Go Back   iRV2 Forums > MOTORHOME FORUMS > Class C Motorhome Discussions
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2013, 11:01 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
JohnBoyToo's Avatar


 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DFW, Tex-US
Posts: 4,835
Not sure if you meant to say leave spare tire behind....

maybe the jack etc... but I needed the spare tire already once !
__________________

__________________
'11 Monaco Diplomat 43DFT RR10R pushed by a '14 Jeep Wrangler JKU. History.. 5'ers: 13 Redwood 38gk, 11 MVP Destiny, Open Range TT, popups, vans, tents...
JohnBoyToo is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-12-2013, 08:54 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
The Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Southern Ontario/Palmetto FL
Posts: 1,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankdamp View Post
This story-line is why we bought a Class A on a real truck chassis (yeah, you can tell by the ride quality!). One "C" we looked at was a 31-ft on a short wheelbase E450. I didn't measure it, but it looked like almost 50% of the house was aft of the rear axle, including the fresh-water and waste tanks.

Can you name one Ford truck that uses or has used the F53 Chassis?

Our E450 based unit has over 1,000 lbs available after the three of us are aboard and it has a lot of storage space. In fact it has more useful external storage than our first MH which was a 2000 model on an F53 (Triple E Commander). GCWR of our C is 22,000 lbs and if one could swap out the receiver for a heavier unit and be assured that farme rail extensions are sold it will tow 7500 lbs which is more than most A gassers. I do wish, however, that they'd have put the more powerful V10 in it.

Our immediately previous MH was on a Kodiak chassis (a gasser not diesel) and it had much more capacity than our Itasca but the suspension was certainly far from the best. I wish I'd put airbags on it. The Itasca has airbags and the difference is very noticeable.
__________________

__________________
2011 Itasca Impulse 26QP Silver, 2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited V6 Active Drive II
The Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 09:54 PM   #17
Moderator Emeritus
 
TXiceman's Avatar


 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Texas Boomers Club
Oklahoma Boomers Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Full Time, TX Home Base
Posts: 17,150
Blog Entries: 21
I guess it can be noted that being a little bit overloaded is like being a little bit pregnant.

Ken
__________________
Amateur Radio Operator (KE5DFR)|Full-Time! - 2012 6.7L Ford Crew Cab Dually -2013 HitchHiker Champagne 38RLRSB - Travel with one Standard Schnauzer and one small Timneh African Gray Parrot
TXiceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2013, 01:13 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoyToo View Post
Not sure if you meant to say leave spare tire behind....

maybe the jack etc... but I needed the spare tire already once !
You're right. My bad.

Thanks--Carl
__________________
MrWhipple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2013, 01:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SW, Michigan
Posts: 628
Can anyone post a link to a law that shows it is illegal for a NON commercial vehicle weighing over GVWR? Everything I see is about Commercial.

Please keep in mind, I am not endorsing over weight RVs. Just would like to see where it is actually illegal.
__________________
2010 Allegro RED 36 QSA
GMC Envoy 4x4
SW Michigan to Alaska in 2015
okgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2013, 04:26 PM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Can you name one Ford truck that uses or has used the F53 Chassis?

Our E450 based unit has over 1,000 lbs available after the three of us are aboard and it has a lot of storage space. In fact it has more useful external storage than our first MH which was a 2000 model on an F53 (Triple E Commander). GCWR of our C is 22,000 lbs and if one could swap out the receiver for a heavier unit and be assured that farme rail extensions are sold it will tow 7500 lbs which is more than most A gassers. I do wish, however, that they'd have put the more powerful V10 in it.

Our immediately previous MH was on a Kodiak chassis (a gasser not diesel) and it had much more capacity than our Itasca but the suspension was certainly far from the best. I wish I'd put airbags on it. The Itasca has airbags and the difference is very noticeable.

While the Van E-series chassis are strong, the F53 is much stronger. The F53 chassis is closer to the strength of the F650/750 frame. Has a much larger rear axle. The E vans have a larger axle being a Dana 70. The F350 dually uses a Dana 80. Front suspension on the E-van is good but it not as nearly durable as a F53/F650/750 front beam with leaf springs. However I think the E-van suspension is a softer ride. Engine and transmissions are pretty much the same between the two however the F53, F450-F650 can get the V10 with the 3v heads. The 2V motor in yours is still very very good and reliable. Used in earlier F53's. The E-Van chassis does have a max GVWR of 14500 though. The F53, up to 26K with GCVR of 30K and they use Dana/spicer 110 and 130 rear axles.
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2013, 07:55 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Davinger's Avatar
 
