Ford or Chevy

[ktnhog]

I am thinking of ordering a Winnebago, an'08. I am leaning toward the Chevy/Workhorse. Although the Ford has a higher tow rating...

The Chevy platform seems to be fairly new or at least there are not as many around.

Any thoughts on the issue?

Thanks,

Dan

[ktnhog]

I am thinking of ordering a Winnebago, an'08. I am leaning toward the Chevy/Workhorse. Although the Ford has a higher tow rating...

The Chevy platform seems to be fairly new or at least there are not as many around.

Any thoughts on the issue?

Thanks,

Dan

[The Shadow]

We swap a large A for a large C today - with the Chev Kokiak and 8.1. One of the reaons we got this C was tow capacity 6500 to 8000 lbs depending on load in the MH.

I'd be very careful with the Chev you are referring to as I seem to recall it is only a six litre engine and tow capacity is only 3500 - which really restricts your toad selection. Peronally, I'd go for the Ford chassis and the V10 before that 6L Chev.

[C Driver]

Cant tell you much about the Kodiac but I can tell you the Ford V10 is really strong and we get around 9.5mpg with it

[HighwayRanger]

We bought the Ford equipped Class C strictly because of the 5K tow rating (as opposed to the Chevy's 3500 lb rating) Otherwise, the Chevy/workhorse was MUCH nicer to drive. I drove two Chevy's and three Fords, and the Chevy's were much nicer and more stable. All of the Fords wallowed in dips and the front ends felt light. Again, we compromised because we wanted to be able to pull a car, but otherwise, would have gone with the Chevy/Workhorse.

[WinnebagoDRVR]

I too had the same question: Well, I just got back from a long test.

I figured I should find out for myself, so I went down to drive both, on the 28P platform. I spent about 20 minutes driving each coach: One the Workhorse/Chevy the other an E450.

Both had full water, gray and black tanks (they fill them to test them), they let me hook up my CRV, and me, my wife, two salesmen and two kids lumbered in for the ride in each.

People weight = @970 pounds
Tank weights = @750 pounds
Fuel = @80 pounds
CRV = @3200 pounds

We were pretty much maxed on both rigs in this configuration, a little closer on the Workhorse/Chevy for GVWR as it had a few extra options.

We were heavy all right.

We headed out to the big rise on highway 52 to hit it both ways. This is a 2-3 mile long grade at 7-10% (30+ degrees I would guess) so it works a vehicle hard and gives things time to settle in. I decided to approach each side stabilized with the cruise set at 60mph (my normal cruising speed) and let the coach do the rest on it's own.

"My" Conclusions:

Speed: Both rigs held 60 just fine even on the steepest side.

Noise: Workhorse/Chevy winds hands down - Much quieter. The Ford actually sounds like it is worker harder, though I am sure it is not.

Comfort: Workhorse/Chevy winds hands down - More room, cooler. The Ford was cramped and you can definitely notice the heat off the floor and engine cover.

Handling: The Ford sucked here. I did some rapid lane changes. The Workhorse/Chevy always felt planted and in control. The Ford had a lot of sway and felt too light. Expansion joints were quite rough with the Ford. I would feel quite a bit safer in the Workhorse/Chevy.

Transmission: While the Ford has 5 speeds, the high ratio must be similar as RPM wasn't too far off. Even when they downshifted to maintain 60mph they were within 300RPM. The Workhorse/Chevy transmission shifts much much smoother.

Power: The Ford wins on acceleration, but since the Workhorse/Chevy will hold 60 loaded up that's all I really need. The Ford motor is definitely noiser especially when revving higher.

So for me, the increased towing capability of the Ford (not needed) and the increased torque (not apparant for my driving style) are far outweighed by the handling, comfort, quietness, smoothness and solid performance of the Workhorse/Chevy.

This is my personal opinion, and I feel I've done probably one of the most fair real-world evaluations you could think of.

It's the Workhorse/Chevy for me.

[Sixgunz]

Does Chevy put the 8.1 engine in a Workhorse chassis (class C)?

[The Shadow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sixgunz:
Does Chevy put the 8.1 engine in a Workhorse chassis (class C)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chevy doesn't put anything in Workhorse Chassis does it? Workhorse buys the engines and puts them in its own chassis.

In the case of our Kodiak, GM sells engine and chassis to the MH manufacturers and there is no connection to Workhorse.
Jayco Greyhawk 32SS on Kodiak

Don

[DriVer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:
Chevy doesn't put anything in Workhorse Chassis does it? Workhorse buys the engines and puts them in its own chassis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Don, I just wanted to speak as to how the GM/WCC van cutaway chassis is produced and supported.

The chassis is built in General Motors plant and uses a GM Vortec engine and 4 speed electronic transmission. GM handles all the chassis maintenance and or warranty issues with the chassis going forward. The GM 5 year 100,000 limited powertrain warranty is all the assurance one needs that this vehicle will serve its owner well into the future.

Workhorse has added value to the design effort by working with GM in bringing forward RV design implementations that eventually made the product what it is today. Workhorse continues its effort by marketing the product. As seen below the vehicle is badged Workhorse.


The WCC Vortec Fender Badge on all Class C Motorhomes of 14,050 and less GVW.

So what's the really BIG deal about the GM/WCC class C chassis? Take one for a test drive without ever moving the motorhome. The very first thing that everyone will appreciate is passenger and driver egress into the coach area from the cab and a much more flat floor in the passenger seating area.

This is directly due to the fact that the engine is pushed further forward in the chassis and speaks to year 2000+ chassis and cabin design. The completive product's floor pan and chassis remains identical to the vehicles produced in the early 90's and shows no difference than the Château Club wagon I previously owned in 93.

[FC Ontario]

I read on a web site that the new 08 Ford C chassis will have a higher GVWR and will be more room in the cab. Also the Ford comes with the 5 speed transmission which according to most motorhome owners, the more speeds the tranny has the better it is. Our Workhorse friends must acknowledge that Ford does have the advantage here. The V-10 is a great engine and will pull very well. The extra towing capacity of the Ford is very important to most people.

[DriVer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FC Ontario:
I read on a web site that the new 08 Ford C chassis will have a higher GVWR and will be more room in the cab. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hugh, You're right, Ford is still catching up and the more features they bring on line the more they emulate their competition.

There is no mistaking however that both companies compete very hard for RV buyers.

[Muncie_6spd]

Driver,

I assume by your obvious bias you are an employee of GM or Workhorse. I believe it would be helpful to the casual user on this website to know this information.

Thank you,

Mike

[DriVer]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Muncie_6spd:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mike, I see you from the home of one of the world's best standard transmissions. Gonna misss that "Rock Crusher"

I'm just a little bit away from you at the moment up in Goshen at the Fairground.

[Muncie_6spd]

Driver,

Yes, unfortunately the GM transmission plant closed last year and the Borg Warner plant will close this year. Muncie is no longer the home of manual transmissions. I once had an IH Scout with a T90 Rock Crusher, aptly named, it sounded like I was crushing rocks if it was not shifted at the proper RPM since it did not have synchronizers.
I now have a ZF 6 speed built in Louisville, KY, it's a great transmission.

Mike