Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: Class C Motorhomes: Motorhomes on Mercedes Chassis
Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Class C Motorhomes

Open Roads Forum  >  Class C Motorhomes  >  All

 > Motorhomes on Mercedes Chassis

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Prev  |  Next
Coach-man

Florida

Senior Member

Joined: 08/02/2008

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 12/23/19 11:45am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Well your speculation about their stability may or may not be true. Look at Fords new chassis very similar to the MB, not your grand Father’s E450! In the 3 years I had mine, I never felt insecure in the ride and/or the stability of my Sprinter! I think the engineer’s did their homework, even though it looks to high for the width!

gemsworld

Arizona West Coast

Senior Member

Joined: 03/08/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 12/23/19 11:50am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

pnichols wrote:

Speculation has nothing to do with it: The poor rear wheel spacing width-to-coach-height ratio is real - just take a look at one. Then compare that visual ratio to, say, the visual ratio of a Winnebago 22M Class C built on a Ford E450 chassis ... which one would you rather be unexpectedly caught in during high cross winds in the the Western U.S.? The answer should be obvious. ... and BTW ... a stiffer suspension cannot of course change this ratio - which is based on pure physical measurments.

Some of us don't need it to have "already happened" in order to try and be proactive at purchase time -> to ensure that it never ever would happen to us.


Unless you own one or driven one in high winds you're speculating. I have owned a Minnie Winnie 22R on a Ford E450 chassis and currently own a Winnebago Navion 24V on the Sprinter chassis and have experienced severe wind conditions on both, and both units handled the severe winds much better than expected.





pnichols

The Other California

Senior Member

Joined: 04/26/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 12/23/19 01:35pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Coach-man wrote:

Well your speculation about their stability may or may not be true. Look at Fords new chassis very similar to the MB, not your grand Father’s E450! In the 3 years I had mine, I never felt insecure in the ride and/or the stability of my Sprinter! I think the engineer’s did their homework, even though it looks to high for the width!


Well ... take a look at the E450 dually rear wheels stance/spacing in this specifications document ... and then compare it to the same specification for the dually 3500 Sprinter rear wheels stance/spacing (you can look that spec up):

https://madocumentupload.marketingassoci........6e13786f9ef842ef3da2d870bbec943&v5=False

After you do the above, compare the height (to the top of the air conditioner) of a typical E450 based Class C, such as the Winnebago 22M, to the height (to the top of the air conditioner) of a typical Sprinter 3500 based Class C.

I stand by my thinking that the MB Sprinter chassis was orginally designed and intended for commercial panel truck use on narrow and/or crowded city-type streets (plus at the same time allowing for personel standup-height inside) ... and that it was later asked for in cutaway configuration by motorhome manufacturers for building on in order to competitively respond to improved fuel mileage requests by potential U.S. customers.

As such, IMHO, use of the 3500 Sprinter underneath a full height Class C represents a potential compromise in stability while in motion. It's based on pure physics that can't be gotten around.

(Of course my eyes could be deceiving me whenever I'm following behind a tall and narrow Sprinter based Class C motorhome, as apposed to whenever I observe our Class C from the rear.)


Phil, 2005 E450 Itasca Spirit 24V

EV2

South Dakota/Arizona

Senior Member

Joined: 03/11/2015

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 12/23/19 07:10pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

pnichols wrote:

EV2 wrote:

Have to love the speculation as opposed to facts, Waiting for all of the photos of MB chassis motor homes blown over along the road


Speculation has nothing to do with it:
Some of us don't need it to have "already happened" in order to try and be proactive at purchase time -> to ensure that it never ever would happen to us.


Yet you speculated on parts availability and oil rather than looking. With your advanced engineering degree, I should have realized that with 100s of thousands of miles over many years, they just haven’t found your wind yet. Sheesh, I give up, Enjoy.

pnichols

The Other California

Senior Member

Joined: 04/26/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 12/23/19 08:37pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

EV2 wrote:

pnichols wrote:

EV2 wrote:

Have to love the speculation as opposed to facts, Waiting for all of the photos of MB chassis motor homes blown over along the road


Speculation has nothing to do with it:
Some of us don't need it to have "already happened" in order to try and be proactive at purchase time -> to ensure that it never ever would happen to us.


Yet you speculated on parts availability and oil rather than looking. With your advanced engineering degree, I should have realized that with 100s of thousands of miles over many years, they just haven’t found your wind yet. Sheesh, I give up, Enjoy.


Huuuuuh!!!

