Good Sam Club Open Roads Forum: MPG for transit based motorhomes
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  >  Class C

 > MPG for transit based motorhomes

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 2  
Next
richy2

Florida

Full Member

Joined: 06/29/2009

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/12/22 10:52am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

We just ordered a Sunseeker TS 2370 on a Ford transit chassis. What kind of mileage can I expect with this rig? My current motorhome is a Dynamax rev on promaster 3500 and gets 15 mpg. I'm hoping to get similar mileage.

NMDriver2

New Mexico

Senior Member

Joined: 04/18/2018

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/12/22 04:55pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

2016 Transit- with the wind 17 against the wind 13. Average over 3500 miles one month was 15, mostly staying within 500ft of 5000 ft elevation.


Turret Class traveler

ron.dittmer

North-East Illinois

Senior Member

Joined: 02/26/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/12/22 05:04pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

richy2 wrote:

My current motorhome is a Dynamax Rev on a Promaster 3500 and gets 15 mpg. I'm hoping to get similar mileage.
That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.

Someone on the Phoenix Cruiser forum with a Phoenix TRX (2019 Transit chassis, non-EcoBoost gas engine) is reporting 11mpg, non-pampered cruising 65-72 mph, a negligible improvement from our 2007 E350 6.8L-V10 Phoenix Cruiser 2350 HERE, driving under the same conditions. We get a solid 10.5 mpg trip average, no towing, pampered 60-62mph.

* This post was last edited 01/12/22 05:32pm by ron.dittmer *   View edit history


2007 Phoenix Cruiser model 2350, with 2006 Jeep Liberty in-tow

rjstractor

Maple Valley, WA

Senior Member

Joined: 01/20/2003

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/12/22 07:54pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

ron.dittmer wrote:

That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.


I've seen this comment regarding this chassis from you before and wonder why. The Promaster chassis is front wheel drive, and it would be silly to put dual rear wheels on a front wheel drive chassis to load the rear axle heavier. These trucks, when their axles are fully loaded, have about a 45/55% F/R weight bias. RGAWR on a Promaster is well under 6000 lbs. Single rear wheels handle these weights easily. If you bump that up to a 7K+ RGAWR on a FWD chassis, you're not going to go anywhere when you're fully loaded.

Now, the RWD Transit and Sprinter chassis, benefit from a DRW axle since they carry more weight in that configuration. But the DRW Transit does not have a wider rear track than the SRW, unlike your E350, so the DRW Transit will not have the extra stability a that the wider track of the E350 or 450 DRW.

JaxDad

Greater Toronto Area

Senior Member

Joined: 08/02/2011

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 01/13/22 05:52am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

rjstractor wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.


RGAWR on a Promaster is well under 6000 lbs. Single rear wheels handle these weights easily.

If you bump that up to a 7K+ RGAWR on a FWD chassis, you're not going to go anywhere when you're fully loaded.


Shhhhhhh. Don’t tell GM that.

Clicky, clicky, clicky……..

RetiredRealtorRick

St. Augustine Beach, FL

Senior Member

Joined: 04/17/2020

View Profile



Posted: 01/13/22 06:01am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

JaxDad wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.


RGAWR on a Promaster is well under 6000 lbs. Single rear wheels handle these weights easily.

If you bump that up to a 7K+ RGAWR on a FWD chassis, you're not going to go anywhere when you're fully loaded.


Shhhhhhh. Don’t tell GM that.

Clicky, clicky, clicky……..


Those were tandem axles, not dual rear wheels.


. . . never confuse education with intelligence

2112

Texas

Senior Member

Joined: 07/16/2011

View Profile



Posted: 01/13/22 06:07am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

JaxDad wrote:

rjstractor wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.


RGAWR on a Promaster is well under 6000 lbs. Single rear wheels handle these weights easily.

If you bump that up to a 7K+ RGAWR on a FWD chassis, you're not going to go anywhere SAFELY when you're fully loaded.


Shhhhhhh. Don’t tell GM that.

Clicky, clicky, clicky……..
Wouldn't the rear leveling airbags push some of the weight to the steering axles similar to a tag axle?

Not to mention the heavy 455 and transmission sitting on top of the steering axles

* This post was edited 01/13/22 06:29am by 2112 *


2011 Ford F-150 EcoBoost SuperCab Max Tow, 2084# Payload, 11,300# Tow,
Timbrens, PullRite SuperGlide 2700 15K
2013 KZ Durango 2857


ron.dittmer

North-East Illinois

Senior Member

Joined: 02/26/2007

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/13/22 07:30am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

rjstractor wrote:

ron.dittmer wrote:

That is decent fuel economy. Too bad that chassis is offered only with a SRW axle. A DRW would have done the chassis wonders.
I've seen this comment regarding this chassis from you before and wonder why.
I have read a number of times on various RV forums, comments from owners of Dodge Promaster 3500 based class C motorhomes. They state that they are very limited regarding what they can carry. They are counting each pound. They can't have a 3rd passenger and never drive with fresh or waste water on-board. The basic house with all it's features, simply takes up all the weight margin.

Having dual rear wheels in back if only to gain an extra 500 pounds of capability where it is needed, would solve much. I assume the front wheel drive engine and transmission could handle the extra weight of a duel rear axle & springs plus an extra 500 pounds. If not, then I feel the chassis is even more questionable as a cut-away.

The class B application (a basic van) is all together different because it weighs significantly less than an outfitted class C. Being front wheel drive, there is no drive shaft or rear differential. The extra under-belly space provides outfitters with more area to utilize compared to a rear wheel drive Sprinter or Transit equivalent.

I am no expert on these things. This is only my opinion.

Matt_Colie

Southeast Michigan

Senior Member

Joined: 10/09/2011

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 01/13/22 09:45am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

OK, Time to clear up the GMC/TZE things. (Look at the pic in the sigfile.)

There is no tag axle. The statement that the rear are in tandem as opposed to dual is correct, but by definition (according SAE) that is a single rear axle as the designed (some have changed) only has the single suspension for the tandem wheels. The ride in the back is so nice that when needed, we can sleep the off watch crew. We tried that in a Class C and that is all I will say.

GM dumped all of that business in 1978 and have not looked back, so don't ask them. The well established community of owners knows way more about it now than GM Truck and Coach ever did....

And No, what you do at the rear has no effect of the load on the front tires.

Could "Chrysler" pick it up and run with it? Sure they could, and they would be smart (IMHO) to do so. If/when they do, they would be smart to look at some of the re-engineering that has been done in the community. But, from the contacts I still have with that ex-employer, they are distinctly not interested. They dropped the whole RV effort when they shut down the big block line on Mound Road. That was part of the loan guarantee deal with the government.

Matt


Matt & Mary Colie
A sailor, his bride and their black dog (one is waiting for us at the bridge) going to see some dry places that have Geocaches in a coach made the year we married.


RetiredRealtorRick

St. Augustine Beach, FL

Senior Member

Joined: 04/17/2020

View Profile



Posted: 01/13/22 11:51am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

I might have missed it, but not a soul has asked if the Transit is a gas or diesel?? Big difference. Last I heard they still made Transit's in both versions. Am I correct?

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 2  
Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Class C Motorhomes  >  Class C

 > MPG for transit based motorhomes
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:




© 2022 CWI, Inc. © 2022 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.