Class B vs B+ General Discussion

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Haven’t looked underneath one, but are you sure it doesn’t have the original full van floor pan?

What about the Xplorer vans? They are also all-fiberglass behind the cab, but seem to be considered Class Bs. How did they start life?

Good question. I have a '00 200 on a '00 chassis. Behind the rear axle for sure is not from GM, molded fiberglass that also forms up the side box floor.

Starting from up front near the tranny(the lower firewall) it is GM sheet metal but am not aware of how far back. Obviously the drop pan for the shower area and the area around the entry are fiberglass from RT.

Next time I get under it to do a service I'll have to check it out, probably not until late April. My curiosity has been raised.

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by SteveJ

Good question. I have a '00 200 on a '00 chassis. Behind the rear axle for sure is not from GM, molded fiberglass that also forms up the side box floor.

Starting from up front near the tranny(the lower firewall) it is GM sheet metal but am not aware of how far back. Obviously the drop pan for the shower area and the area around the entry are fiberglass from RT.

Next time I get under it to do a service I'll have to check it out, probably not until late April. My curiosity has been raised.

In my Chevy Popular 190 the shower pan sits on top of the metal floor pan. The raised rear section is plywood on top of the original van floor.. I assumed the wide-body B’s were the same. Of course there would be some fiberglass around the sides where the coach is wider than the original van.

I am still curious if any of the upper van body was preserved in the Popular 210s. Seems like the fiberglass alone would not provide enough support for the factory cargo doors. The older 200s are different, since they have no rear door, and the side door is fiberglass from Roadtrek.

Seems like one of my other questions is being answered. With the newer unibody vans they’re more clearly either one or the other: Class B with the original full metal body or a small Class C built on a cutaway. No more wide-body Bs that look like small Cs.

[markopolo]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Haven’t looked underneath one, but are you sure it doesn’t have the original full van floor pan?

What about the Xplorer vans? They are also all-fiberglass behind the cab, but seem to be considered Class Bs. How did they start life?

No need to look underneath. Roadtrek actually described the 200 as being on the Chevrolet Van Cab & Chassis in the brochure.

Additionally, it had the cutaway model 139" wheelbase whereas the extended 3500 Chevy van of the same model year had a 155" wheelbase.

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by markopolo

No need to look underneath. Roadtrek actually described the 200 as being on the Chevrolet Van Cab & Chassis in the brochure.

Additionally, it had the cutaway model 139" wheelbase whereas the extended 3500 Chevy van of the same model year had a 155" wheelbase.

Okay. I didn’t realize any 200s were built on the Chevy chassis. Then I assume the Dodges were also built on the cab chassis? So only the Chevy 210s were built on a full van body?

What about the wide-body Pleasure Ways built on Ford vans? Are they technically Class Bs or Cs?

Thanks for humoring a newbie... just trying to understand.

Personally if I wanted a wide-body, I’d rather have a small molded fiberglass bodied C anyway, something like the Chinook.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Okay. I didn’t realize any 200s were built on the Chevy chassis. Then I assume the Dodges were also built on the cab chassis? So only the Chevy 210s were built on a full van body?

What about the wide-body Pleasure Ways built on Ford vans? Are they technically Class Bs or Cs?

Thanks for humoring a newbie... just trying to understand.

Personally if I wanted a wide-body, I’d rather have a small molded fiberglass bodied C anyway, something like the Chinook.

All Roadtreks except the 200s were made of full metal van models. The last generation 210 cutaway every thing behind driver door and side entrance door all the way to floor level. The rear doors were cutoff with their framing, and then a frame extension was added and the complete reardoors welded back in. The sides a top were fiberglass with steel reinforcing hoop in the roof. All the Dodges were full body vans to start as were the older generation 210s that weren't wide body.

[markopolo]

There were photos of Pleasure Way's wide body process here: https://www.classbforum.com/forums/f...-here-637.html

Unfortunately, the images are lost but the text is still informative.

Edit: I found a few photos


fibreglass_3.jpg

paint_2.jpg

welding_1.jpg

welding_2.jpg

welding_3.jpg

[Jon in AZ]

Very helpful, Booster and Markopolo. Thank you for the tutorial.

So Pleasure Way cut off the entire van body down to the frame just to have the doors... And Roadtrek leaves only the floor pan in place... That begs several more questions, but I think I’ve asked my quota already.

I can see why some Class B purists might want to put these heavily modified, hybrid units into a separate bin. And why they would resent that bin being coopted by small Class Cs self-identifying as Class Bs.

Oh well... if it works for you and you're having fun, I guess it doesn't really matter what you call it.

[markopolo]

That's a Pleasure Way Excel. It's a Class B. They cut just about all of the van body off. Only the side door was was left in place. Cutaway's don't have side doors.



The van rear doors were removed and then added back on once the new body frame was in place.


It's a lot of work.

[roadytreker]

I have always thought of class B as being able to park in a regular parking space. The B+ units I have looked at are too long for a regular parking space. The B+ units are really nice and have more room even with slideouts, but you cannot get them into a regular parking space without hanging over into the next space. Finding a parking space is huge when visiting downtown areas with limited parking.