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cocoa Beach Fl.
Posts: 257
Send a message via Yahoo to Davinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrxx951 View Post
While the Van E-series chassis are strong, the F53 is much stronger. The F53 chassis is closer to the strength of the F650/750 frame. Has a much larger rear axle. The E vans have a larger axle being a Dana 70. The F350 dually uses a Dana 80. Front suspension on the E-van is good but it not as nearly durable as a F53/F650/750 front beam with leaf springs. However I think the E-van suspension is a softer ride. Engine and transmissions are pretty much the same between the two however the F53, F450-F650 can get the V10 with the 3v heads. The 2V motor in yours is still very very good and reliable. Used in earlier F53's. The E-Van chassis does have a max GVWR of 14500 though. The F53, up to 26K with GCVR of 30K and they use Dana/spicer 110 and 130 rear axles.
I agree that the F series chassis is far more capable than the E series but unfortunately there are very few makers that use the F series chassis and the only one I ever saw cost about the same as a large Class A.
__________________
Davinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2013, 08:04 AM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 84
If you do run overloaded, and have an accident, in this day and time of attorneys, you would be hard pressed to explain why you were overloaded. Also, nothing ever dies on the Internet. I would not do it. Nothing is worth the lives of your children.
__________________
Steve & Trudy
Swamplands of Louisiana
Laissez les bons temps rouler!!!!
Swamp Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2013, 12:00 PM   #23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davinger View Post
I agree that the F series chassis is far more capable than the E series but unfortunately there are very few makers that use the F series chassis and the only one I ever saw cost about the same as a large Class A.

Technically the F53 chassis is a F series chassis. They not only use F53 chassis in motorhomes but the F59 chassis is in a lot of delivery bodies like Fed Ex and some UPS trucks. However im sure your talking about F550 chassis and smaller and your 100% correct. I to have seen very few motorhomes attached to a F450/550 chassis. However the F series chassis do share many common parts depending on load range.
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2013, 10:04 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA (Stick & Brick)
Posts: 2,623
It was my understanding that the 22,000 lb rated F53 is used on a lot of delivery trucks, such as those used by furniture stores, truck rental agencies, etc. I joke that the only differences between our MH and the Ashley Furniture delivery trucks is that our furniture is bolted down, and we have a kitchen, toilet and shower.
__________________
Frank Damp -Anacortes, WA,(DW- Eileen)
ex-pat Brits (1968) and ex-RVers.
frankdamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2013, 06:56 AM   #25
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankdamp View Post
It was my understanding that the 22,000 lb rated F53 is used on a lot of delivery trucks, such as those used by furniture stores, truck rental agencies, etc. I joke that the only differences between our MH and the Ashley Furniture delivery trucks is that our furniture is bolted down, and we have a kitchen, toilet and shower.

They may use the F53 chassis but I would think they would use the F59 chassis instead. Or possibly the E Commercial chassis.

2014 Ford Stripped Chassis Commercial Trucks | Stripped Chassis Super Duty, E-350, E-450, F-53 & F-59 Commercial Trucks | Ford.com
__________________
jamesrxx951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2013, 07:17 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
mikebreeze's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Solo Rvers Club
Mid Atlantic Campers
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWhipple View Post
...--if you have a Class C, remove the over-cab cushions in you can
--if you don't have leveling jacks, use plastic blocks, not lengths of lumber
--if it's just the two of you and you have a sofa and dinette, consider leaving one side of the dinette cushions at home
I agree with most of your suggestions. However, I don't think that removing foam cushions will reduce your weight by that great an amount. In fact, the insulation effect of these items will probably outweigh the weight factor.
__________________
2006 Four Winds Majestic 23A
mikebreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2013, 08:57 AM   #27
Moderator Emeritus
 
TXiceman's Avatar


 
Vintage RV Owners Club
Texas Boomers Club
Oklahoma Boomers Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Full Time, TX Home Base
Posts: 17,150
Blog Entries: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgc View Post
Can anyone post a link to a law that shows it is illegal for a NON commercial vehicle weighing over GVWR? Everything I see is about Commercial.

Please keep in mind, I am not endorsing over weight RVs. Just would like to see where it is actually illegal.

The laws of physics will prevail. While not illegal, it is not smart.

Ken
__________________
Amateur Radio Operator (KE5DFR)|Full-Time! - 2012 6.7L Ford Crew Cab Dually -2013 HitchHiker Champagne 38RLRSB - Travel with one Standard Schnauzer and one small Timneh African Gray Parrot
TXiceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2013, 12:04 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
SeeTheUSA's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXiceman View Post
The laws of physics will prevail. While not illegal, it is not smart.

Ken
I agree, Ken . . . worrying about "safe" is more important than worrying about "legal." This same sort of discussion comes up about supplemental brakes on toads. I've always wanted as much braking as possible, regardless of whatever state I'm in and their applicable laws! Running overweight or without toad brakes seems counter-intuitive.
__________________

__________________
Warren and Debbie, Deep in The Heart of Texas, 2018 Winnebago View 24D
2014 Tiffin Breeze 32BR, 2012 Winnebago Navion 24G, 2006 Winnebago View 23H
SeeTheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
weight



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.