Making a B+ or C Class more capable.

[86scotty]

Unfortunately you're going to find out that lifting a motorhome isn't very easy at home. They are just big heavy intimidating things, even the smaller ones. I did lift mine carefully but I didn't enjoy it at all.

 

[Photobug]

Unfortunately you're going to find out that lifting a motorhome isn't very easy at home. They are just big heavy intimidating things, even the smaller ones. I did lift mine carefully but I didn't enjoy it at all.

Thanks for the heads up. I will probably just have my shadetree guy do the heavy lifting for me when I go to do this. I can afford to have someone do this, but would rather spend the money on something else.

 

[socceronly]

Once you jump up to a 550/5500 you get into a higher cost chassis than a Ford E 450 chassis.
A reason it is still used for so many smaller RV's
I've been living in an E series base RV for a long time and am ready for a truck chassis.
I'm not a very big guy and the E series just doesn't give you very much legroom.
The doghouse sticking into the cab gives you access to the rear of the engine, but it also allows a
fair amount of engine noise into the cab.
Truck chassis's can be had with factory 4x4, better than all the aftermarket ones required for the van.

Curious about this. When I see 4x4 van conversions for sale they are almost never high mileage.

Is that because people that keep them, keep them forever and have greasy thumbs, or are the ones for sale low mileage because they are harder to maintain and you need a greasy thumb to keep them alive?

My low mileage observation may be completely anecdotal.

But for this reason I was drifting towards a truck and not a 4x4 van conversation, but I could be completely wrong.

 

[86scotty]

The common conversions (Quigley, Agile, Quadvan, etc.) are not hard to maintain at all. You see low mileage ones because these are dedicated 'vacation' rigs and very few people drive them daily, just like any other RV really.

 

[Photobug]

Curious about this. When I see 4x4 van conversions for sale they are almost never high mileage.

The one I looked at had 190k miles. I see plenty of them high mileage. It was owned by a climber/guide, he traveled all over climbing and living out of it. I think a lot of the 4x4 are used seasonal and for local get aways, less so than cross country trips. A 4x van likely has less than half the fuel economy of a daily driver.

 

[WRONG_WAY_DAVE]

Physics would like a word with you... A 2% increase in height isn't going to increase your aero drag >10%. Bigger tires do not inherently have greater rolling resistance. Only the aero drag component increases exponentially with speed. Etc.

Unfortunately, mine/yours/everyone else's fuel gauge would like a word with you. While every vehicle is different, taller (and of course wider) tires generally have a wider contact patch and raising a vehicle increases its CD (generally, of course). And while it is nice you like to point out things like this, I don't think this is a hypermile site, so I am going to assume if the owner wants bigger tires, they are NOT going to be the type that reduce rolling resistance.

 

[rruff]

Unfortunately, mine/yours/everyone else's fuel gauge would like a word with you.

My truck gets better mpgs at modest speeds with Hankook ATMs in 325/65r18 (35x13) than the 32x10 Bridgestone street tires that came on it. At 75mph the smaller tires might have a slight edge due to aero drag. It depends heavily on the specific tires you have, and it's hard to tell since tests are rare on AT tires.

A wider contact patch is actually better for rolling resistance, because it makes the contact patch shorter as well.

Aero drag should go up with a lift, but I don't see how a 2% increase in height will increase Cd by >10%. These things have poor aero to start with... it's hard to "ruin" it by a lot.

 

[WRONG_WAY_DAVE]

Again, not seen that in my experience, nor any of my friends/forum members. I have done extensive mileage recordings on my current ride (which is very aerodynamic for a fullsized SUV), and about to add a mild (1.5 inch lift), and +1 to +2 (33-34 inch) and +1 wider tires. I might pull the stubby chin spoiler as well--but it is already considered "small"). If even at only 10lbs+ heavier than stock per A/T tire, I expect my mileage to reduce 10-20% at 70-80 mph. I will report back my results, which I expect to be exactly as described.

YMMV

 

[Photobug]

Funny story about mileage. On the post I saw the guy got 13 mpg then 10 after mods. I drive a diesel truck 16mpg and Mazda3 30 mpg. If we don't need the space we take the Mazda. I am not a hypermiler but why pay twice as much for gas if you don't have to.

So I figure the other guy got 13 before mods my Class C is slightly bigger I might start off at 12 mpg, nope. First fill up 8.9 mpg. I couldn't imagine having a vehicle only getting 10 mpg, but now my base is 8.9 before I start altering it.

If is what it is, I just fuel stays where it is imagine at $4+ a gallon. The true disappointment is the range is about 300 miles between fill ups.

 

[BritKLR]

Good mind set....As you start traveling and world politics hit price a gas (as they always do...) you'll experience prices from .99 to $4.99 per gallon in the years to come. Thats been our experience the last 5 years running our Tiger from coast to coast. Without the trailer but, with the lift and bigger wheels and tires we see +/- 12-14 mpg (wet and loaded). With the trailer, 10-11 mpg.......As you said, it is what it is.

 

[rruff]

I have done extensive mileage recordings on my current ride (which is very aerodynamic for a fullsized SUV), and about to add a mild (1.5 inch lift), and +1 to +2 (33-34 inch) and +1 wider tires.

The post I was responding to was concerning a RV. The more aero and shorter your vehicle is, the more hit you will get with a lift.

If even at only 10lbs+ heavier than stock per A/T tire, I expect my mileage to reduce 10-20% at 70-80 mph. I will report back my results, which I expect to be exactly as described.

My results are that I get better mpg with tires that are 30 lbs heavier (each!) and 3" bigger in both diameter and width... but at <60 mph averages. At 75 it's about the same.

The issue is that none of these things are good proxies for determining rolling resistance (the energy absorbed by the tire). Increasing width actually reduces rolling resistance; so does increasing diameter, and reducing profile. Weight has a minor effect when accelerating (none when cruising) and to the extent that you coast to a stop, that's returned. The important factors are how much of the tire material is distorted at the contact patch and how much of that distortion is turned to heat when the material springs back (hysteresis). Certainly it is easier to make a tire with thin tread and casing have lower rolling resistance... but this is *greatly* influenced by the tire construction and compounds. Most ATs and MTs are poor in this regard, but not all. Some are atrocious. The manufacturers are focused on other aspects than mpg, most users don't seem to care either, and there is very little testing.

Rolling resistance is a bigger factor at modest speeds though. At 70-80 mph, aero will dominate.

 

[Photobug]

View attachment 633006

Nice looking rig, I see us in a Tiger someday. Looking at the bright side since I am only getting 9mpg to start a reduction of 10, 20 or even 30% means less MPG than if the starting MPG was better.

 

[WRONG_WAY_DAVE]

I will stand by my statement for any RV as well. If you want to discuss this further, PM me as I don't want this to become a private conversation on another members post.

 

[pnichols]

Good mind set....As you start traveling and world politics hit price a gas (as they always do...) you'll experience prices from .99 to $4.99 per gallon in the years to come. Thats been our experience the last 5 years running our Tiger from coast to coast. Without the trailer but, with the lift and bigger wheels and tires we see +/- 12-14 mpg (wet and loaded). With the trailer, 10-11 mpg.......As you said, it is what it is.

View attachment 633006

Yep ... the Tiger chassis mounted truck camper ("Class C"?) RV is one of my dream RVs to boondock camp with anywhere, anytime, in North America.

Since I'm probably past the dreaming stage in my life, here's our E450 24 ft. Class C we use instead:

 

[Photobug]

Since I'm probably past the dreaming stage in my life, here's our E450 24 ft. Class C we use instead:

What makes your E a 450 how is it different than my E350?