Towing capacity of Sprinter motorhome

[HowellJourney]

My wife and I are evaluating the purchase of a 2015 Winnebago View or Itasca Navion 24J. They in essence are the same motorhome except for color schemes.

We previously full-timed for two years in a 42-foot Monaco Executive but sold the unit ten years ago to built a retirement home. We pulled a 2004 VW Jetta Station wagon TDI with a manual transmission. With the 500 hp Cummins diesel, you never knew it was back there.

We have gone the "big bus" route (which my wife refused to drive) and have decided to go with the Sprinter based Class C to RV on part time basis.

My concern with the Sprinter towing capacity. We are getting ready to trade our five year old Buick Enclave for a smaller vehicle that we can equip and tow four wheels down.

The GCWR of the class C RV we are looking at is 15,250. The GVWR of the RV is 11,030. The wet weight of the RV is around 9,900 lbs. The RV has a tow bar rated at 5,000 lbs.

It is our understanding that we can carry the difference of 11,030 and 9,900 or 1,130 before we are overloaded on the RV itself.

As far as the weight of a potential dingy, would it be the difference of 15,250 and 11,030 or 4,220 lbs? This seems to be very heavy load for this unit. We are currently looking at the 2014 Honda CRV (3424 lbs) or the Chev. Equinox (3777 lbs).

Any input would we appreciated. (If you happen to own a Sprinter based RV, we like to hear what you tow).

[badbob1]

Just finished having our Equinox set to tow behind our Solera 24R. Pulled home over hwy 299W and had no problem. Invisabrake worked great and had no problem with
holding up traffic. Went up and down the mountain passes as fast as I wanted to go. Equinox weighs about 3800 lbs. so I knew it was behind me but am very pleased with the Sprinter performance.
BadBob

[Butch50]

Well I said when I got my Subaru set up to tow I would report back. Now I only towed it about 10 miles today after they finished up on the car.

I came back home and traveled 60+ MPH and had no problem maintaining that speed. I have a somewhat hill on the way home but it is a pull and had no problem keeping my speed at 60 and this is without shifting down. When I came on the freeway The ramp is goes up and I had no problem reaching over 60MPH to merge with traffic. We are getting ready to take a little jaunt this Saturday and will be towing the car with us. So I'll know more next week how I like it.

Also on the height of the hitch I have nothing to worry about as the height of the car is higher than most so I only have 1 1/2" difference between the hitch height and the tow bar height.

Oh and my hitch height for some that posted on my other thread is 24" off the ground to the center of the receiver as I had stated before that it was.

Here is a picture of the rig hitched up and ready to go in front of our house.

[Butch50]

JohninSD wrote:
Butch,

I did notice that in a lot of the Fords the back of the driver's seat would hit the slide when it was in and the seat was all the way back - seemed like a fairly silly design. Looking at some used units a few weeks ago I noticed that there was worn fabric on the backs of the driver's seats from rubbing against the slide.

Very true, I have noticed that also. In fact I know on some you had better pull the seat ahead some so the edge of the slide doesn't catch on the seat. On my View Profile I noticed even with the seat all the way back, which I don't need it that far as I'm short legged and long torso, it still had room between the seat and the slide.

[JohninSD]

Butch,

I did notice that in a lot of the Fords the back of the driver's seat would hit the slide when it was in and the seat was all the way back - seemed like a fairly silly design. Looking at some used units a few weeks ago I noticed that there was worn fabric on the backs of the driver's seats from rubbing against the slide.

[Butch50]

John,

You found the same thing as I did. I'm 6'1" and 240# with size 13 also. The only way I could get around in the Ford was to open the drivers door, step out and then turn around and enter front first so ?I could put my feet up high enough to get them over the seat then step on into the back. With our MB I just turn and step back and I'm in the into the coach. Also the seats slide all the way back which I found in most Fords you could only slide the seat back all the way when the slides were out (maybe it was only the units that I looked at the I would have to do this).

