Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
RV Trip Planning Discussions

Go Back   iRV2 Forums > THE OWNER'S CORNER FORUMS > Renegade Motorhome Owner's Forum
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 12-20-2020, 07:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 26
Freightliner M2 vs Cascadia

Looking for info of the Chassis comfort. I am looking to compare the M2 Verona Chassis vs the Cascadia Classic Chassis. I understand the engine and Transmission difference but how about the comfort, Cab size, noise, leg room, ride? I’m looking at a 38 to 40 foot Classic or Verona LE..
Thanks Much
Dan_W 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 12-20-2020, 07:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
dave&ginny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Peoria IL
Posts: 2,085
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_W View Post
Looking for info of the Chassis comfort. I am looking to compare the M2 Verona Chassis vs the Cascadia Classic Chassis. I understand the engine and Transmission difference but how about the comfort, Cab size, noise, leg room, ride? I’m looking at a 38 to 40 foot Classic or Verona LE..
Thanks Much
The Cascadia is an over the road truck and therefore much more comfortable to drive. The M2 is designed as a city dweller
__________________
2023 Ram 3500 H.O.
2020 DRV
2015 Entegra Aspire RBQ SOLD
dave&ginny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2020, 08:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Punta Gorda, FL
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave&ginny View Post
The Cascadia is an over the road truck and therefore much more comfortable to drive. The M2 is designed as a city dweller
All true and there is not that much more to it.
RonLC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 06:52 AM   #4
Member
 
Tobyamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_W View Post
Looking for info of the Chassis comfort. I am looking to compare the M2 Verona Chassis vs the Cascadia Classic Chassis. I understand the engine and Transmission difference but how about the comfort, Cab size, noise, leg room, ride? I’m looking at a 38 to 40 foot Classic or Verona LE..
Thanks Much
WE have test driven both, the M2 is quite a bit quieter than the Cascadia chassis, in my opinion. The Cascadia has a bit more leg room on the Passengers side than the M2.
We ended up with the Verona 36 VSB.
Hope this helps,
Good Luck,
Happy Trails
Tobyamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 10:41 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobyamp View Post
WE have test driven both, the M2 is quite a bit quieter than the Cascadia chassis, in my opinion. The Cascadia has a bit more leg room on the Passengers side than the M2.
We ended up with the Verona 36 VSB.
Hope this helps,
Good Luck,
Happy Trails
I found that to be true as well. The M2 based Verona isn’t as tall either at 12’ 8” and 12’ 10” for the Verona and Verona LE, respectively, if height matters.
Paul R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 01:56 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 54
M2 compared to Cascadia

M2 much noisier
M2 has less room (width)
Veronas with engines available in M2-106 are underpowered in mountains
M2 cab is not as tall. If you are tall, or long in the spine, cannot use air ride
feature on M2 seat unless you want to look at sun visor all day, and be ducking down and looking up to see traffic lights.
M2 floor has an annoying slant toward front of cab. Cascadia has level floor.
Did I mention M2 was noisy? (See long threads showing lengths folks have gone
to install sound insulation in floor and doors).
Newer model year Cascadia with single piece windscreen are even quieter than the older Cascadia.

Dash and steering wheel instrumentation on the M2 are antiquated. You will be hunting for a place to store cell phones, drink holders, etc. No useful glove box or storage compartments.

For many the Cascadia is a very significant jump in cost over M2.

M2 hasn't been redesigned in years, like ~15 years maybe. I've heard a redesigned and modernized version is coming soon. Cascadia is fresh, at least for its application to motorhomes.

