Thoughts on manufacturers
Since I'm in the market for a used Class C, out of necessity, I'm open to a variety of different manufacturers. Without wanting this to turn into a brand loyalty debate, what can you guys tell me abou...
Forum Discussion
ron.dittmer wrote:
I agree in that 25 feet is a good cut-off between a Ford E350 and an E450 chassis, a Chevy 3500 and a 4500.
An E350 chassis at 24-11" would be fine as long as the frame was stretched increasing the 158" wheel base to notably more. This would better distribute the weight between front and rear axles, properly utilizing the extra load capability of the front axle.
Most short rigs have too much weight on the rear axle, and too little weight on the front axle causing "rear end sag". The condition also negatively affects handling. Our 11 year old E350 rig is 23'-8" long with a Ford standard 158" wheel base suffers from it. I had to invest in suspension upgrades to get the handling just right. Our rear end sag is very slight, a non-issue.
.
I don't know much about other Class Cs or Fords, but am curious about the above figures.
The 1991 E350 dually we got last year (see pic in profile) has a wheel base of 176 inches and has 140 inch overhang behind that, the way I measured it. (front to rear axles) That is 26.3 feet and brochure says the Rv is 28.5 overall, so add a couple feet from front axle to front bumper as well.
I have no clue where that 158" comes from. Is our E350 something special? Or is that for newer ones? I can say our rear axle is maxed even before we load anything, and it came with air bags OEM. The RV maker put more "house" on there than the "incomplete truck" was supposed to carry it seems. Still on the road though! :)