Also the visibility out of the front of the MB is great. You are looking almost right at the ground in front of you. The Ford had a longish hood t look over. Also in the same foot print area you get more coach than the have again because of the long hood adds length but none to the coach just the overall length.

This is IMO

I said I would report back after I tow my Subaru and it is getting closer as I got the car earlier than expected so the parts are on order to get the base plate installed plus the aux brake. I have already received my tow bar. I bought a Roadmaster Falcon All-Terrain. Getting closer.

[JohninSD]

I've been following this discussion as I am in the market for a new(ish) MH to replace my current Lance Camper/F250HD rig. I sometimes tow a Jeep TJ and the F250 tows it fine on most roads - I was down to about 25 mph going up 9 Mile Canyon in the Sierras. Narrow twisty road with a lot of rockfall so most people don't go very fast on it anyway. I just went to the Pomona RV show yesterday and looked at a bunch of Class C's - most were on Ford chassis with the V10, one was on the Chevrolet chassis with the 6.0 liter V8, and some were on the MB chassis. After trying out the driver's seat in each I have it narrowed down to the MB. At 6'4" and 220 pounds the Ford is just silly - the only reasonable way to get into the driver's seat from inside the coach was to grab the edge of the overcab area and lower myself down into the seat. And I still had to maneuver my size 13's around the ridiculous doghouse. The Chevy was a little better but the MB was a dream - walk into the seat area and sit down. Also the seat went back far enough for my legs to be comfortable (36" inseam). So I'm now looking for a late model Itasca Navion or Winnebago View with the corner bed and the 5,000 pound hitch. If it doesn't work well towing the Jeep I'll leave the Jeep at home and take my dirt bike - at 300 pounds it should ride on a hitch rack and if that doesn't work I'll put it on a trailer. No way will I put up with the cramped driver's seat of the Ford or the Chevy.

[Dakzuki]

Gonzo42 wrote:
I'm looking for a toad for our View, so these comments are greatly appreciated. Also I'm trying to learn about the various brake controllers and how they actually work.

On the passing issue, CA requires slow vehicles to pull over when 5 or more are following. I do it when 2 are following. They are happy, I'm happy.

I remember a court case from years ago regarding a slow vehicle on the freeway. Turns out CA CVC specifies 15 MPH as the minimum. Strange, isn't it?

Sometimes I use the HOV lane, going 65 MPH. Mostly no problems, but there is the occasional jerk that opines the HOV lane being the Hammer Lane and resents being held up. Particularly, the southbound 57 freeway is such a fast runner that motorcycles are in danger of being run over by those who feel they own the road.

It's 5 vehicles in my state too. There is the caveat that one find a safe place to pull over. I get out of the way any time I can even if it's one vehicle. I know what it's like to be on an epic nice twisty road in a sports car only to come up to a lumbering RV or truck that won't make room to pass.

[Gonzo42]

I'm looking for a toad for our View, so these comments are greatly appreciated. Also I'm trying to learn about the various brake controllers and how they actually work.

On the passing issue, CA requires slow vehicles to pull over when 5 or more are following. I do it when 2 are following. They are happy, I'm happy.

I remember a court case from years ago regarding a slow vehicle on the freeway. Turns out CA CVC specifies 15 MPH as the minimum. Strange, isn't it?

Sometimes I use the HOV lane, going 65 MPH. Mostly no problems, but there is the occasional jerk that opines the HOV lane being the Hammer Lane and resents being held up. Particularly, the southbound 57 freeway is such a fast runner that motorcycles are in danger of being run over by those who feel they own the road.

