"Maximum 24 ft or longer" question

[resucami]

I'm looking now since quite a while for a used RV and I noticed that Class C's that are 26 ft long (or longer) are significantly less expensive that the shorter ones that are no longer than 24 ft.

I've never had an RV before but I am seriously considering to give up my house and move into an RV for good - like 250,000 to 500,000 other full time RVer here in the US. I started looking for Class B vehicles but I soon realized that in my price range ($15,0000 - $25,000) I get much more RV with a Class C (or one of these so-called "Class B+" which seem to be officially always Class C) than with an Class B.

I would prefer to buy an RV that is no longer than 24 ft because I can (or at least think I can) park them almost everywhere, i. e. on a parking lot when shopping.

However, I am wondering whether I possibly restrict myself too much. What can other RV owners say about this? How "bad" is it to drive and park a 25 ft RV compared to a 24 ft RV? How much worse might the mpg be?

Thanks for your replies!

[Off_Pavement]

resucami wrote:

Off Pavement wrote:
I did remove the U-dinette and put in a couple of recliners...

That is an incredible idea! Are they on some kind of rotating base fixed to the floor?

Not on a swivel base but bolted to the floor. We had the recliners in the house and decided to give 'em a try. I may still look for swivel based recliners, but in hurry... these are really comfy!

[pnichols]

You're right on that important difference between a Class C and a Class B+. The missing cabover bed area in a Class B+ really does take away options.

Here's some of the things we use our cabover bed and it's area for:

- I (6'2") sleep up there in that queen size with room to spare so the DW can have the whole back corner queen size corner bed to spread out with her bad back. I can sit almost fully upright up there with my feet hanging over the edge. The distance to the floor is less than many other Class C and Class B+ motorhomes because we have a coach floor that is raised about 4 inches higher than the cab floor ... making it no hassle at all to enter and leave the cabover bed using the stock wide-step ladder supplied by Winnebago.

- We permanently store one full size folding lounge chair, one aluminum folding table, one full size regular chair, one Endless Breeze 12 volt box fan, various tour books, a spare blanket, and my CPAP machine - all in the head and foot storage bins up there - without encroaching upon the main queen size bed sleeping area surface of the bed I use each night.

- We store more spare blankets up there in the part of the bed I don't need for sleeping.

- We can store the dog's travel crate up there during the day when camped.

- We store my toiletries and quick access clothing up there during the day when camped so that the entire back end of the motorhome is available to the DW as needed. I mounted a fold-away swinging mirror and light for myself near the cabover bed so I don't need to go to the back for this.

- We can store the dog's outdoor playpen up there so we don't have to collapse it when camped during the times it's not needed outside during the day.

A cabover bed area can be used to add a very practical dimension to comfortable small Class C travel and camping.

[resucami]

Thanks again. I will look at this vehicle next week (if it is not sold until then) but the more I look at the pictures the more I doubt that it is roomy enough for me (with a usable cabover bed it would be perfect). It has 90,000 miles on it, and the asking price is $22,500.

[ron_dittmer]

resucami wrote:
If you have comments to these vehicles - great, and thanks again.

Keep in-mind the 2001 model year Phoenix Cruiser lacks the improvements made in later years such as....
- stronger entry door
- stronger rear wall system with integrated spare tire and larger storage compartment (introduced mid-year 2004)
- 2 batteries and whole house inverter (optional in 2006, standard in 2007)
- Sanicon waste management system (not sure when it was introduced)
But if the price is right, such things can be wavered depending on your need and desires.

I personally recommend spending more to get a 2007 or newer. Phoenix improvements made since 2007 are superficial by comparison. The biggest improvements since 2007 would be the change in the Ford chassis, not to the motor home itself. And even then, the change is more beneficial in the longer models which are heavier.

That 2001 chassis might need some help with a heavy duty rear stabilizer bar as Ford had no rear bar there to begin with. Hopefully the previous owner addressed that issue. It could also benefit from an additional rear leaf spring or two because so much of the weight on that model is rear-ward. The front stabilize bar is likely worn out so I would plan on upgrading it to a heavy duty version as well. Even a brand new 2100 with a 2018 E350 chassis could benefit from the same, so don't think the current-day chassis offers a grand benefit. The upgrades are not a fortune, the HD stabilizer bars can be done by yourself without special skills. I do understand you are on a tight budget so you will need to weigh this closely. Maybe you could get the seller to lower the price to help pay for the upgrades.

Looking at the pictures, that 2001 does not sag in the back at all. I wonder if the previous owner added a pair of rear leaf springs or air bags to raise it. It sure looks promising.

[ron_dittmer]

whizbang wrote:
That's a cute little table.