You response above is to the wrong poster ... I've posted not a thing about MB Sprinter parts availability and oil. [emoticon]

P.S. For me to have done that would have been speculation. [emoticon]

road-runner

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 05/03/2015

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/25/19 09:15pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Jumping into this late I have a few comments:

- Criticism of handling or stability from somebody who has never driven a Sprinter isn't to be taken seriously.
- Chassis reliability reports look opposite for good reason. Most Sprinters are very reliable and have reasonable maintenance costs. A small but still significant number of owners have been plagued with highly unreasonable reliability problems accompanied by horribly large costs.
- My only first-hand negative wind stability report is from one time when I made an unscheduled multi day stop during a windstorm. The Sprinter was darn squirely to the point I felt is was dangerous. It did make it past a few blown over semis before the next Interstate exit.
- Because of the recurring mechanical problems some owners have suffered through, I am honestly scared it could happen to me. I treat it carefully and try to keep ahead on preventative maintenance.

So why did I buy one and have no intent of changing after 10 years?

1. The horrible claustrophobic front seating of the Ford chassis, and to a slightly less extent, the Chevy chassis. For all of you who aren't bothered by it, that's great.

2. When shopping I was able to find zero shorter class Cs with slideout where I could push the driver seat far enough back for driving.

3. The easy access between the cab and coach.

4. The 6" narrower width when driving on narrow roads with no shoulder.

5. It's darn easy to drive, and the roomy cab is a pleasure.


2009 Fleetwood Icon

paddykernahan

Westland, MI

Full Member

Joined: 08/07/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/26/19 07:44am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

road-runner wrote:

Jumping into this late I have a few comments:

- Criticism of handling or stability from somebody who has never driven a Sprinter isn't to be taken seriously.
- Chassis reliability reports look opposite for good reason. Most Sprinters are very reliable and have reasonable maintenance costs. A small but still significant number of owners have been plagued with highly unreasonable reliability problems accompanied by horribly large costs.
- My only first-hand negative wind stability report is from one time when I made an unscheduled multi day stop during a windstorm. The Sprinter was darn squirely to the point I felt is was dangerous. It did make it past a few blown over semis before the next Interstate exit.
- Because of the recurring mechanical problems some owners have suffered through, I am honestly scared it could happen to me. I treat it carefully and try to keep ahead on preventative maintenance.

So why did I buy one and have no intent of changing after 10 years?

1. The horrible claustrophobic front seating of the Ford chassis, and to a slightly less extent, the Chevy chassis. For all of you who aren't bothered by it, that's great.

2. When shopping I was able to find zero shorter class Cs with slideout where I could push the driver seat far enough back for driving.

3. The easy access between the cab and coach.

4. The 6" narrower width when driving on narrow roads with no shoulder.

5. It's darn easy to drive, and the roomy cab is a pleasure.


Agree with everything road-runner said.
25,000 miles and two years and no problems.





pianotuna

Regina, SK, Canada

Senior Member

Joined: 12/18/2004

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/26/19 09:18am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

How much for def? How much for an oil change? Warranty denial for "bad fuel" (which we, as end users have no control over)? Sky high initial cost? Little in the way of storage?

I operate on 3 strikes and you are out.


Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp hours of AGM in two battery banks 12 volt batteries, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.

pnichols

The Other California

Senior Member

Joined: 04/26/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member


Posted: 12/26/19 10:27am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

We travel mostly in the Western U.S. as much as possible not around population centers or major highways, and as such we're in and around small towns, backroads, dirt roads, the deserts, and sometimes in areas with no cell phone coverage. We're also not into towing something because - like a turtle - we want our little fully equipped home with us at all times.

What this means is that for us the RV vehicle type must be a motorhome towing nothing ... with overall chassis reliability and easy access to chassis parts and fuel when on trips being top priorities. Hence, any chassis other than a gasser Ford or Chevy one under our motorhome would be a no-go at purchase time. These considerations rule out the MB Sprinter chassis.

road-runner

Oregon

Senior Member

Joined: 05/03/2015

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 12/26/19 01:41pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

pianotuna wrote:


I operate on 3 strikes and you are out.
That's fine. The reality is that your strikes are different from my strikes, which are different from somebody else's strikes. IMO the best service we can provide to others is to give first-hand factual accounts as accurately as possible, and let the other RVers make decisions based on their priorities and preference. Choosing an RV is an exercise in balancing benefits and compromises. I never saw a single one that was close to ideal (for me) in all aspects. The Ford chassis strikes out with me, and the Sprinter with you. I want to help others, but definitely don't want to tell others what they should think.

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Class C Motorhomes  >  All

 > Motorhomes on Mercedes Chassis
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Class C Motorhomes


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2020 CWI, Inc. © 2020 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.