RV News RVBusiness 2021 Top 10 RVs of the Year, plus 56 additional debuts and must-see units → ×
 

Go Back   Thor Forums > Thor Motorcoach & Motorhome > Thor Motorhome General Discussions
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2020, 10:55 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Denman View Post
I like that little oil burner.
But I think it could be love; with about 100 extra hp, and the same extra dose of torque.

Agree ó objective data shows Sprinter is comparably low on power.

Sprinter Turbo Diesel
188 HP and 325 lb-ft

Transit EcoBoost (turbo)
310 HP and 400 lb-ft

E-Series V8 (naturally aspirated)
350 HP and 468 lb-ft

Main advantage I can personally see to owning a diesel is added fuel economy, and for a motorhome that is driven 5,000 miles per year, getting 15 versus 10 MPG (diesel versus gas) only represents about 170 gallons of fuel annually. With added diesel-engine-related costs in other areas, savings would be a few hundred dollars a year at most.

I like Mercedes quality, but their diesel is hard for me to justify unless I was going to drive at least 20,000 miles per year. Besides, a single repair can wipe out years of fuel savings.

Mercedes already introduced a small turbo gas engine for smaller Sprinters, and it would not surprise me if they add a larger turbo gas engine for motorhomes and heavier vans. In my opinion the future doesnít look great for light-duty Diesel engines.
__________________

__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2020, 11:32 PM   #22
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
Time will tell the tale...
__________________

__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2020, 11:40 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Newmar Bay Star Sport 300
State: Alabama
Posts: 2,751
THOR #6826
Iím glad thereís different strokes for different folks. I personally rather like the old school truck-like nature of the E series and F53. Itís effective and endearing - although Iíd not want one for my daily driver. Iíve had two Mercedes vehicles and Iíll not be owning another. Just too complex, maintenance intensive and expensive. But like I say, different strokes for different folks,
__________________
Pete'sMH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 01:14 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Brand: Thor Motor Coach
State: Ontario
Posts: 1
THOR #21045
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonB View Post
I have a 3500 Mercedes Sprinter Citation 25 foot. Diesel. Excellent combination. Great ride and Great mileage.
We have a Mercedes Sprinter Four Winds - the main decision to go with the Mercedes was the superior room in the cockpit over the Ford and Chevy chassis. We traveled across Canada and were able to comfortably travel 500 to 600 kilometers a day.
__________________
Rick T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 01:31 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Brand: Thor Motor Coach
Model: Vegas 24.1
State: Florida
Posts: 570
THOR #5313
I just finished a 3300 mile trip in our 2016 Vegas 24.1 on the e450 chassis dragging a 5,500 lb open racecar trailer.

Ford did a great job with driveline. No issues with power or maintaining 6% grade on I-40. MPG suffered some at 8.75. Back to Florida it got 10.2 MPG.

Our choice was based on RV doing double duty as RV and tow vehicle. The space/weight requirement precluded use of sprinter based units. Even the e350 chassis would have been at max.

In the span of 2 seeks, we went to NC for vacation, returned home to load car and trailer for Memphis race, then back to NC to finish vacation.

I have no issues with the machine. It gives a great deal of flexibility. I have met a couple people with new v-8. Considerdd nice but not noticably better than v-10. Maybe little smoother and quieter. Same MPG.
__________________
Muggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 01:46 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Brand: Thor Motor Coach
Model: Hurricane 29M
State: Texas
Posts: 1,080
THOR #11781
I'd take the E series over the Transit or MB. All my previous coaches were based on the E series and they were bullet proof. Yes, they were older technology, but that tech has stood the test of time. I don't need or want an information center that tells me the time, temperature or fuel range. I don't need all those things to distract me from the task of driving. I could drive my 30 foot Fleetwood class c from sun up to sun down and not blink an eye. The coaches built on the Transits and Sprinters are nice and the cockpit is roomie but the added expense is not worth it to me.
__________________
Lt Keefer
2018 Hurricane 29M
CHF, Saf-T-Plus, SumoSprings
Lt Keefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 02:16 AM   #27
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
Having owned a Sprinter and a 450: i can appreciate the extra carrying capacity of the latter, and the extra quality of the former.
Which attribute is more important to you?
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 02:24 AM   #28
Member
 
RonB's Avatar
 
Brand: Thor Motor Coach
Model: Mercedes Citation
State: Illinois
Posts: 40
THOR #10168
Not big on Ford products. Mercedes Sprinter works for me.
__________________
RonB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 02:33 AM   #29
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
I liked a lot about the 450; but I did find two things that bugged me:
The cramped cockpit
The poor fuel economy.
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 02:40 AM   #30
Member
 
RonB's Avatar
 
Brand: Thor Motor Coach
Model: Mercedes Citation
State: Illinois
Posts: 40
THOR #10168
What ever makes you a Happy Camper.
__________________
RonB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2020, 10:49 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
A difference that seems to have evolved between E-Series, Transit, and Sprinter cutaway chassis are their type of motorhome application.

