Class B vs. Class C, of same length?

[Guysakar]

Preface: I am not talking about class B vans, but the larger class B. I have included an image of the type I am looking at. Not this exact model, though. Just a reference.




Hi guys, I am planning on mostly going to campsites off the beaten path and am looking at shorter units (22-26 feet) for around $25K.

I am seeing both class C and class B's in this price and length range.

I like the way the class B's look (more sturdy/compact) but the class C's seem to be cheaper $. Plus, the above cab space seems to be wasted in the class B, but does that translate into more MPG (aerodynamics of the wind deflector)?



I am going to be solo camping mostly in places that have no paved roads, and am looking for units with a slide. I will be towing a small trailer and motorcycle, occasionally in the mountains.

Gas mileage is an important factor to me, but overall reliability and maintenance issues are paramount (does one type tend to leak more, need to be sealed more often, etc...)




Do you think I would be happier with a C or B, or equally happier with either?


Side note: I know, condition, etc... is a more important factor, but all of those factors being equal.


Thank you all very much for any help.

[overbrook]

Guysakar wrote:
I am thinking I may try and find a true B model. I guess, at the end of the day, I can't have a roomy interior and compact exterior. Damn laws of physics, I curse thee.

One thing to be aware of - most B manufacturers lower the floor in the Chevy chassis so you get more headroom. This results in lower ground clearance.

Many have less than six inches of clearance - important to know if you plan to drive off road.

Having had both a Sprinter B and a Chevy B - I like the Chevy much better. More power, much more reliable, easier to find parts, and less expensive to repair (when needed).

As for beds, the Roadtrek 190 with the twin rear beds gives you room to stretch out without sleeping on the floor.

As for tables - if traveling along, don't use the peg in the floor table. Too much trouble to set up and take down. Just get a folding TV dinner table from Walmart. It's easy to use and can be stashed behind the driver's seat.

Bill

[Guysakar]

Thank you very much for your responses. I read every one of them and got an education.

I am thinking I may try and find a true B model. I guess, at the end of the day, I can't have a roomy interior and compact exterior. Damn laws of physics, I curse thee.

I sometimes have back problems and need to sleep on the floor, and finding a true B van model with enough room to "comfortably" sleep on the floor is proving to be a challenge. I wonder how much of that stuff I can rip out, to open up the floor space, and how much of it is permanently there. Like the dinette booth and table thing. I wonder if those boxes underneath can be removed to open up the floor space.




I was considering going the Sprinter rout as someone mentioned, but everything I hear about their reliability and maintenance cost just scares me away.

Buying a Sprinter and converting it myself (I don't need much) seemed very desirable, as I think I could actually get my motorcycle inside of it with little issue (no trailer = huge +). But again, the more I researched, the more nervous I got.


Off to RV Trader and CL. Thanks again for all of the help. Great responses and information. Thank you.

[ryegatevt]

midnightsadie wrote:
you might look at whats out there on a sprinter chassis ,the fuel mpg will double ,ford/chevy/dodge about 8mpg sprinter 17mpg or better.

Our RT 210 on a Chevy 3500 chassis gets 14 - 16 MPG.

[Horizon170]

For your needs I would think a Tiger pulling a high-boy trailer. Both would have the ground clearance you need. B&C class don't have the clearance you need IMO.

[Redsky]

The Class C will have a lot more interior space but be less maneuverable with the added width. Not really a problem if you are towing a trailer as you will already be restricted.

Slides are great when camped but not when traveling and making short stops. Check them out for yourself with the slides not extended. The slides also take away from the already limited storage space.

I would plan on adding a cargo box on the trailer with your bikes to increase the available storage space and shift some weight to the trailer.

[mlts22]

I've looked at both with great detail. A Winnebago ERA and a Winnebago Trend are good examples of a "B" and a "C" of the same length.

MPG-wise, the "B" will be better, mainly because it has better aerodynamics, and about a foot narrower than a "C". It also will weigh less because vans use unibody construction (no frame) while "C"s use a ladder frame construction, which is heavier, especially with the additional framing for the box area.

Width can be an issue. There are roads I drive on to and from for dry camping which are two lane, or really 1.75 lane. Two cars can pass by each other, so can two pickup trucks or vans. A wide-body "C" is going to mean one vehicle has to pull off into the dirt (no shoulder), risk smacking mirrors, or worse.

A "C" also has no stealth. A "B", you can get away with parking on a side street and taking a nap.

However, that being stated, once the vehicle is parked, a "C" is far more livable, especially with a slide-out. This is especially noted when you have two or more people. For a day of inclement weather, a "C" is a lot nicer for space.

"C"s also offer more space for customization. For example, if I wanted to replace the converter on some "B"s, I am limited to using a Magnum Energy "dogbone" inverter/converter due to the lack of space. With a "C", there is more room available, and I can go with an converter/inverter... or just with a decent, five-stage converter only.

"C"s also tend to have bigger tanks, generators, etc. Nexus RV offers a 24 foot "C" with the option for two A/Cs, 50 amp circuit, and a 5500 watt Onan. Sounds like overkill, but in 110 degree Texas heat or 120 degree Arizona heat, it would do the job at a CG with no shade available. Tank size on a "C" can be pretty good, which is important for boondocking trips.

