Ford v10 engines

[booster]

We were parked by an small ACE class A the other day, so I looked it up to see the specs. It was a front engine gas, with a Ford V10. What surprised me is that the V10 in the motorhome chassis has a bunch more horsepower and torque than the one in the cutaway used for class C RVs. The ACE also had the big truck tires (19.5"?), so tire load capacity is better, especially in the front.

I was kind of surprised to see so much difference, and if we were in the market for larger, it would sure seem that being on the motorhome chassis would have a bunch of advantages.

Anybody looked at this more closely?

[stanw909]

Look up the article in motorhome magazine online. The ACE may be shorter than some class A's and they are marketing them as a little bigger than an SUV but the height is nearly 12' and the width is nearly 9'. If the class A makers want to market themselves as smaller then they should just make smaller RVs and cut out the hocus pocus.

[Davydd]

At over 28 feet long for the shortest one it is considerably bigger than a Winnebago Via Class A. I guess for Class As it is still small since I believe most start around 32 feet in length.

Stan, I don't think there are any Ford cabless chassis that can be used for Class As can be any smaller like the smaller Class As of old. The old classic streamlined GMC motorhome used to be in a couple of configurations of 23 foot and 27 foot. Back in the 70s when my parents had one I thought it was huge.

[gerrym51]

i looked at this. 25 foot Class A on e-350 chassis v10


http://axis-motorhomes.com/



the 24.1 model is the best

can be had for about 70,000

[booster]

I think the point was missed a bit. It was that the ACE, as a "small A" had some big advantages over similar class C models of similar size, and over some class A's also. Why would someone want to be on the lower capacity, and have over 10% less power, if you don't have to.

It is just over 8' wide, the axis is just under but has the smaller engine and tires.

There is no doubt in my mind that a small A could be built with the good stuff, and it would handle better and tow a toad better than any B or small A that has the small engine and tires.

[stanw909]

I believe you are correct Davydd but it seems like The ACE and Winnebago Brave are actually trying to trick people into thinking they are buying a smaller, more manuverable RV. The Brave 27 B is around 29' long. Very strange marketing but since this thread was started by one of our B class compatriots , I guess it's effective.

[booster]

Originally Posted by stanw909

I believe you are correct Davydd but it seems like The ACE and Winnebago Brave are actually trying to trick people into thinking they are buying a smaller, more manuverable RV. The Brave 27 B is around 29' long. Very strange marketing but since this thread was started by one of our B class compatriots , I guess it's effective.

Stan, I am not pushing or discounting any particular model. What I am saying is that the overgrown class C's may not be the best choice for move up (size) folks do to the mentioned downsides. In the same thought process, it is hard for some of us to visualize a 24+ foot, 10.5 foot high, dually, vehicle, as a real class B, either. As B's get bigger, and C's more stressed to get market and pushing the design limits,, there may be better solutions, and a small A may be one of the answers.

There is no doubt in my mind, that a well designed 24', 7' wide, 11' high, mini class A chassis, could easily compete in the market, if there is a market for that size. How the long Sprinter sells will tell us that. I also have no doubt that using an existing cargo van, and trying to make it the ultimate RV, is not the most efficient way to do it, especially if it is a unibody, with cut restrictions.

We really like our 20' long, 8.5' high, class B, and it easily does all the things a traditional class B was designed for. Does a 24' long, 11' high, dually do the same? Or is it just a narrower C or A model clone made out of a chopped up van? Would a narrow class C on a cutaway do the same thing, only better? Are the new big B's really what a B+ should be called? Does anyone truly believe that a 24' dually is going to fool any homeowner association or local cop into thinking it is a conversion van?

Sure the A manufactures are trying to fool folks, but so are the "B+"folks and the monster B folks, both of which can't fulfill the standard class B benefits. The market will shake itself out sooner or later, but if Europe is a good indicator, smaller, specific design RVs will begin to show up.

To each his own, I say, but what sells will stay, and what doesn't will go away.

We will see what happens.

