RV Consumer Group - Are their ratings any good?

[JFXG]

Originally Posted by usinvestment

...If you have spent any time reading this blog and researching the Ford Chassis you would also know that all the gas class A coaches with the Ford chassis have all recommended some chassis mods... I've found the rear track bar was well worth the time and money.

All of the Gas class A owners with the Ford chassis will tell you these mods do make a difference....

Thanks for asking. Home work pays off and if you owned a gas class A with the Ford chassis I doubt you would have asked.

Thanks. I've never researched a Ford chassis because I've never been in the market for one.

I'm glad you explained. Your earlier comment was:

Originally Posted by usinvestment

...I expected a rough handling coach based on the ratings but found a much different (Pleasant) experience.

The rating you refer to from RVCG makes no reference to rough handling, but merely says that driving the coach "...could be fatiguing for most people because the vehicle could wander and be difficult to steer much of the time...".

But you do, as quoted above, point out that anyone who has experience with these Ford chassis (including yourself) finds front and rear suspension and chassis mods necessary to improve and stabilize handling.

So, to summarize your points: the RVCG rating is wrong, but most Ford chassis owners find it necessary to modify the chassis for enhanced stability and control.

Thank you.

[B Bob]

Regards the RVCG and their handling rating.

1. Their handling ratio is based on the length of the chassis vs the length of the house/box/body. It is a fact and in no way subjective that longer overhangs on either end will exert more leverage on the chassis than short over hangs. Basically the longer the lever the higher the force. Simple high school science.

2. They also add in their rating a % of rated chassis capacity to used capacity. Basically CCC %. This one is harder to apply. But I think the idea is that an RV near or over it's rated capacity has a harder time resisting the inertia from truck wash or high winds once the movement of the body is started. I agree with this, but a bit harder to understand than #1.

3. What is subjective is their cutoff points and some of the conclusions they make from those points. Like, every coach over 55% handles well, and /or every coach under 53% handles poorly. (I just wrote those % from memory so they may not be the exact %)

4. When we were out test driving motorhomes 4 years ago I paid attention to the handling ratings in the RVCG CD disks that listed maybe 5,000 coaches. It would be my impression as an amateur RV driver that the coaches with the high handling ratings from the RVCG did drive better. The coach we bought was rated 100% by the RVCG. It goes down the road like it is on rails.

What I found when researching RVs is that there is no Consumer Reports or Motor Trend for RV's. The magazines that test motorhomes like Motorhome and FMCA seem to like them all. So 4 years ago you either used the RVCG ratings or you had nothing.

And yes Gallant is very opinionated. But mostly in a good way. If anything he is a crusader for RV safety. I wholeheartedly agree with his passion here. Too many RVs are built without enough attention to safety.

Things I disagree with regards Gallant. He rated (4 years ago) Monaco and Beaver coaches way down on quality. My own personal experience is that Beavers have beautiful high quality interiors and so do many Monacos. He also did not seem to like Blue Birds. Blue Birds are likely the safest production coaches ever built. (When I say production coaches I am excluding special built ones like Prevost, Marathon, and Newell and so on). Some Blue Birds were actually roll tested as they were used as school buses.

So once again (And this is my last post on this thread) I stick up for the RVCG because of how useful it was to me 4 years ago.

[lizmn]

late to this party, sorry! We are researching 30 - 35' MH's. And, pretty universally, RVCG gives the smaller ones poor handling ratings. I'm assuming this is because of their size, a small RV will get pushed around by a big truck. And, I'm assuming this is something we will just have to learn to deal with. True?

[JohnFreyja]

Yes, I used RVCG too and they did give higher ratings based on wheelbase but many things affect the handling.

[B Bob]

Generally higher ratings on DP's with longer size. This is due to the drive axle being in front of the motor and with shorter rigs not enough chassis size to give good handling characteristics. This is just a general rule though. Some owners of shorter rigs claim good handling. The proof is in your driving the motorhome and making sure the handling is to your liking.

[dennis45]

Originally Posted by B Bob

Regards the RVCG and their handling rating.

1. Their handling ratio is based on the length of the chassis vs the length of the house/box/body. It is a fact and in no way subjective that longer overhangs on either end will exert more leverage on the chassis than short over hangs. Basically the longer the lever the higher the force. Simple high school science.

2. They also add in their rating a % of rated chassis capacity to used capacity. Basically CCC %. This one is harder to apply. But I think the idea is that an RV near or over it's rated capacity has a harder time resisting the inertia from truck wash or high winds once the movement of the body is started. I agree with this, but a bit harder to understand than #1.

3. What is subjective is their cutoff points and some of the conclusions they make from those points. Like, every coach over 55% handles well, and /or every coach under 53% handles poorly. (I just wrote those % from memory so they may not be the exact %)

4. When we were out test driving motorhomes 4 years ago I paid attention to the handling ratings in the RVCG CD disks that listed maybe 5,000 coaches. It would be my impression as an amateur RV driver that the coaches with the high handling ratings from the RVCG did drive better. The coach we bought was rated 100% by the RVCG. It goes down the road like it is on rails.

What I found when researching RVs is that there is no Consumer Reports or Motor Trend for RV's. The magazines that test motorhomes like Motorhome and FMCA seem to like them all. So 4 years ago you either used the RVCG ratings or you had nothing.

And yes Gallant is very opinionated. But mostly in a good way. If anything he is a crusader for RV safety. I wholeheartedly agree with his passion here. Too many RVs are built without enough attention to safety.

Things I disagree with regards Gallant. He rated (4 years ago) Monaco and Beaver coaches way down on quality. My own personal experience is that Beavers have beautiful high quality interiors and so do many Monacos. He also did not seem to like Blue Birds. Blue Birds are likely the safest production coaches ever built. (When I say production coaches I am excluding special built ones like Prevost, Marathon, and Newell and so on). Some Blue Birds were actually roll tested as they were used as school buses.

So once again (And this is my last post on this thread) I stick up for the RVCG because of how useful it was to me 4 years ago.

B Bob, I agree with your posts 100%. Before we bought out coach we had no idea what to look for or even how to look. I have said many times on this forum, "It was the best $150 we spent" during our search for a used coach.

[micd]

I didn't read all the replies so maybe no one will read mine but I found the RV Consumer Group material invaluable. When you are brand new the How to Select, Inspec and Buy an RV book was very helpful.

The ratings showed us several small manufacturers that we had never heard of and are not sold in our area that have good quality. We also learned what to look out for in terms of problematic construction techniques and things to consider that we would never have thought of or realized were available.

I don't think it matters what price level your buying at, if your the type to research, then it is very helpful.

To answer a question above. Our 30' RV has excellent handling and flies down the road faster than in should because it is hard to notice how fast you are going because it is so stable. I think it is partly because we have no slides which concentrate weight in one area of the frame and probably would make it more unstable.