We have never cared for dinettes. In an earlier RV, we actually did the identical double recliner mod that the other poster did. However, we found we missed the storage space and the use of a larger table during mealtimes

In our Minnie, the gigantic OEM table also crowded the living space like all dinettes do. We thought we would try a different solution than the double recliners. Instead, I replaced the monster table with a little folding table that drops out of the way when not in use.

This really opened up the living space without sacrificing storage. It was quick and cheap too.

About your single chair by the entry door. We had one very similar to that. We replaced it with a captain chair identical to the two up front. That was one of our best changes, providing a real good place to rest for one of us. My wife and I share things well.

Here was our original low back barrel chair that did not recline.


Here is our captain seat today.


Here it is in the position we use for reclining. I reused the original pedestal. It swivels and adjusts away from the wall. We use the adjacent dinette bench as an ottoman.


Here is the pedestal we reused. The swap took all of about 10 minutes. The original seat belt was also reused. One thing worth mentioning. The captain seats up front have the rails further apart than required for the pedestal. I ordered the 3rd seat with the right rail centers. Otherwise I'd have to come up with an adapter plate.


One other point about dinettes in general. Our dinette was originally very uncomfortable. I used to bottom-out on them. Also the cloth prevented me from shifting my weight naturally. I replaced the standard cloth cushions with dense memory foam vinyl covered cushions. What was torture to sit at transformed into a great place to sit. I have since been able to sit for hours at a time playing Scrabble, watch a movie, etc. If we didn't make that change with the cushions, maybe I too would be considering ripping out our dinette.

The type of dinette cushions make the difference.

[Farmboy666]

I have a Coachmen Freedom Express QB 21 but 25ft bumper to bumper on a Chevy 3500 chassis. No slides 2 queen beds and very comfortable size. If I was single I would trade the dinette for a nice comfortable sofa. This model has tons of room so wouldn’t miss the benches. 10 mpg normal and 8.5 towing a Accord on a dolly.

[ron_dittmer]

I am not trying to start a debate here. But your E450 25 footer, class C might be adequately loaded for an E450. If it was significantly lighter weighted, your ride might resemble that of an empty box truck.

Baring special suspension components, your softest ride will be achieved right at the max load rating for each axle. Lots of excess margin will make for a rougher ride. That is straight up factual.

I recall some years ago, a fellow Phoenix Cruiser owner special ordered his second Phoenix Cruiser, I think it was the same E350 model I own. His first was on the E350 chassis, his second on the E450 chassis. He said the ride was much harsher than the E350 version he had previously owned. He was almost regretful with his decision. I recall he wanted more capability to tow something much heavier than the E350 was rated for.

I suppose he could have taken out a rear spring or two, and swap out front coil springs to get the ride-to-weight relationship right.

In the case with our rig, I think we could actually use one more leaf spring in each back corner and change our front coil springs to the next lower rating because we are rear-heavy and front-light. It would be nice to soften our front suspension.

[Expyinflight]

"As far as the comments about an E450 versus an E350 are concerned. A short and lighter weighted rig built on the heavier duty E450 chassis will have a much rougher ride. The house and contents will be punished greatly for no good reason. The E350 suspension will offer a much softer ride by comparison. We all can agree that our RV houses take a beating from poorly maintained roads around the USA. Why bounce harder unnecessarily? The brakes and everything else are good on the E350 with consideration to it's reduced load. Our rig is built on an E350 and it's all good. Ours on an E450 over time, might have the cabinets coming off the walls and breach a seam outside. Over-kill can be a killer, especially with age and miles. The original poster's lower budget will be placing him in something older, at an age where such things start to show up as it is."


I find this to be.....untrue, and totally the opposite of my experience. Our 25 ft Class C on the E450 rides incredibly smooth, and is a joy to drive. Much smoother and less tiresome to drive than my two previous gas Class A's. I specifically wanted the E450 chassis, and I am very happy with it.
Cabinets coming off the walls or the breach of an outside seam are some of my least concerns.

[whizbang]

That's a cute little table.

We have never cared for dinettes. In an earlier RV, we actually did the identical double recliner mod that the other poster did. However, we found we missed the storage space and the use of a larger table during mealtimes

In our Minnie, the gigantic OEM table also crowded the living space like all dinettes do. We thought we would try a different solution than the double recliners. Instead, I replaced the monster table with a little folding table that drops out of the way when not in use.

This really opened up the living space without sacrificing storage. It was quick and cheap too.

[resucami]

I am grateful for all your posts! I am learning something here; for example, the pro and contra for shorter or longer RV's is very interesting.

I am drawn to two Class B+ vehicles that I want to check out next week. One is very short (a 21 ft 5 in long Phoenix Cruiser M-2100 from 2001) and one is kind of long (a 26 ft 6 in long Four Winds Siesta M-24BB from 2005).

