hope there's no downside to this ... probably not.

[Jopops]

Nothing amis with his Itasca. My 2014 Winnebago Minnie Winnie 31H has 2900+ pounds of OCCC per the sticker. 2 slides.

[pnichols]

Rick Jay wrote:
In any event, I don't see how a 32'+ motorhome weighs in about the same as a 25' motorhome considering they both are single slide units and from the same manufacturer. I guess it could be a steel/aluminum issue.

BTW, my 24 foot Itasca does not have a slide.

Mike ... thanks for making the effort to show your weight ticket.

Something really is different about your Itasca. I guess you might consider yourself lucky with the weight that you show. I sure would like to know what's going on. I'm tempted to say that maybe Itasca Class C motorhomes are just plain lighter than others but if so, that has happened after mine was built. Mine does have a lot of steel in it - exterior lining under all of the flooring, wheel wells, all exterior storage cabinets, etc..

[Mich_F]

I just took a picture of my weight ticket


that was with 3/4 tank of fuel and about 1/3 tank fresh water.

I just went out and took a measurement of my rear axle to bumper overhang, which is right around 11 1/2'

[Rick_Jay]

Mich F,

I think you need to reweigh your rig and this time make sure all the wheels are on the scale! 🙂 LOL

Do you have the individual axle weights from the CAT scale reading? Were you loaded for travel? Full water, fuels, clothes, food & stuff? OCCC as you're quoting it really isn't a useful number. Your rig doesn't have as much overhang as many long E-450s (yours has a nice, long wheelbase), but there's still enough so it's possible your rear axle is near overloaded while your front axle is under it's maximum by 1,000 lbs. or more. It depends where they put the storage tanks. Between the axles, not too bad. Behind the rear axle, then potential problems. The OCCC total looks like you have a lot of capacity left, but all of the capacity is on the front axle. That's not too useful.

In any event, I don't see how a 32'+ motorhome weighs in about the same as a 25' motorhome considering they both are single slide units and from the same manufacturer. I guess it could be a steel/aluminum issue. 🙂

I'd like to believe your numbers, I've just never seen a weight that low on a 32' E-450 Class C with a slide. And I've looked. 🙂

And I agree about the Ford E-550. It would have been perfect for this size motorhome.

~Rick