cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

24 ft ClassC MH downsides

Gjac
Explorer III
Explorer III
I have been looking at 24 ft Class C's on the internet, have not test drove any yet. I have a 32 ft Class A now. Are there any down sides like handling? Any issues with FW slides? I realize obvious issues like smaller living space, less storage, less fresh water but are there any other issues or concerns I should be aware of? Also I noticed one that had a large storage bay under the bed in the rear, which makes and models have this storage bay?
54 REPLIES 54

Bordercollie
Explorer
Explorer
pnichols wrote:
Bordercollie wrote:
We had a 23 foot class C and before that a Dodge van conversion. I grew to hate having cardboard boxes in the aisle etc. and having to convert couches into beds and and back again. There was little space for storage and clutter became depressing on long trips or extended camping. Going from a 32 foot to a 24 foot RV will be a big change.


Probably some small Class C motorhomes do much better on storage than what you describe. For example, our 24 foot Class C has:

- The entire area under both dinette seats available for storage.
- Large partitioned-off separate areas at the foot and head of the overhead cab bed available for storage that run the full width of the bed.
- Overhead cabinets above the lounge chair, above the dinette area, and above the kitchen double sink area.
- Two closets for storage of clothing.
- Drawers and cabinets under the kitchen areas, under and over the bathroom sink, under the refrigerator, and under one of the closets.
- Overhead cabinets above and around the corner of the rear corner bed area.
- Seven outside storage bays, with two of them extending under the floor laterally across the width of the coach for storage of long items.
- Two storage areas under each cab seat.

We don't have to transport anything on the roof, on either bumper, or strapped to the roof-access ladder. The only thing "under foot" when we travel is the enclosed crate, seat-belted in a dinette seat, for the dog so that she can travel somewhat restrained and safe. 😉


Wow, there have been some real storage improvements in short rigs.

Gjac
Explorer III
Explorer III
whizbang wrote:
Gjac,

We have a 2002 Winnebago 24v Class C withe the 158" WB on a E350 chassis.

Completely empty, it weighs just under 10,000 pounds. Full of fluids and gear for a long trip, we topped out at 11,400 pounds, just under the GVWR of 11,500.

On ALL of our other RV's (truck campers, truck&trailer, diesel pusher, etc) my wife refused to drive. With this Class C, my wife does 2/3's the driving. The Winnie handles like a breeze.

The new chassis are supposed to be even better. I would not be concerned about a E350 chassis.
Did you need any suspension add on's to make it handle like a breeze? Or did it handle well from the factory?

pnichols
Explorer II
Explorer II
Bordercollie wrote:
We had a 23 foot class C and before that a Dodge van conversion. I grew to hate having cardboard boxes in the aisle etc. and having to convert couches into beds and and back again. There was little space for storage and clutter became depressing on long trips or extended camping. Going from a 32 foot to a 24 foot RV will be a big change.


Probably some small Class C motorhomes do much better on storage than what you describe. For example, our 24 foot Class C has:

- The entire area under both dinette seats available for storage.
- Large partitioned-off separate areas at the foot and head of the overhead cab bed available for storage that run the full width of the bed.
- Overhead cabinets above the lounge chair, above the dinette area, and above the kitchen double sink area.
- Two closets for storage of clothing.
- Drawers and cabinets under the kitchen areas, under and over the bathroom sink, under the refrigerator, and under one of the closets.
- Overhead cabinets above and around the corner of the rear corner bed area.
- Seven outside storage bays, with two of them extending under the floor laterally across the width of the coach for storage of long items.
- Two storage areas under each cab seat.

We don't have to transport anything on the roof, on either bumper, or strapped to the roof-access ladder. The only thing "under foot" when we travel is the enclosed crate, seat-belted in a dinette seat, for the dog so that she can travel somewhat restrained and safe. 😉
2005 E450 Itasca 24V Class C

Bordercollie
Explorer
Explorer
We had a 23 foot class C and before that a Dodge van conversion. I grew to hate having cardboard boxes in the aisle etc. and having to convert couches into beds and and back again. There was little space for storage and clutter became depressing on long trips or extended camping. Going from a 32 foot to a 24 foot RV will be a big change.

whizbang
Explorer
Explorer
Gjac,

We have a 2002 Winnebago 24v Class C withe the 158" WB on a E350 chassis.

