Small Class C - Mercedes Diesel vs. Chevy Gasoline?

[gregdennis53]

This is a two part question and I greatly appreciate any help.

First, we are getting very close to pulling the trigger on the purchase of a small Class C. Our traveling and camping friends have a Coach House Platinum II that is about 25 feet long with a queen bed that runs "front to back" ("north-south") with space to walk along both sides of the bed. We don't have the budget to purchase a new Coach House($200K ??), but we would like to find a new RV with similar features (without the luxury) at a lower price point. We were looking closely at a Winnebego View but I don't think they offer a north-south walk-around queen on their 2019 models.
The second question is what non-Ford chassis options are out there for a small Class C with a north-south walk-around queen bed? I am a life long GMC / Chevy fan and I read a while back that Chevy was launching a new platform for Class C motor homes, but I have not been able to find one with a north-south bed. I don't need the Mercedes platform and perhaps not having to deal with diesel will be a benefit, but it is tough to find a non-Ford option.
My wife refuses to approve of Fords because the Ford based Class C units we have seen at RV shows, etc. have a passenger-side footwell is much narrower than the driver-side foot well. I am the driver, but I can see why she does not want to have her feet shoved into a tiny space for 500 miles a day.
Help?

Happy Camping!

[chadsdad01]

Sorry, I didn't see your question posted earlier. Yes, it has a frint heavy duty sway bar as well.

[IAMICHABOD]

ron.dittmer wrote:

AJR wrote:
Pnichols.. I hate saying this as a Ford guy. But I do not care about all the tech mechanical stuff. All I know from first hand experience is the Chevy chassis is wonderful in cross winds, big rigs passing, getting into the house from the driver’s seat and no noise up front when going up hills. All that done with a stock chassis.
I spent over a grand on my Ford E350 chassis and never came close to the ride I have now.

One thing I need to mention here. Your E350 implies a short motor home. I see your profile indicates your Chevy is a long motor home. You cannot compare the two because the weight distribution is very different along with the ratio between over-all length to wheel base.

Here is my E350 motor home. Note the weight distribution. It's ripe for handling issues. That is why I invested good money into suspension upgrades for improved handling. A Chevy 3500 with the same house configuration could yield similar handling issues.

I have to say that my RV on a 3500 Chevy Chassis is configured much like Rons,I have a large storage area that is packed in about the same place his water and storage is,other than that the weight distribution would be about the same.
I haven't spent a cent on improvements to make it handle better unlike Ron Has

The very reason I chose my RV on a Chevy Chassis is that I drove quite a few just like mine all on a Ford Chassis,a few were loaded ready to go camping and others were empty.

The comparison between the two chassis choices was very clearly that the Chevy rode better, handled better and was much quieter and more spacious in the driver and passenger compartment.

Like AJR I was pretty much a Ford guy but all the things he mentioned in his post was just how my Rig performed and still does without all that expensive suspension upgrades for improved handling.

Also to answer a question that has come up often the 3500/4500 RV chassis does come with front and rear sway bars as mine did.

[AJR]

The Ford was a 2011 Chateau 28A. My current rig is a 29QB.
Both units have fresh water tank under the north south bed and about 100cf of cargo space in the back. Black & gray tanks in similar locations.

[pnichols]

ron.dittmer wrote:

AJR wrote:
Pnichols.. I hate saying this as a Ford guy. But I do not care about all the tech mechanical stuff. All I know from first hand experience is the Chevy chassis is wonderful in cross winds, big rigs passing, getting into the house from the driver’s seat and no noise up front when going up hills. All that done with a stock chassis.
I spent over a grand on my Ford E350 chassis and never came close to the ride I have now.

One thing I need to mention here. Your E350 implies a short motor home. I see your profile indicates your Chevy is a long motor home. You cannot compare the two because the weight distribution is very different along with the ratio between over-all length to wheel base.

Here is my E350 motor home. Note the weight distribution. It's ripe for handling issues. That is why I invested good money into suspension upgrades for improved handling. A Chevy 3500 with the same house configuration could yield similar handling issues.

Ron ... very relevant comments and an interesting diagram above! A special thanks for the diagram.

Interestingly, per your diagram the weight distribution of our 24 foot Class C should be "about the same". However for some strange reason(s), I did not have the handling issues right from the start that I read so much about. All I can think of as the reason is that, basically, the weight and weight distribution versus wheelbase length of our motorhome does not stress the design parameters and constraints of our E450 chassis as much as they would an E350 chassis.

IMHO some, if not all, of the Ford-Chevy handling difference must be due to Ford's Twin I-Beam system that they use in the front end of so many of their truck designs. It's definitely not the same as what Chevy uses. I guess I need to do a study on why Ford introduced, and has continued to use, their Twin I-Beam system. There must be some mechanical and force-vector reasons that gave rise to it - that to me are not "intuitive".