Again the point was "why would you get marginal capacity wheels and tires, and less power, when you can get better in each category?" (if it is available)

[Davydd]

I don't know where you are getting your dimensions. There are no Sprinters Class Bs over 10 feet high. 9'-8" to 9'10" is typical depending on the air conditioner. 6'-7.5" is the width. Like I said originally, I don't think you will be able to get a Class A RV on a cab-less chassis less than 25-6" long in America (they don't exist any smaller). Also you'll never get one less than 10 foot in height but more like 11 to 12 feet and probably never less than about 8 foot wide. And they will never drive like a van no matter how much you wish or compensate in your mind. That's a bigger difference than you might imagine. There are some Class Cs on a Sprinter cab cutaway chassis that are only 22'-9" long like the Pleasure-way Pursuit so there is some viability there. The extra width that make dry baths practical and slide outs seem to make the small Cs appealing, but with the people I know, the small Cs definitely change touring habits that are the strong suit of a Class B.

What is going away? The classic van Chevys with bumped up fiber glass roofs. The equivalent Ford and Dodges are gone already. The Promaster won't quite do it but the Ford Transit will mark the end of the Chevys. Roadtrek will throw in the towel on the Chevys in less than 2 years is my prediction. Size, payload and tank capacities will relegate Promasters to niche status similar to Roadtrek Agiles and Pleasure-way Ascents compared to Transits and Sprinters for Class Bs.

[booster]

You are correct that the Chevy is going away, and the question is whether that market goes with it. Will there be no more traditionally sized class B's? All that needs to shake out.

What I am saying is that class B's get bigger, and class C's get huge, it could open up the market for class A style designs, especially with the low cost American vans going away.

In Europe, the class A's overlap the class B and C sizes, so they already exist. Hymer has one that is about 6 X 2.3 meters, which is way smaller than Sprinter van, so a small A can easily be built.

Now that the B market has gone way north of $100K and is approaching $200K, the incentive to compete may be there in the future.

I just don't see the 20' class B, and all it's benefits going away, with everyone driving duallies, and once you are 24+ft long, you could also be on a narrow A and have a more versatile floorplan with more space.

We will see.

[Davydd]

For Class As to get any smaller than 25.5 feet long x 11 feet high x 8 feet wide someone is going to have to design and sell a new chassis and that is probably not going to happen with American manufacturers anytime soon I suspect. There hasn't been much importing of European RVs that I am aware of and I suspect most converters have gotten comfortable with the small C cab chassis designs to compete with Class Bs. I still think the Ford Transit is going to be a very popular Class B and will retard anyone thinking of creating smaller Class As.

There are a lot of smaller chassis in the world out there but the RV market is not going to bring them to America. There would have to be a commercial trucking need to do so and that hasn't happened. The Euro style vans are filling that need.

[booster]

Hymer uses a AL-KO dedicated class A chassis on their units.

Axis (trailer parts) in the US is also part of AL-KO.

This means they already have a chassis, and US infrastructure, if some RV manufacturer wants to build on the smaller chassis. They would be able to supply very quickly I would think.


Now back to what the topic started as.

The "small" ACE we saw had more power in it's V10 than the van V10, and had 19.5" tires so it could have more front load capacity. The point was that this would make it a better handling, more powerful, option for someone moving up in size than something built on a cutaway.

[gerrym51]

Weight-weight-weight. the highest gvwr of the dual rear wheel transit is 10,300(or is it 10,400-to lazy to look). the sprinter is over 11,000. that 6 or 700 pound weight difference limits what things can be done on transit.

there will be Transit class b's-but the luxury high end will still be sprinters.

[Davydd]

GVWR of the 6 cyl. 3500 Sprinter is 11,030 lbs
GVWR of the Transit is 10,360 lbs.
GVWR of a Chevy RT 190 or 210 is 9,600 lbs.
GVWR of the Promaster is 9,350 lbs.
GVWR of the 5 cylinder 2500 Sprinter is 8,550 lbs.

