Sprinter vs Ford Compact Class Cs?

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Mikef4e

I am in the process of trading in our 2011 Itaska Reyo in for a Four Winds 24c a very similar floor plan. The sprinter has for the last two years been trying to put me in the poorhouse. I love how the Sprinter drives and the gas mileage is good but $10,000 in repairs in 10,000 miles is just too much. The last problem was the real killer, we had both intake shutoff valves go bad, the rv had to be towed from St.Louis to Kansas City because no dealer is St.Louis could fix it.

Your experience is exactly why we ruled out Mercedes Sprinters from the onset of our search. While issues do not happen to every owner, when issues do come up with Sprinters they are much more expensive to repair. And the number of dealers is limited compared to Ford.

Some of the early Sprinter vans reportedly also had rust problems; although I'd guess that has been addressed by now. Not that rust would affect a Reyo in same manner as a Class B or C.

[Chance]

Since this thread came back up....


On Tuesday while driving from Florida to Texas, I came up on a single-rear-wheel Cruise America rental motorhome on I-10 in Pensacola, so I figured it was just another Thor Majestic 19G.

However, it was different in that the overhead bed area was like most Class Cs, and not an aero cap like on every 19G I had seen previously. Once home I looked it up and it appears C-A does have some small motorhomes without the aero cap.

In my opinion the aero cap makes it look much more modern. This design makes the overhead bed much larger though.

[KNMIB]

Mikef4e, We have a Four Winds 23u and its been great, I hope you have as good of luck as we have. So far no major issues and works great for us. Happy trails.

[Mikef4e]

Thanks KNIMB. I am looking forward to not sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for what happens yet but I don't know what I'll do if the Four Winds has lots of problems too.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by KNMIB

Mikef4e, We have a Four Winds 23u and its been great, I hope you have as good of luck as we have. So far no major issues and works great for us. Happy trails.

That's a nice size motorhome.

I'm curious if you've ever weighed it? Specs for 2017 show it on a Ford 450 yet the Chevy is on a 12,300 GVWR chassis, which is comparable to Ford E350. And Thor has built much larger no-slide Class Cs on E350.

Using an E-450 for such a compact motorhome seems like an overkill unless the E-350 isn't available.

[Mikef4e]

Chance, Before the Sprinter I have now, I owned a 31 foot toy hauler built on the E450 frame and it seemed like we were always very close to or over max weight. I think it will be nice to have a truck thats up to the load I'm putting on it also we plan on towing a jeep behind it.

[KNMIB]

Originally Posted by Chance

That's a nice size motorhome.

I'm curious if you've ever weighed it? Specs for 2017 show it on a Ford 450 yet the Chevy is on a 12,300 GVWR chassis, which is comparable to Ford E350. And Thor has built much larger no-slide Class Cs on E350.

Using an E-450 for such a compact motorhome seems like an overkill unless the E-350 isn't available.

Never had it weighed mine is a 2012 so I don't know when they switched to 450.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by KNMIB

Never had it weighed mine is a 2012 so I don't know when they switched to 450.

According to archived brochures, the 2015s were on E-350s, and 2016s on E-450s. That's about the same time that Axis/Vegas were also revised from E-350 to E-450.

My guess is that the change may have come about because of regulations rather than to increase GVWR. These smaller motorhomes shouldn't need more than the 12,500 GVWR chassis.

Higher GVWR could come in handy, but if too high for vehicle weight may lead to harsher ride and lower fuel economy.

[KNMIB]

Originally Posted by Chance

According to archived brochures, the 2015s were on E-350s, and 2016s on E-450s. That's about the same time that Axis/Vegas were also revised from E-350 to E-450.

My guess is that the change may have come about because of regulations rather than to increase GVWR. These smaller motorhomes shouldn't need more than the 12,500 GVWR chassis.

Higher GVWR could come in handy, but if too high for vehicle weight may lead to harsher ride and lower fuel economy.

I guarantee it wasn't for the consumers benefit, it had to be some type of cost savings HaHa

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Mikef4e

Chance, Before the Sprinter I have now, I owned a 31 foot toy hauler built on the E450 frame and it seemed like we were always very close to or over max weight. I think it will be nice to have a truck thats up to the load I'm putting on it also we plan on towing a jeep behind it.

What's interesting about Sprinters is that some Class Cs of similar size and with up to 2 slides are built on a chassis rated just above 11,000 pounds. That's why a switch to a 14,500-pound chassis seems out of place (if due to weight) for a 22~23-foot Class C with no slide.

We travel very light, so if anything I would like to see manufacturers try to keep motorhome weights down even more; perhaps offering more compact floorplans on SRW Ford chassis. Europeans build many Class As and Cs well under 10,000 pounds, so it is possible.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by KNMIB

I guarantee it wasn't for the consumers benefit, it had to be some type of cost savings HaHa

The E-450 adds cost over E-350. I think the V10 may be too dirty to meet emmissions standards in E-350 weight class. I think the E-450's heavier weight class allows higher emmissions. I'm not 100% certain, but think classes change at 14,000-pounds.

I also think that's why Ford plans to use the Super Duty's gasoline V8 as an option to V10. When that happens, we may see a switch back from E-450s to E-350s on lighter motorhomes.