[Jon in AZ]

That was once true, but vans, like many things in the modern world- pickups, houses, and waistlines, to name a few- are growing ever larger. The first Econoline would be considered a minivan by today’s standards.

On the other hand, that huge LWB, high-roof Sprinter, Transit, or Promaster gets better fuel economy than an old V8 E350 ever dreamed of, and drives better to boot, so it’s not all bad.

It is still possible to outfit a SWB, low-roof van with a pop-top and have a Class B that can park anywhere, including a garage or urban parking structure if that suits your needs. You can even buy a Metris minivan outfitted much like the VW Westfalias of old, as well as conversions based on the new class of commercial small vans like the Transit Connect. Class B’s encompass a wider range than ever, but they’re all Class B’s

Except the one with slide-outs...

I guess I am a purist after all. Or at least I like tidy classifications. The only units that I might consider in a B+ sub-class are the wide-body units. They are true Class B’s because they started out as vans, but they earn the plus because they extend outside the original van footprint. I doubt we’re going to see any more built that way, so it’s a moot discussion.

Compact units built off a van cab-chassis are Class C’s no matter how small. I know calling them C-minus would never fly;; sounds like the grade the teachers gave you because they felt sorry for you. Micro-C’s? They have super-C’s on the other end, so it makes for a tidy symmetry, and “micro” adds a touch of marketing hyperbole. Or does it conjure overweight, underpowered Toyota mohos? Any other ideas to satisfy the marketers and the classification purists?

[bbezub]

I have a Rialta - so I guess a B+ - but I am wondering what would make the discussion so different between a B owner and a B+ owner. What issues would be pertinent to only one and not the other?

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by bbezub

I have a Rialta - so I guess a B+ - but I am wondering what would make the discussion so different between a B owner and a B+ owner. What issues would be pertinent to only one and not the other?

Welcome to the forum bbezub!

Because RIVA doesn't recognize the B+ as a legit category of motorhomes, some will correctly argue that it is in actuallity a "C". While this is true, I instantly understand that when people call something a B+, it is without a traditional Cab-over bed and systems are not that different my "b'".

[markopolo]

Originally Posted by bbezub

I have a Rialta - so I guess a B+ - but I am wondering what would make the discussion so different between a B owner and a B+ owner. What issues would be pertinent to only one and not the other?

I've had two Class B's and one B+ now and agree with Rowie that here are many similarities.

As for issues pertinent to only one and not the other I'll try to list a few:

1. width - the unit I had was 21' long but 8' wide so there were less parking options. It wouldn't fit in my garage for example. I didn't use the B+ unit as a vehicle for errands.

2. height - often B+ would be taller
3. length - being longer results in less parking options. Some units have very long rear overhangs so there's considerable tail swing to allow for.

4. MPG - wider, taller, longer & heavier = lower MPG
5. repairs - patching rubber roof covering problems & difficulty sourcing taillight assemblies etc. are things associated with Class C's. Some small C's or B+ units have a fiberglass roof.

Hydraulic levelers, slideouts, electric steps, Onan 4000's etc. would all be more associated with Class C's than Class B's.

I'd have to say that parking would be the biggest difference. It really depends on how much you hope to use the vehicle for other than just RVing.

[Bertiboo]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

This has been an interesting thread for a newcomer to Class Bs. While I get the basic distinction between B and C (full cargo van versus cutaway chassis), I’m still trying to understand how some of the so-called B+ units are built. I get that some are just small Class Cs built on a cutaway chassis. I’m more interested in those that start as a full van but end up looking like a small Class C, with only the cab visible.

I know the Roadtrek Popular 210 is a true Class B+ because it started out as a full cargo van, and it visibly preserves the side and rear van doors. How much of the rest of the van is left and what do they cut out? I’m thinking it must preserve structural beams around the upper edges to support the doors, no? Anybody have a picture of what it looks like after they cut it up and before they add the fiberglass rear shell?

Are there other true Class B+ units that remove more of the superstructure? Are there some that leave only the cab and floor pan? How does a cutaway chassis work with new unibody vans? How do you really know, since to the eye there’s no trace of the original van body? How much of a full cargo van is it practical to remove in the making of a B+?

Hi Jon,
Based on the definition of B+ being a shorter and more convenient name for a Low-profile-Class-C-without-an-over-the-cab-bed (LPCCWAOTCB?!) your Roadtrek started life out of the chassis factory (Chev, Ford, Dodge, MB, etc.) as a van, not a cutaway. So it is a Class B rather than a B+. I think maybe this misunderstanding is why there are so many B posts in this B+ section of the forum. If you look at the top of the forum page at the navigation path and click on the Class B home page, you’ll see the separate sections for B and B+.

Here’s how the forum themselves (not me) defines this forum section:

“B+ General Discussion (3 Viewing)
B+ describes small Class C's and extended Class B motorhomes and are usually 30 ft or less in length. B Plus RV's don't have the sleeping space over the cab that a Class C typically has but instead offer extra storage, better aerodynamics and fuel mileage.“

While this definition doesn’t specifically include only true factory cutaways (class C), it could include aftermarket heavily cutdown vans, but it does not seem to include full van bodied units, with roof caps or other extrusions as those are the original definition of Class B.

