Class Cs with high rear axle capacity

[ptbtx]

I recently bought a 32' 2010 Winnebago Access (Ford E450 chassis). Prior to leaving for a 4 week trip and prior to loading it up for the trip I took it to a scale and the rear weighed in at about 9400 and the front at about 4000. So the MH itself is taking up so much of the rear GAWR (9500 max) that there isn't much left over for bedding, clothes, food, etc. I had to cut back on what I planned to bring and now have to store everything in the front. I also removed the rear TV and the rear queen mattress and replaced it with a smaller and lighter mattress. This particular MH has plenty of room for storage in the bedroom but it's very disappointing that it can't be used and it's also very inconvenient to have to move everything from front to back at the end of the day's drive and then from back to front at the start of the day's drive.

By the way, when the MH was weighed the fresh water tank light showed 1/3 full, the gas tank had about 45 gallons (out of 55 when full), the propane tank was full, the gray and black tanks were empty, and I was the only passenger. I had two hoses and a few extension cords in the back passenger side hatch. I had some tools, etc. in the left and right front hatches, but nothing out of the ordinary with respect to their weight.

So even though the OCCC at 1866 seemed reasonable prior to purchase I see that most of that CC is available in the front, not the back where it would have been much more convenient.

So am now looking for advice regarding which models to look at with better OCCC especially CC on the back axle.

[John_S_]

It is on the pickup chassis and it is 29 foot long. I could have gotten it on one 26 foot long too. I don’t consider it a super c though. Those in my mind are on medium and heavy duty trucks with air brakes. I have owned three Foretravel class a coaches and this is my third Born Free. The first was 22 foot and only was around a year till I traded it for 24 foot. Loved it but climbing up into the cab over was getting too much. So we got one made on a pickup to remove the hot cramped dog house. It is really a 27 foot van style class c but the pickup adds a couple feet.

[pnichols]

John S. wrote:
This is why I found my class c. I looked for an F550. That gives me 12,600 on the rear axle and 7000 on the front and I can tow up to 12k pounds too.

:h

Do you mean you found a Super C on an F550 Ford truck chassis ... or a regular Class C on the rare Ford van chassis that was available for a few years - the Ford E550?

[ptbtx]

What F550 do you have? What other F550s are there?

[John_S_]

This is why I found my class c. I looked for an F550. That gives me 12,600 on the rear axle and 7000 on the front and I can tow up to 12k pounds too.

[Chum_lee]

carringb wrote:

ptbtx wrote:
The QVM Q18R5 link didn't work (at least for me).

Should be working now. Looks like I cropped part of the url. But they also revised the site, and i'm not sure if doc links are static urls still. Anyways... working at the moment.

All of the bulletins are located here BTW: https://fordbbas.com/bulletins

Thanks for that link. It works fine. Good information!

Chum lee

[carringb]

ptbtx wrote:
The QVM Q18R5 link didn't work (at least for me).

Should be working now. Looks like I cropped part of the url. But they also revised the site, and i'm not sure if doc links are static urls still. Anyways... working at the moment.

All of the bulletins are located here BTW: https://fordbbas.com/bulletins

[ptbtx]

The QVM Q18R5 link didn't work (at least for me).

[carringb]

ptbtx wrote:
I've read that the front to back weight ratio should be 1 to 2, e.g. about 5k to 10k. What if I the weight is under capacity for each axle but the ratio is not approximately 1 to 2. If that's a problem I might end up with CC to spare but still end up having to move all my gear from back to front each morning. How far off from the ratio is acceptable?

Ford require 32% of the total vehicle weight to be on the front axle of the E450:

QVM Q18R5

[ptbtx]

I've read that the front to back weight ratio should be 1 to 2, e.g. about 5k to 10k. What if I the weight is under capacity for each axle but the ratio is not approximately 1 to 2. If that's a problem I might end up with CC to spare but still end up having to move all my gear from back to front each morning. How far off from the ratio is acceptable?

[carringb]

camperdave wrote:
So is the v10 dead when the new 7.3 comes out?

Yes. But the leaked docs promised more power, much more torque and better economy. So I don't think you need to worry about anything.

Also, The F-series is already announced it's getting a new 10-speed heavy duty transmissions. I imagine this new motor will also get that same transmission in the E-series too.

[Chum_lee]

ptbtx wrote:
I recently bought a 32' 2010 Winnebago Access (Ford E450 chassis). Prior to leaving for a 4 week trip and prior to loading it up for the trip I took it to a scale and the rear weighed in at about 9400 and the front at about 4000. So the MH itself is taking up so much of the rear GAWR (9500 max) that there isn't much left over for bedding, clothes, food, etc. I had to cut back on what I planned to bring and now have to store everything in the front.

So am now looking for advice regarding which models to look at with better OCCC especially CC on the back axle.

Now you know about the importance of weight and balance as well as GVWR. That's the problem with having a wheelbase that is too short and wheels that are too small for the intended use. Be careful putting too much weight in the rear because it transfers weight from the front wheels. You need substantial weight on the front wheels for adequate emergency steering/braking control.

IMO, motor home coach builders should be slapped upside the head every time they build Class C MH's (E350/450's) over 30'.

Chum lee

[camperdave]

So is the v10 dead when the new 7.3 comes out?

[carringb]

pnichols wrote:


To continue their E-Series ... maybe Ford engineers figured out how to get better gas mileage (or power versus physical size) out of a new 7.3L gas motor than they were getting out of their 2-Valve V10?

That's the promise, as a result of its lower operating RPMs. Plus almost certainly other contemporary tech such as high compressions ratio, variable valve timing etc. It replaces both the 6.2 and 6.8L, and promises better economy than the 6.2L as well.

BTW - It was quiet news, but Ford now sells the 6.2L in the E450 as well. More HP, but less torque and a lower GCWR.

[pnichols]

carringb wrote:
For had previously committed the E-series through 2020, but now leaked documents not only state major re-tooling for 2020 model E-series, but also it will be getting the new 7.3L gas motor. So, looks likely it'll be around for along time still. No reason to re-tool for something you're not going to keep going.

That could be fantastic news if it turns out to be long term!

To continue their E-Series ... maybe Ford engineers figured out how to get better gas mileage (or power versus physical size) out of a new 7.3L gas motor than they were getting out of their 2-Valve V10?