DeetsMaggie
DeetsMaggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 02:37 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 174
Vote for Class 8

IMO, not really comparable. The OP was asking about comfort. To me, comfort is more than ride quality or leg room, it has to do with the comfort that comes with the confidence of what a Class 8 rig like the Classic can offer. You get tons more power, driving stability, no wind or passing semi issues, true 3 stage engine braking, availability of a 12-13 speed trans, tandem axles for unbelievable straight tracking, 120 to 140 gallon diesel capacity, and many custom feature the Classic offers over the Verona. I was a week away from putting down a deposit on a Verona, then on a whim, drove a classic and I was hooked. The M2 is a solid rig and depending on how you will use it, will determine what is right for you. I personably, live in the desert SW and my kids are all over the country, East Coast, Colorado, Pacific NW and I cant go anywhere without encountering steep mtn grades and I plan on more than 10,000 mile per year, so for me the Classic has been a good choice. You Certainly cant go wrong with either. Good luck.
__________________
2014 Renegade Classic, 45', Freightliner Cascadia 126
Cummins ISX15 with 13 speed Eaton auto shift
2023 Jeep Wrangler Eco-diesel toad
KFed 90-10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 05:26 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 70
I keep hearing how the M2 is underpowered compared to the Class 8 rigs. While this statement is true with many of the M2 based coaches, particularly the Newmar Super Star which is really heavy, it isn’t true with the Renegade 34VQB and 36VSB, both of which have a better power to weight ratios than many of the Class 8 coaches. I’m always surprised how the power-to-weight ratio is disregarded. Don’t get me wrong, I want a Class 8, albeit one than is LIGHT, but it isn’t accurate to say that all the M2 coaches are underpowered.
Paul R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2020, 06:04 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul R. View Post
I keep hearing how the M2 is underpowered compared to the Class 8 rigs. While this statement is true with many of the M2 based coaches, particularly the Newmar Super Star which is really heavy, it isn’t true with the Renegade 34VQB and 36VSB, both of which have a better power to weight ratios than many of the Class 8 coaches. I’m always surprised how the power-to-weight ratio is disregarded. Don’t get me wrong, I want a Class 8, albeit one than is LIGHT, but it isn’t accurate to say that all the M2 coaches are underpowered.
Paul, I couldn’t agree with you more. I’ll add torque-to-weight ratio, too, while we’re trying to quantify metrics that matter. The shorter Veronas (non-LE) have relatively low empty weights, so their L9 motors do a respectable job. But as you say, even a DD16 powered Cascadia can be overloaded. And IMO Renegade makes it really easy to spec a fat Classic, with 10Kw gensets, tile floors, etc. Before you know it, you’re in a 45’ tandem, and your power-to-weight ratio is right back to Verona-level.
Uncle_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2020, 09:51 AM   #10
Member
 
Doug Darby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 94
My best description is we have a 2019 RV chassis on a truck chassis with 1985 amenities. On the M2 chassis.
__________________
Doug and Nadine Darby
2019 Renegade Verona LE LTS
Pulling: 2017 28' Custom Vintage Race Trailer
Doug Darby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2020, 02:12 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 54
As with most all adjectives, "underpowered" is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the reason we keep hearing that the "M2 is underpowered.." is simply that for many of us it simply is. Underpowered is how we describe it. It depends on where we drive, what we tow, and what our definition of "underpowered" is.

My experience is with a Verona 36VSB and my comment with regards to "underpowered" wasn't meant to be in comparison to a Cascadia. It was meant to express that for this beholder, as I experience it, the M2 with the ISL9 and Allison 6 speed, is underpowered in the mountain west. No comparison implied, it is just underpowered. By mountain west I mean to describe terrain were one frequently encounters 4/5/6 % grades. An M2 with the longer snout, the 116 I think it is, could accommodate a plant with additional capability.

In parts of the country where one doesn't frequently encounter long steep grades, our Verona 36VSB gives us no sense or feeling of being underpowered. With or without towing anything.

I omitted in my comparison of the M2 against the Cascadia, the different Jake braking capabilities available on the two chassis. Again, because the Verona on the M2-106 from Renegade is limited to the ISL9, the engine braking available is not as good on say a Cascadia with the DD13 or DD15. This also is only an issue on long steep grades. Our Verona 36VSB, on long steep downgrades, would benefit greatly from stronger engine braking.
DeetsMaggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2020, 08:28 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeetsMaggie View Post
As with most all adjectives, "underpowered" is in the eye of the beholder.

I think the reason we keep hearing that the "M2 is underpowered.." is simply that for many of us it simply is. Underpowered is how we describe it. It depends on where we drive, what we tow, and what our definition of "underpowered" is.