The 21'-9" 5 cylinder Sprinter from 2002 to 2006 chassis year was a very serviceable Class B. The 22'-0" Ford Transit will be much closer to that model than to the 3500 170" WB Sprinter. The Transit will exceed the specs of that old Sprinter and the Chevys which is why I think it will be very popular. It will fulfill a nitch or possibly the sweet spot for a Class B. It is the Promaster that will have limitations from growing expectations Roadtrek is seeding in the boon docking interest of added weight in batteries and solar, and larger capacity tanks.

[booster]

GVWR doesn't really mean anything unless you know the curb weight and how it is calculated.

Cargo carrying capacity actually is useful, as long as all the brands include the same stuff in the base weight.

[Davydd]

I think if you look up the cargo carrying capacities they will be similar to the ranking of GVWR weights. The thing is filling out a cargo van with the Class B improvements will bear this out as well. A fresh water tank is a fresh water tank, a toilet is a toilet, a refrigerator is a refrigerator...on and on and they all must have them...but how much in size and capacity? If I am that far off, let's see the numbers. I was just making a point that the Ford Transit hits a sweet spot and historically a pretty good sweet spot. The Sprinter will still have the highest payload capacity and the biggest volume. The Promaster appears to be less in everything down the line including cost which will give it a competitive edge for a lot of commercial owners who don't need maximized capacities, but will limit it to a role player in Class Bs similar to a Roadtrek Agile market. They won't have the size and capacity to compete head to head with the Transit or the Sprinter. But if you don't want the biggest Class B because of that 24 foot length, which brings us almost back to the topic at hand, then the Transit is going to be appealing. This is kind of like a three bears analogy.

[markopolo]

If someone wants to get a larger "small" motorhome then it really does make sense to consider a Class A on that F53 chassis. It's robust.
http://www.ford.com/commercial-truck...r_and_Handling

Comes with Bilstein shocks as standard equipment. It's priced right in between the E350 and E450 chassis but has way more capacity.

It's not competition for Class B's but worth considering if you want something larger. For us, it seems 28' is about the smallest motorhome that really gives you a lot more comfort.

[booster]

Hadn't looked at the base chassis details before. The package and options really give the builders a good choice of capacities front and rear, so you are neither over or under sprung. You can't get that on any cutaway that I have seen. Very good base price, and no cutting required.

very interesting stuff-thanks Marko

[Mike]

Originally Posted by gerrym51

i looked at this. 25 foot Class A on e-350 chassis v10


http://axis-motorhomes.com/



the 24.1 model is the best

can be had for about 70,000

I saw the sister ship Vegas at a truck stop in Iowa about 4 weeks ago. Sweet motorhome, and the differences are mostly cosmetic between them. I agree with booster about the differences between the class A versus class C versions of the Ford chassis. I'd go big (as in, small) class A, if we were going to up size. No question.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Mike

I saw the sister ship Vegas at a truck stop in Iowa about 4 weeks ago. Sweet motorhome, and the differences are mostly cosmetic between them. I agree with booster about the differences between the class A versus class C versions of the Ford chassis. I'd go big (as in, small) class A, if we were going to up size. No question.

I know you are big on having enough power, and that was the start of this discussion. The Axis has the smaller of the Ford V10 engines, the Ace has the more powerful one, and it is a significant difference in power. I didn't even know there were two versions, and perhaps many others don't know it either. The guy with the Ace we saw said it towed and pulled much better than his previous class C with a V10, so the engine difference appears to be very noticeable.

[Mike]

The differences dont look to be that great, the HP advantage is about 15% and the torque is less than 10% better between the Ace and the Axis. Probably roughly equal to the curb weight difference. Im looking at and comparing the specs sections of their website pages, so I'll assume the numbers are accurate? Maybe not? It's all in the minutia, and my concerns about power were about hill climbing ability, and both would do an admirable job, I think. Not a show stopper at all for the shorter class A. BTW, the Ace is 3 feet longer than the Axis, but the Axis has a 10 inch advantage in wheelbase. Puzzling? Advantage Axis for ride and handling? More bus-like in their weight distribution of the body on the chasdis/frame?