Completely empty, it weighs just under 10,000 pounds. Full of fluids and gear for a long trip, we topped out at 11,400 pounds, just under the GVWR of 11,500.

On ALL of our other RV's (truck campers, truck&trailer, diesel pusher, etc) my wife refused to drive. With this Class C, my wife does 2/3's the driving. The Winnie handles like a breeze.

The new chassis are supposed to be even better. I would not be concerned about a E350 chassis.
Whizbang
2002 Winnebago Minnie
http://www.raincityhome.com/RAWH/index.htm

Gjac
Explorer III
Explorer III
DrewE wrote:
I very much doubt the "economy" tune gets better mileage at equal power outputs and RPMs. The "premium" tune just lets the engine produce more power (and of course also consume more fuel) when pushed hard, and possibly alters the shift points to favor higher gears more.

You won't get 12 mpg with a typical class C motorhome at highway speeds with any gas engine, at least not without a rather radical redesign of the body to improve aerodynamics (which will necessarily also reduce interior space for a given length). It would be nice, I agree.
Drew that was RV hyperbole, to make a point. I don't know how to make those smiley faces that some on here make.

DrewE
Explorer
Explorer
I very much doubt the "economy" tune gets better mileage at equal power outputs and RPMs. The "premium" tune just lets the engine produce more power (and of course also consume more fuel) when pushed hard, and possibly alters the shift points to favor higher gears more.

You won't get 12 mpg with a typical class C motorhome at highway speeds with any gas engine, at least not without a rather radical redesign of the body to improve aerodynamics (which will necessarily also reduce interior space for a given length). It would be nice, I agree.

Gjac
Explorer III
Explorer III
pnichols wrote:
With the tuning on modern engines being so much under electronic control, wouldn't it be super nice if there could be a switch on the dash to flip between "economy tune" and "premium tune"?

What a wow that would be!!
. 50 more HP out west climbing hills would be nice and getting 12 mpg with the detune for the rest of the trip would be nicer.

pnichols
Explorer II
Explorer II
With the tuning on modern engines being so much under electronic control, wouldn't it be super nice if there could be a switch on the dash to flip between "economy tune" and "premium tune"?

What a wow that would be!!
2005 E450 Itasca 24V Class C

carringb
Explorer
Explorer
I have ONLY seen the Premium tuning on motorhome. Actually, even the utility body work trucks I've seen also have the Premium tune. The Economy tune is optional. Probably for fleets like U-Haul.

Keep in mind the new 7.3L is rated using the Dyno certification method for MDTs. The E-series was not certified using this method previously because of the carry-over powertrains. Ford's fleet documents state that the tuning is the same between the Dyno and Chassis certified motors, with the exception of the Economy tune. The F230/350 are chassis certified, and are rated at 430 HP.

The difference in test methods is boils down to:

Dyno Certification = worst case... All accessories active, and all emissions systems in full duty cycle such as max EGR.

Chassis certification = best case.... No A/C, EGR not active, no torque reduction to achieve emissions limits etc.

So the HP gains of the 7.3L should be greater than they appear on paper. But... there have been some teething issues, mainly with some of the supplied parts like spark-plug wires. It's a promising motor, but I'd personally wait for the Job-2 version, if they haven't already switched over.
2000 Ford E450 V10 VAN! 450,000+ miles
2014 ORV really big trailer
2015 Ford Focus ST

bobndot
Explorer II
Explorer II
Does that engine have a track record yet ?

Gjac
Explorer III
Explorer III
I learned a lot from this thread thanks for sharing your experiences. I just compared the 450 stripped chassis to the 350 stripped chassis and could find no difference for 2020/2021 in the Ford web site. From previous posts older versions had some major differences. One thing I noticed was two 7.3 engs options, one was a premium version with 350 HP the other was an economy version at 300 HP. I think 300 HP is plenty for a 24ft MH. Has anyone found and MPG difference between the two?

ron_dittmer
Explorer
Explorer
pnichols wrote:
ron.dittmer wrote:
Gjac wrote:
ron.dittmer wrote:
Gjac wrote:
Never realized that short C's had handling issues with a WB/L ratio of .54 of 54%. Mine is 52% and I drive it like my car with one hand even with trucks passing me. I notice most of the C's I looked at were as high as my A. I wonder if the height to length has more affect because of the higher CG. Do shorter C's feel tippy when cornering than say longer C's on the same chassis? ............just not sure of the corner bed and getting up 3 times a night to go to the bathroom, but everything is a trade off.
Any class C with a poor wheel base ratio (like we have) will not handle as well as one with a better ratio. Fortunately if your new rig has a "handling" problem, $1000-$3000 in aftermarket upgrades will get you satisfied.