Major manufacturers, including Thor, seem to be using Transit more to build B+ motorhomes. A few manufacturers discontinued their compact Class C on Transit chassis in last year or two. Whether thatís by regulation or lack of demand I have no idea. Would be good to know if thereís a technical reason.

Similarly, since new Sprinter chassis came out, most major manufacturers are building Class C on them instead of B+. Some make a pseudo B+ an option in that over-cab bed area is used for entertainment center, but the outer shell appears the same. The front caps on these are not as aero as on traditional B+.

The old E-Series is still used for both Class B+ and C, with Cs being more common than B+. However, some B+ are fairly large at over 30 feet in length.
__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2020, 12:00 AM   #32
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
The 450 allows the manufacturers to build a wider... whatever you want to call it!
B, B+ C..
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2020, 09:14 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
Lack of rear axle width is important on Transit and Sprinter if trying to build a wider motorhome. Most of these motorhomes are limited to around 90 inches although a few manufacturers have pushed Sprinters up to about 94~96 inches ó which look goofy to me because body is much wider than rear wheels. It makes motorhome look top heavy.

Thor Class Cs on E-Series by comparison are mostly 99 inches wide. The one Thor exception Iím familiar with is the 19G Class C built on Single Rear Wheel E-350 which is listed at only 91 inches wide. The 19G is/was also lower overall and had smaller engine, so was significantly more fuel efficient. This smaller 19G is a more direct comparison with Transit and Sprinter motorhomes; although about 4 feet shorter in length.

Itís unfortunate Thor doesnít build longer versions of the 19G on E-Series chassis.
__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2020, 09:31 PM   #34
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
But if they made it bigger: they'd need the 450 chassis...
The 19G was just about the perfect size for the 350 chassis.
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2020, 10:22 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Denman View Post
But if they made it bigger: they'd need the 450 chassis...
The 19G was just about the perfect size for the 350 chassis.

No. Youíre missing the point completely.

The E-350 SRW is rated up to 10,050 pounds GVWR.

The E-350 DRW is rated up to 12,500 pounds GVWR.

Thereís a difference that has NOTHING to do with E-450.

There are manufacturers building 28í Class Cs on 12,500-pound E-350 chassis, so thereís room to the (weight) downside without going all the way to a 19 footer just to keep weight down low enough. Itís not rocket science as long as an effort is made to keep weight down.
__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2020, 10:49 PM   #36
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
So when you build a 28 footer on a 350: how much carrying capacity do you give up?
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2020, 02:03 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Denman View Post
So when you build a 28 footer on a 350: how much carrying capacity do you give up?

Compared to what? If youíre talking about E-350 versus E-450, at their maximum GVWR with both at same 176-inch wheelbase:

E-350 ó 12,500 pound GVWR ó Payload is 7,200 pounds

E-450 ó 14,500 pound GVWR ó Payload is 8,980 pounds

From this one can see that identical motorhomes would have a maximum difference of 1,780 pounds of capacity.

However, depending on motorhome weight distribution, the real difference in payload between E-350 and E-450 mentioned above could be as little as +/- 1,000 pounds.



For reference, a SRW E-350 with 10,050 pound GVWR and 158-inch wheelbase has a maximum payload of 5,030 pounds.
__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2020, 02:14 AM   #38
I Think We're Lost!
 
Bob Denman's Avatar
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Tiffin Wayfarer 24 BW
State: New York
Posts: 16,859
THOR #8860
A half-ton is fairly significant...
__________________
Bob Denman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2020, 03:15 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
Model: Newmar Bay Star Sport 300
State: Alabama
Posts: 2,751
THOR #6826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Denman View Post
A half-ton is fairly significant...


Thatís what I thought too since we all tend to run toward the limit anyway.
__________________
Pete'sMH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2020, 05:30 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Brand: Still Looking
State: Texas
Posts: 4,747
THOR #2121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete'sMH View Post
Thatís what I thought too since we all tend to run toward the limit anyway.

If you use weight as a primary decision factor, then why would a guy like Bob trade an E-450 with 14,500 pounds GVWR for a Sprinter with only 11,030 pounds? Thereís more than chassis rating to consider.

Looking solely at GVWR makes no sense at all to me unless one also considers the size and weight of the coach thatís going to be built. A typical Sprinter only 25 feet long shouldnít be compared to a 33-foot-long Class C on an E-450.

Whatís important is how much OCCC is left after the motorhome is built.

I was trying to find data on Thor 19G Class C to use as an example since itís at very low end of size and GVWR, but couldnít find actual weight.

Next best is Coachmen Cross Trek 20XG that is 24 feet long, and built on previous Transit chassis with 10,360-pound GVWR.

GVWR is 10,360 pounds
Weight is 8,124 pounds
OCCC is 2,236 pounds

Because the unit is smaller and built light (maybe a bit too light), the cargo carrying capacity is twice as much as some Sprinter Class Cs that have OCCC in range of 1,000 pounds or even less.

Iím certain that manufacturers could build a motorhome similar to 19G but a few feet longer if they wanted provided they put motorhome on a diet.
__________________

__________________
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Thor Industries or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
×