The Phoenix Cruiser looks almost cute, but I think as this vehicle does not have an overcab bed it would probably become a little tight over time. The Four Winds looks just awesome and would certainly be big enough for me, but it is rather long and has two slide-outs which I find in general kind of worrisome (they seem to be less deep than on other vehicles, though). The Four Winds has also a computerized hydraulic leveling system and I don't know how reliable such a system is.

I am attaching a picture of the Phoenix Cruiser here. The Four Winds is almost identical to the one shown in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYMPwVaR1Q. So pretty!.

If you have comments to these vehicles - great, and thanks again.

http://vimweb.net/vimweb/Phoenix_Cruiser.jpg

[pnichols]

P.S. Don't forget to compare fresh water, grey water, black water, and propane tank sizes, too, as you're looking - as these capacities can vary alot. Also compare total exterior storage cabinet volumes.

Some Class C's - with otherwise great floor plans and good looks - aren't really very practical for serious camping.

[resucami]

ron.dittmer wrote:
My wife and I own THIS RIG which is 23'-8" long, only 93" wide, and less than 10' to the top of the roof a/c unit...

I congratulated you to your RV already somewhere else. I very much like it and also some other Phoenix Cruise models. If I write here on Sunday that I booked a flight to Bend, IN then the reason will be that I won the lottery and go to Elkhart, IN to order "my" Phoenix Cruiser. Not very likely though...

But I am actually looking at an ad for a 2001 Phoenix Cruiser M-2100 right now. It is one of two or three vehicles that I want to check out in the next days. I will probably write more about this in a separate post.

[pnichols]

We have had a non-slide 24 foot Itasca (Winnebago) Class C for almost 11 years now. It's on the E450 chassis and we have no issues with a rough ride since I installed Frequency Selective Damping Koni shocks in the rear to take out the harshness of it's heavy duty leaf springs in the rear. The ride in the cab is just fine ... not rough at all due to the springs in the front being coil springs. Brake wear with an E450 chassis and it's TorqShift Tow/Haul mode transmission (for engine braking on downhill grades) under a light coach is minimum because E450 brakes are larger than E350 brakes. The model year for our E450 chassis came stock with front and rear sway bars, so it provides rock solid handling under a small Class C.

We have the full space under each dinette seat available for storage (Winnebago's design requires no appliances underneath) and we can load this storage area - plus it's other 7 outside storage cabinets - to the hilt because the E450 chassis has so much weigh carrying capacity over what the coach requires. We also have a stock swivel-and-slide lounge seat in addition to the dinette. The dinette is great for dining with 2 to 4 people, 2 to 4 people playing board games, or 2 people struggling to hold and groom a wiggly long-haired puppy. 😉

Another nice attribute of a small Class C is the smaller volume to keep comfortably warm. We just spent 8 days drycamping and used the propane furnace all night every night. Propane use was around only 4 1/2 gallons (out of our 18 gallon tank) to run the furnace, water heater, and refrigerator for these days. 5 of those days were in a heavily shaded camp site in the bottom of a small canyon in which solar was of very little use. For the whole trip we were able to keep the batteries charged with only 2 one-hour V10 engine idling sessions (about 1 1/2 gallons of fuel total), an 85 mile drive between camping sites, and 1 three-and-a-half-hour run (about 1/2 gallon of fuel total) of our tiny 650 watt Honda portable generator. The built-in Onan generator was only used for the microwave and the hair dryer.

Sometimes small can be mighty, with or without hookups!

[ron_dittmer]

resucami wrote:

Off Pavement wrote:
I did remove the U-dinette and put in a couple of recliners...

That is an incredible idea! Are they on some kind of rotating base fixed to the floor?

I would never do without our dinette. The table and seat are priceless. We lived without a dinette in our first rig for 23 years and will never compromise that again. There is nothing like having a kitchen table and chair ready at a moment's notice. Then consider the storage each dinette bench provides. That too is precious storage space.

I suppose if living alone in a short tight class B, a captain seat with flip-open table "might" suffice.

As far as the comments about an E450 versus an E350 are concerned. A short and lighter weighted rig built on the heavier duty E450 chassis will have a much rougher ride. The house and contents will be punished greatly for no good reason. The E350 suspension will offer a much softer ride by comparison. We all can agree that our RV houses take a beating from poorly maintained roads around the USA. Why bounce harder unnecessarily? The brakes and everything else are good on the E350 with consideration to it's reduced load. Our rig is built on an E350 and it's all good. Ours on an E450 over time, might have the cabinets coming off the walls and breach a seam outside. Over-kill can be a killer, especially with age and miles. The original poster's lower budget will be placing him in something older, at an age where such things start to show up as it is.