You should have a much better chance with a brand new E350/E450 today than I did back in 2007, to have the rig handle well without that additional investment. I read somewhere that Ford is installing some of the aftermarket "equivalent" upgrades into the RV package of their new 2021 chassis with 7.3L-V8 engine. They got with the program installing heavy duty front and rear stabilizer bars. You might still have to invest in a rear trac bar or heavy duty steering stabilizer, but you are at a much better starting point. You might even find your new rig to handle just fine without further investment.
. Hi Ron, I must be missing something if you do the math a 24ft MH with a 158 in WB will have a WB/L ratio of .54 or 54% which is suppose to be good. So I don’t think poor handling of these shot MH’s is do to poor WB/L ratio. That is why I thought there must be something else causing poor handling like height to length or weight distribution or too much weight for the Ford chassis.
Our rig is surely "tail heavy" which takes weight off the front axle, thanks in-part to the wheel base.

Some time since, our specific rig became available on a Sprinter with a 170" wheel base. The Sprinter handled our model rig much better because of the longer wheel base that also distributed the weight better....more weight placed on the front axle.
Ron, your 2350's floor plan is very similar to that of our 24 ft. 2005 Itasca 24V on it's 158" WB Ford chassis.

However, I have never experienced the handling issues you had that you attribute to maybe not enough coach weight forward onto the front suspension of your chassis.

From a weight distribution perspective ... where is your motorhome's generator and propane tank located?

My Onan 4000 and 18 gallon propane tank are centered under our dinette. Those two relatively heavy items towards the front help to load the front suspension.

Also, my spare tire is not way at the back above the bumper like yours is. My spare is down low between the frame members and slightly further forward right up against the gas tank. The spare is fairly heavy, so maybe having it mounted both down low and slightly further forward help with front loading and tail wagging a bit.

These are just me thinking out loud on what could be going on. :h
Here is the distribution of our weight. Our front axle weighs 3160 (rig empty), and 3260 (rig full during a trip including people in the front seats), obviously the teeter-totter effect is in play here. Note that we don't have a slide-out and we always carry a full load of fresh water.

A major difference between your rig and my rig is that though the same generation of chassis, you are on a 2005 E450, I am on a 2007 E350. Up to and including model year 2007, the E350 cutaway chassis was not equipped with any kind of rear stabilizer bar. Starting 2008, Ford installed them on every E350 cutaway.

I have all the aftermarket heavy duty suspension upgrades and extras for improved handling, but they obviously don't influence weight distribution. My front axle weight is light enough that it allowed me to swap out the front coil springs to a lower-rating (Rock Auto, Moog Springs, $100/pair). The result was a lowered front end by 1-1/4 inches that leveled the rig. Needless to say, both we and our house are happier with the softer ride up front.

BFL13
Explorer II
Explorer II
I checked mine for that 32% idea. I thought to use when the truck or MH is at GVWR and also at RGAWR so the front is as light as it is allowed to be, what do you get?

1991 Ford MH - 30%, 2003 Chev truck--34%

I did it with actual scaled weights for the MH when we are over the rear rating and GVWR and got 29%.

Actual Chev truck with camper, truck just under GVWR and under axle ratings-40%

Actual Chev truck with 5er we had (under all ratings) - 41%

Handling the MH does feel different where there seems to be more "play" in steering than in the truck or cars. It goes straight hands off, but the steering seems "loose" or however to describe it. Just have to get used to it. Can't say I like it that way.

If course the MH is a dually and the truck not, so the idea of having 1/3 up front and six tires does not work with the truck and four tires. the weights are unequal front and back but so are the psi on the LT tires so it all comes out ok for tire weightings.
1. 1991 Oakland 28DB Class C
on Ford E350-460-7.5 Gas EFI
Photo in Profile
2. 1991 Bighorn 9.5ft Truck Camper on 2003 Chev 2500HD 6.0 Gas
See Profile for Electronic set-ups for 1. and 2.