E-Series vs Transit vs Sprinter

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

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 — 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 doesn’t look great for light-duty Diesel engines.

[Bob Denman]

Time will tell the tale...

[Pete'sMH]

I’m glad there’s different strokes for different folks. I personally rather like the old school truck-like nature of the E series and F53. It’s effective and endearing - although I’d not want one for my daily driver. I’ve had two Mercedes vehicles and I’ll not be owning another. Just too complex, maintenance intensive and expensive. But like I say, different strokes for different folks,

[Rick T]

Originally Posted by RonB

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.

[Muggs]

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.

[Lt Keefer]

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.

[Bob Denman]

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?

[RonB]

Not big on Ford products. Mercedes Sprinter works for me.

[Bob Denman]

I liked a lot about the 450; but I did find two things that bugged me:
The cramped cockpit
The poor fuel economy.

[RonB]

What ever makes you a Happy Camper.

[Chance]

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 that’s by regulation or lack of demand I have no idea. Would be good to know if there’s 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.

[Bob Denman]

The 450 allows the manufacturers to build a wider... whatever you want to call it!
B, B+ C..

[Chance]

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 — 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 I’m 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.

It’s unfortunate Thor doesn’t build longer versions of the 19G on E-Series chassis.

[Bob Denman]

But if they made it bigger: they'd need the 450 chassis...
The 19G was just about the perfect size for the 350 chassis.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

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. You’re 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.

There’s a difference that has NOTHING to do with E-450.

There are manufacturers building 28’ Class Cs on 12,500-pound E-350 chassis, so there’s room to the (weight) downside without going all the way to a 19 footer just to keep weight down low enough. It’s not rocket science as long as an effort is made to keep weight down.

[Bob Denman]

So when you build a 28 footer on a 350: how much carrying capacity do you give up?

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

So when you build a 28 footer on a 350: how much carrying capacity do you give up?

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

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

E-450 — 14,500 pound GVWR — 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.

[Bob Denman]

A half-ton is fairly significant...

[Pete'sMH]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

A half-ton is fairly significant...

That’s what I thought too since we all tend to run toward the limit anyway.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Pete'sMH

That’s 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? There’s 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 that’s going to be built. A typical Sprinter only 25 feet long shouldn’t be compared to a 33-foot-long Class C on an E-450.

What’s 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 it’s at very low end of size and GVWR, but couldn’t 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.

I’m 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.