My experience is with a Verona 36VSB and my comment with regards to "underpowered" wasn't meant to be in comparison to a Cascadia. It was meant to express that for this beholder, as I experience it, the M2 with the ISL9 and Allison 6 speed, is underpowered in the mountain west. No comparison implied, it is just underpowered. By mountain west I mean to describe terrain were one frequently encounters 4/5/6 % grades. An M2 with the longer snout, the 116 I think it is, could accommodate a plant with additional capability.

In parts of the country where one doesn't frequently encounter long steep grades, our Verona 36VSB gives us no sense or feeling of being underpowered. With or without towing anything.

I omitted in my comparison of the M2 against the Cascadia, the different Jake braking capabilities available on the two chassis. Again, because the Verona on the M2-106 from Renegade is limited to the ISL9, the engine braking available is not as good on say a Cascadia with the DD13 or DD15. This also is only an issue on long steep grades. Our Verona 36VSB, on long steep downgrades, would benefit greatly from stronger engine braking.
My point is that someone buying a 44,000 lb Class 8 with a DD15 will get a “more powerful” coach, but it will still be “underpowered” by your definition. In fact, it’s more “underpowered” than a 26,000 lb Verona with the L9. HP/TQ must be considered relative to weight.
Paul R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2020, 05:03 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Darby View Post
My best description is we have a 2019 RV chassis on a truck chassis with 1985 amenities. On the M2 chassis.
X2 The M2 is really ,really antiquated.
az99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2020, 01:11 PM   #14
Member
 
millsj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 62
We have a 2019 dual rear axle 39' Classic on a Freightliner Cascadia with the DD16 engine and DT 12 transmission. We have had it a little over a year and drove several Verona's prior to purchasing. The Verona feels much smaller when driving compared to the Classic, but once you get used to driving the Classic, it feels like a big SUV.

From what I remember, the Cascadia cab felt larger. I would imagine it is wider. The seats are really comfortable and there is plenty of places for storing things. The only complaint is that there is no drink holder for the passenger. Turns out a handle bar mount drink holder works great to mount on the grab bar on the A pillar.

We took our first long trip in the RV earlier this year. We live in SC and drove straight through to Denver, spent the night and drove to Moab the next day. I think you would be hard pressed to do that in any RV other than something on a class 8 chassis. You obviously have to be paying attention to what you are doing while driving, but not being blown around by other 18 wheelers or gusty winds makes driving it a dream and far less tiring. On the way home, we drove straight through from Moab to SC via Monument Valley, so not the direct route. Not possible in an RV that is mentally tiring to drive.

Passing through Denver and heading west on I70, we were easily able to pull the steep grades at 55 mph towing a car. HP is obviously important, but we also have around 2100 ft/lbs of torque. You can really feel the power when you dip into the power climbing.

More important, we were able to descent the mountains at either 45 mph or 55 mph, depending on the posted speed, without ever touching the brakes. I could just alternate between the 2nd and 3rd stage engine brake to keep the speeds in check. This was VERY comforting.

There is a big price jump to the Classic, but if you can swing it, it is worth the money. It's hard to describe unless you have spent some time with both, but the Classic feels much more substantial. I really liked the Verona, but they are different.


I forgot to mention brakes. Our Classic stops very well. I imagine it has something to do with the dual rear axles, but it may stop better than my SUV, especially when you utilize the Jake Brake. If I remember correctly, the M2 chassis has drum brakes.
millsj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
freightliner



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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freightliner M2-106 Vs Cascadia 113 frame Dan_W Renegade Motorhome Owner's Forum 16 06-21-2022 09:10 PM
Cascadia 46490 Truck Conversions 1 04-06-2019 07:38 AM
NRC :: 2017 Freightliner Cascadia RShankel iRV2 Owners Registry 0 03-08-2019 02:21 PM
Turtle :: 2019 Showhauler Freightliner Cascadia 100Akers iRV2 Owners Registry 0 12-20-2018 07:15 PM
M2 vs Cascadia chassis? johndfd Truck Conversions 6 08-02-2017 05:53 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.