[badbob1]

Not sure why some believe that a vehicle going slow up a steep grade is a road hazzard. Have lived and driven in the mountains for the last 45 years and follow log trucks and lumber trucks up and down the mountains. Realize the biggest hazzard is the folks in a hurry and attempt unsafe passing. When in my RV I just pull over when safe and let others go around. Then we all bubch up again when they get behind the next slower big rig. I paln on pulling my Equinox with my MB Solera and will be a bit on the heavy side so will go a bit slower up the hill. Just glad I am not in all that big of a rush. Will lrt you know if I still love the MB after my first tow. Sure I will as did not purchase it to be a tow vehicle. Will only drag a toad on a few trips.
Good Luck
BadBob

[Butch50]

Another thing that we are all forgetting is that we have been talking about pulling passes. When climbing in elevation a normally aspirated engine loose about 3% for every 1000 ft in elevation that it climbs. A diesel with a turbo doesn't loose any power till it reaches around 10,000' in elevation. When it is running at lower elevation the waste gate dumps excess pressure till it is needed.

Now we were talking passes so I guess we would be taking gains in elevation. So at only 5000' pass the gas engine would have lost 15% of its power. Starting at 305 HP the equals a 45.75 HP loss. Most passes are more than 5000' so lets take Colorado passes. Lets look at Eisenhower Tunnel at a little over 11,000 feet to get to the tunnel. A gas MH is going to loose over 100HP at this elevation. The turbo diesel is going to loose 5.64 HP as the last 1,000' the diesel will loose 3% also. So the V10 is down to around 205. The MB is gong to be down to about 182. All of a sudden there is not much difference between the 2 of them. All of 23 HP, I really don't think there is going to be a spitting difference between either one.

There is another thing to take into consideration is the shape of the rig. A lot of the newer C are wide bodies so they are 102" wide. The View Profile is 90" wide. So this means you have another 12" wider for the wind to hit. Also on most C the chassis part of it comes straight out from the cab which is like a brick. The View Profile at the sides are not straight. They are rounded back from the cab to the outside edge. Make it more aerodynamic. There is no over head bed so the coming up the front just starts slopping back. A lot less frontal area to catch wind an put more strain on the engine. Hence better mileage and also better engine performance.

As far as the cab if you are shorter the Ford might work for you but I'm 6'1" and 240# with size 13 shoes. There is no way that I can get turned around in a Ford cab to get into the back. I almost have to go out the drivers side door and then turn around so I can try to get into the back straight on instead of turning at the same time trying to get back.

I have driven plenty of Ford and Chevy C MHs as after I retired I spent 3 years working in RV sales. I had to jockey this rigs around all of the time and take them different places for people. So now I have had experience in all 3 rigs, at least driving them maybe not sleeping in them.

Again the is IMO

[mlts22]

I have been looking at an 22-24 foot, E-450 based "C" that has the Quigley 4x4 upfit, the 19.5 dually to single Rickson wheels (so only one set of tires is needed for the back, while keeping the same weight capacity), and maybe some airbags to help with the ride. While it wouldn't be in Jeep territory, it would be able to go off the beaten path and at least be OK on fire roads.

[Butch50]

Thank you AprilWhine for your post. I was hoping you would post your results as I remember you were part of the 2013 group of us that were heading to AK last year. I knew you had bought the View for the trip so you didn't have to take the big rig.

Everybody needs to take a look at their other RV in case you don't think they might have experience with bigger more powerful rigs. Their main RV is a Prevost unit. Which I'm sure has plenty of HP.

Having been on the Top of the World Highway I know what that road is like as I went over it last year also. From Dawson City it is a pretty steady climb to the top. Nothing really steep but still a climb.

All of you folks that have not owned one or towed with one might want to listen to some that have already done it. You are just assuming what you think might happen. The ones you say that are struggling up the hills, do you know that the driver was trying to go faster or where they just taking it easy and not in any hurry? Again assumptions on your part. Maybe when they are on the flats they still only drive at 50 to 60MPH.