Both are good RVs. I'd recommend looking around at individual ones to get a feel for them, especially with two or more people. Some people can find a "B" very cramped, while others are happy with it.

[georgelesley]

A B is based on a van the exterior which is mostly built by the van manufacturer. A C exterior is mostly built by the RV upfitter. Logic would say the van would be less prone to leaks, squeeks, etc. That being said, the quality of the original build would determine that. Our experience with both types shows that length is not the restricting issue. Width and height are. An extra foot of length makes very little difference. An extra foot or even 6" of height or width makes alot of difference in where you can go.

[Monaco_Montclai]

no mpg for driving a brick down the road

[Monaco_Montclai]

we have a class-c looking.29ft, Montclair,by Monaco.three slides.--12.6, not towing---and dead on 10 towing, with 23k on the clock. drives like a dream. now its all happy-camping

[overbrook]

Guysakar wrote:

I recently sold a BT Cruiser like the one in your photo. While I owned it, I traveled across the country, spending a lot of time on the backroads, while visiting the crystal mines in Arkansas and metal detecting the beaches of Florida.

The BT Cruiser was a joy to drive, very maneuverable, and had plenty of power. Inside it had ample space, a nice large bathroom and shower, a full size fridge, even a range. It had a dinette table that converted into a bed, and a couch that folded out into a bed.

The 22 foot BT Cruiser (no slide) was ideal for several days of camping - for one or two people. Relatively large holding tanks, dual coach batteries, plenty of room inside to move around, and outside storage.

The reason I sold the BT Cruiser was it's height. At 10' 4", it wouldn't fit under the arch in my driveway.

I replaced it with a true B - a Roadtrek 170 Popular.

The Roadtrek is much smaller inside, smaller mini fridge, smaller kitchen, very small bathroom, no dinette, minimal exterior storage.

Being a van, it drives like a van, and gets decent mpg - 14.5 around town, and 16-17mpg on the highway.

I use the Roadtrek as my daily driver - something I wouldn't want to have done with the BT Cruiser.

If I had to choose which one I would want to travel and camp in for extended periods, it would be the BT Cruiser, simply because it has a lot more room inside, without being much wider than a van on the outside.

The only downside - the BT Cruiser on the Ford 350 chassis with the V10 only got 11mpg on the highway at 63mpg.

On the flip side, the cost of a used BT Cruiser is half the cost of a same year model used Roadtrek.

Bill

[kohldad]

I am going to be solo camping mostly in places that have no paved roads

Just to add some confusion to your hunt, how far from the paved road do you plan on going?

The negative to Class C or B+ is the large rear overhang and rack of ground clearance. Wouldn't take much of a stream crossing or water diverter to hang up a motorhome.

Have you looked into a Truck Camper? Much better suited for going off the beaton path. Some have slides if you feel you need the room.

In other regards to your original question, a C or B+ will basically get the same MPG. While there is a bit of difference in aerodynamics, not enough to make a difference. Biggest issue is the weight is almost always right up there at max for the vehicle.

[tatest]

I didn't catch the MPG part.

I've put 30,000 miles on a C, average 8.2 MPG. That's tracking all the miles, all the gas. Individual tanks have ranged from 6mpg to 11 mpg, the bigger number needing a tailwind more often than I've seen.

I also drive a E-350 van, now house built on it (what a B really is) and have averaged 16 mpg over 3000 miles. Best tank was 18 mpg, worst 15 mpg. 3000 miles is not much experience, but enough to tell me what to expect. If you buy a low profile B (pop top like Traverse, or Sportmobile will build one) you can expect van mpg. If you want a hogh top conversion, 15-20% less, for that much increase in frontal area. But that's a real B, either a van or a van with hightop cap.

Buying a C, and calling it a B, because some marketing guy said B+, it is still going to get C mpg, and when it comes time to park it, you'l be dealing with 7 1/2 to 8 1/2 width, rather than the "less than 80" that defines a "standard" width vehicle in North America. Running lights vs no running lights, and the width of marked parking spaces will vary. Some places all get marked for Surburbans and crew cab pickups, other places Malibu or Escape are the expected size for which parking gets marked.

[MrWizard]

pick the one you like the best, which ever has the floor plan and storage you prefer

Names B+ C ,, its a marketing ploy

[MrWizard]

X2
That is a class C, no matter what the MFG want to call it
It's built on a cut a way chassis

B's are built into the OEM van body, with or without a raised roof, usually with

tatest wrote:
What you've pictured is a C. Gulfstream started marketing this as a B+, others picked up the term.

It is a C without an overhead bed. Some models are narrower than the widest of C's with the overhead, but those vary in width. Some models are a little lower than C's with basements, but about the same height as C's without basements (e.g. the LazyDaze and many rental models are built low).

A B is built within a van's body, sometimes with width extension. The C/B+ are built as a box on a cab-chassis or cutaway chassis, usually at least seven feet wide and nine feet high (sometimes up to 12 high). It has a whole lot more room inside.

[midnightsadie]

you might look at whats out there on a sprinter chassis ,the fuel mpg will double ,ford/chevy/dodge about 8mpg sprinter 17mpg or better.