[ron_dittmer]

AJR wrote:
Pnichols.. I hate saying this as a Ford guy. But I do not care about all the tech mechanical stuff. All I know from first hand experience is the Chevy chassis is wonderful in cross winds, big rigs passing, getting into the house from the driver’s seat and no noise up front when going up hills. All that done with a stock chassis.
I spent over a grand on my Ford E350 chassis and never came close to the ride I have now.

One thing I need to mention here. Your E350 implies a short motor home. I see your profile indicates your Chevy is a long motor home. You cannot compare the two because the weight distribution is very different along with the ratio between over-all length to wheel base.

Here is my E350 motor home. Note the weight distribution. It's ripe for handling issues. That is why I invested good money into suspension upgrades for improved handling. A Chevy 3500 with the same house configuration could yield similar handling issues.

[AJR]

Pnichols.. I hate saying this as a Ford guy. But I do not care about all the tech mechanical stuff. All I know from first hand experience is the Chevy chassis is wonderful in cross winds, big rigs passing, getting into the house from the driver’s seat and no noise up front when going up hills. All that done with a stock chassis.
I spent over a grand on my Ford E350 chassis and never came close to the ride I have now.

[pnichols]

chadsdad01 wrote:
We just purchased a 2020 Jayco Redhawk with a rear slide. The legroom, noise and smoothness of the Chevy 4500 chassis is far superior to my former E450. An oversized rear anti sway bar is standard now providing a great ride., as are factory welded mounts to add a stabilizer jack system.

Just curious ... does your Chevy 4500 chassis have both a rear and front anti-sway bar ... or just one in the rear?

For what it's worth, our Ford E450 chassis came with one in both the front and the rear.

[chadsdad01]

We just purchased a 2020 Jayco Redhawk with a rear slide. The legroom, noise and smoothness of the Chevy 4500 chassis is far superior to my former E450. An oversized rear anti sway bar is standard now providing a great ride., as are factory welded mounts to add a stabilizer jack system.

[Gjac]

road-runner wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:
I find it remarkable how "passenger foot well room" is so much of an issue that you would rule out the most capable, most affordable, most reliable, most serviceable, and most popular E350/E450 chassis in the RV industry.

We all have our priorities, and the cab space and comfort was close to the top of the list for us. Additionally, with every Ford or Chevy based model with slide that we considered when we purchased, the slide blocked the driver seat from going back as far as I need it. In the Sprinter I'm about 6" from full rear travel. That seat travel issue has also eliminated a lot of cars when I've been car shopping.

The ability to slide the seat back would be a priority for someone with arthritis in the knee like myself. I had to raise the seat to be able to straiten my leg so my knee would not hurt so bad because my slide out restricted the seat from sliding back. It is one of those things that a quick test drive won't show but several hours of driving will.

[pnichols]

Hmmm ... maybe that's kindof a subtle thing not discussed much - that non-slide Class C motorhomes don't limit the drivers seat bottom and seat back from going all the way back.

At least in our non-slide Ford E450 Class C it has a tilting back to it's dinette seat that's right behind the driver's seat. This hinged tilting dinette seatback allows the driver's seatback to be tipped back to a nice angle for maximum driving comfort.

[road-runner]

ron.dittmer wrote:
I find it remarkable how "passenger foot well room" is so much of an issue that you would rule out the most capable, most affordable, most reliable, most serviceable, and most popular E350/E450 chassis in the RV industry.

We all have our priorities, and the cab space and comfort was close to the top of the list for us. Additionally, with every Ford or Chevy based model with slide that we considered when we purchased, the slide blocked the driver seat from going back as far as I need it. In the Sprinter I'm about 6" from full rear travel. That seat travel issue has also eliminated a lot of cars when I've been car shopping.

[AJR]

Just find a camper on a Chevy 2400 chassis and love driving it.

Not to mention ease of getting into the house or no engine noise up hills.

[DrewE]

ron.dittmer wrote:

hpdrver wrote:
Perhaps with the new E450 chassis with the new Ford V-8 will provide a more spacious cabin.

I would be very surprised if Ford re-designs their limited production E-series for more leg room. But one could only hope.

Their limited production is roughly around 50,000 units a year; certainly not their best selling vehicle, not by a long shot, but I suspect sufficient to invest something into tweaks and improvements. Increasing the foot space (side to side) when using a narrower engine should not take too much engineering effort. It would be a bit surprising to me if they failed to do that.

[rjstractor]

ron.dittmer wrote:

hpdrver wrote:
Perhaps with the new E450 chassis with the new Ford V-8 will provide a more spacious cabin.

I would be very surprised if Ford re-designs their limited production E-series for more leg room. But one could only hope.

With the new 7.3 gas being physically more compact (despite the slightly larger displacement) than the V10, a narrower doghouse and therefore better leg room might be a side effect of the new engine.