You know that there is a speed range on most freeways. There is a minimum to maximum speed limit. If you are traveling in that range you are totally legal driving on the freeway. Just because they are not traveling the speed you are does not mean they are not being safe. Just that they might make you pull into the fast lane and pass them. Now if they are in the fast lane traveling at 40MPH and not pulling over than that is a problem for sure.

It just silly for people that have no experience towing with a rig thinks they know how it tows especially when there are people that are pulling and expressing there view and you still will not accept what they are telling you. If the ones you have talked to are upset and not happy then why aren't they selling them and buying the big V-10 MH so they can tow faster. You know for how many Sprinters that have been sold you sure don't see many used ones for sale so they must not be to unhappy with them.

I have not towed with mine yet as the new car is not here yet. I do have my tow bar in the garage just waiting. I'll let you all know how I feel about it after towing. If I feel that it is lacking I'll let you know. Just so you know I come from the TC forum and have driven mostly diesel trucks with the campers so I do know a little about having some power. My last truck was a 2013 Ram 6.7 diesel running 350HP and 800 lb ft of torque so I guess I would have an idea of what power is.

If you are happy with your rig that is just great and that is the way it should be but by the same token let the people that have first hand experience reply to the OPs questions. Not second hand or from someone that has never towed with one.

This is IMO.

[AprilWhine]

As you can see by my sig, my alternate RV is a View towing a Mini Clubman. The View is on the older MB V6, so only rated to tow 3500 lbs. The Mini is a bit less than 3k and had a NSA braking system installed.

Last year, we took this rig to Alaska as part of a caravan. Because we were traveling with assorted rigs, I got to compare performance with other platforms. We had fivers, class C gassers, class A gassers and DPs in the mix.

Our View could out pull anything in the mountains, and I'm talking Canadian Rockies! Some of the other drivers teased us when the caravan started then were embarrassed later. 😉

To the OP, you will not have any problems. With the newer engine, you should be able to tow a CR-V easily. We had some bulky stuff, like camp chairs, loaded in the Mini, and had 25 gallons of diesel on the safari rack during our trip.

And because, if there's no picture it didn't happen, here's some pictures:

Top of the world highway:


Chicken, AK


Canadian Rockies:


In line for the ferry across the Yukon River in Dawson City YT:


And because our Winnie was skinny, we did a serpentine pattern across a narrow bridge just to show off. 😄

Finally, our average MPG was 14 over the 10,000 mile trip. There were few service providers during our trip but the MB engine is highly reliable. Hubby went over the camper thoroughly before the trip. The engine had ~150,000 miles on it when we started and has significantly more now. We think it's just broken in, since Fed Ex runs these vans over 500,000 miles in active service.

We are very happy with the View. It's an entirely different rig than the bus but each has their strong points.

[pnichols]

The main "issue" I see with the MB chassis and the various other smallish diesel and gasser RV chassis already in, or about to be introduced into, the U.S. small Class B+/C RV market is that their chassis sizing is just missing (under) the weight carrying and towing sweet spots. Of course "chassis sizing" includes their engine horsepower.

That sweet spot is right where the Ford E350 and Chevy 3500 fall - with their weight capacities in the mid-12,000 lb. range and towing capacities in the 5000 lb. range.

If the U.S. small motorhome market is "crying out" for a new/modernized narrower, lower, higher MPG chassis, then IMHO ... it needs to be one with about a 12,500 lb. weight capacity and 500 lb. hitch/5000 lb. total, towing capacity.

It seems to me that about a 240-260 HP compact 6-cylinder turbo diesel or high efficiency gas V8 (i.e. Ford EB, or RAM variable cylinder count style) engine - tucked into a Ford E350 (with slightly improved leg room) and/or Chevy 3500 size chassis -> would be an ideal next chassis for the U.S. small motorhome market.

By the way, narrow and/or less tall Class B+/C motorhomes can indeed be put onto the current Ford E-Series and Chevy 3500-series chassis. Phoenix Cruizer, LTV, and others offer models that achieve this.