For Rialta owners you’ll see there’s a separate section under the B+ heading for you. (But I also strongly recommend the Rialtatech groups.io forum)

Regards
Gary

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by Bertiboo

Hi Jon,
Based on the definition of B+ being a shorter and more convenient name for a Low-profile-Class-C-without-an-over-the-cab-bed (LPCCWAOTCB?!) your Roadtrek started life out of the chassis factory (Chev, Ford, Dodge, MB, etc.) as a van, not a cutaway. So it is a Class B rather than a B+. I think maybe this misunderstanding is why there are so many B posts in this B+ section of the forum. If you look at the top of the forum page at the navigation path and click on the Class B home page, you’ll see the separate sections for B and B+.

Here’s how the forum themselves (not me) defines this forum section:

“B+ General Discussion (3 Viewing)
B+ describes small Class C's and extended Class B motorhomes and are usually 30 ft or less in length. B Plus RV's don't have the sleeping space over the cab that a Class C typically has but instead offer extra storage, better aerodynamics and fuel mileage.“

While this definition doesn’t specifically include only true factory cutaways (class C), it could include aftermarket heavily cutdown vans, but it does not seem to include full van bodied units, with roof caps or other extrusions as those are the original definition of Class B.

For Rialta owners you’ll see there’s a separate section under the B+ heading for you. (But I also strongly recommend the Rialtatech groups.io forum)

Regards
Gary

Yes, I'm just figuring all that out. From what I can see the owners of "extended B's" prefer to be identified with the B's rather than the B+ category, which seems to be mostly inhabited by the LPCCWAOTCB's.

Of course B+ owners are welcome here by the forum's stated compass, even though the label is troublesome from a taxonomic standpoint. I rarely notice when I read a post what category it's in, so I hadn't even noticed what was being posted in the B+ section.

Before the Roadtrek, my mother had a 26'(?) Class C on a Ford E450 cutaway chassis with a slideout, but no overhead bunk. I don't think even the salesperson called that one a B+. I'm grateful she downsized before exiting the RV lifestyle. I have no desire for anything that large. For myself, in addition to size, I decided a long time ago I will never again own any RV with panel construction. All-molded fiberglass, or an all-metal van body. I got my fill of leaking seams with a Toyota Itasca mini-C I had for a short but unhappy time.

[Bud]

I may have missed it. What is an extended class B? an example

[GeorgeRa]

They all Bs:
B+ - grew sideways
B Extended – long rear end
B European – with cassettes
B Advanced – expensive
B Low – No ground clearance
B Lithium – wow discussion
B S – stealthy, to B or not to B
B DIY – getting unavailable
B NP – LPG is bad

[Bud]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

They all Bs:
B+ - grew sideways
B Extended – long rear end
B European – with cassettes
B Advanced – expensive
B Low – No ground clearance
B Lithium – wow discussion
B S – stealthy, to B or not to B
B DIY – getting unavailable
B NP – LPG is bad

Sorry I left off the + should have been, what is an extended B+ that was mentioned earlier.

[Dogman]

Lots of you are talking. But the NATIONAL STANDARDS has no listing for Class B+ ("+"). Please show me where I'm wrong about this one classification B,. Here we are looking for THE OFFICIAL LAW regarding the RV Classification Standards showing a change to Class B and adding "+" keep looking you won't find it, so YES, you have to pay more for your VAN/RV TAG, TAX. "OFFICAL ONLY REPLY" Thanks!

[Davydd]

I just wrote this over the the Sprinter-Resource Forum on ARV's B-Box. It has applicable points here.

Cab Chassis are classified as Class Cs. If it looks like a duck it is a duck so to speak. Size is not a criteria, but then people can call them B+ for reasons of the size. Dealers and customers. Dealers because they can sell the dream of camper van life dating back to the hippie vans of their youth instead of big rig RVs of their parents and customers wanting to believe it. Vans are kind of like finding your youth. The young live in the likes of the DIY van or outside adventure van segment. Then everyone gets older and desires more comfort and space and maybe one-piece salmon colored trucker coveralls.

ARV could build a B-Box on a 144" WB Sprinter cab-chassis but the shortest length possible would be 20'-6" v.19'-5" for a van. Since a standard parking stall is 20' long I still desire to stay within that dimension. Other than the B-Box all so called B+'s are a 1' to 1.5' wider than vans and vans are comparable to a large pickup truck in width for comparison at your local Walmart, Target, Home Depot, super market, regional shopping center or restaurant. Surface pull in parking stalls accommodate pickup truck and van widths but not wider. A cab-chassis doors are no wider than a van in operation but the box can block adjacent cars. Standard 24' wide driving aisles can't accommodate 170" wb vans or cab chassis if pulling into a parking space between two cars. The turning radius is too large to pull in straight on. Those are things I think about or spend extra time looking for an easy parking spot. I designed or supervised the layout of probably over a thousand parking lots in my architectural career.