In-depth comparison - Ford E450 vs. Chevy - Class C Chassis

[WinnebagoDRVR]

I was in a struggle on which platform to choose; hope this helps others as well!

I figured I should find out for myself, so I went down to drive both, on the Winnebago 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.

Take it for what it's worth and make your decision from there.

Take care all.

[WinnebagoDRVR]

I was in a struggle on which platform to choose; hope this helps others as well!

I figured I should find out for myself, so I went down to drive both, on the Winnebago 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.

Take it for what it's worth and make your decision from there.

Take care all.

[ktnhog]

Thank you!

Dan

[Komvee]

You're dead on Red.

I did much the same. So much better overall with the Chevy chassis.

Can't wait to pick ours up next weekend.

[The Shadow]

What surprises me here is apparent satisfaction with the 6L Chev engine. When it comes to Class A gas discussions I've noted over the past four years that Workhorse fans constantly pump the larger 8.1 Vortec over the 6.8 Ford on the basis that cubic inches count. Do they not count here too? I doubt that I'd consider the 6L engine when it comes to hauling a lot of weight around.

Further, with a 3500 lb max towing capacity it really limits* the selection of toads. Top that off with the fact that the C Class and B+ units with the 6L Chev engine often have very limited external storage, it makes it more difficult to use the toad for storage if you are bumping right up against the 3500 lb limit and the GCWR.

Don

*it excludes several desirable toads such as the Edge/MkX/MkZ, Colorado/Canyon, Saturn Aura-Outlook-V6 Vue, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Hummer H3, Honda CRV 4x4, all Jeeps, Escape and Mariner Hybrid, Grand Vitara, Ford Explorer and Pontiac G6 that can all be towed with a 5000 lb tow rating.

[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:
What surprises me here is apparent satisfaction with the 6L Chev engine. When it comes to Class A gas discussions I've noted over the past four years that Workhorse fans constantly pump the larger 8.1 Vortec over the 6.8 Ford on the basis that cubic inches count. Do they not count here too? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Shadow, I have been told by more than one person that the 6.0L GM Vortec engine is definitely a beast hiding in a small package. Going forward with engine development we will see a smaller CID engine that will replace the 8.1 perhaps as soon as 2010 - not that far into the future.

The driving impressions that have been described by winnebagoDRVR are consistent with mine that I experienced as far back as January 2006 when a heads up ride and drive was offered to the public in Tampa at Lazy Days.

One thing that impressed me the most was the quietness of the engine and directional and steering control.


The new GM/WCC Class C chassis shown at Lazy Days. On the Left, Tom Lincoln with Workhorse Custom Chassis and Bill Blaugh from General Motors Corporation with identically preparred coaches in the background.

At the event that I am currently participating with in Goshen, IN, a dealership brought 3 new Gulfstream Class C - GM/WCC powered products. The fact that many more dealerships are bringing GM/WCC coaches to these types of event speaks to the fulfillment of the promises we heard at the introduction of the product in Louisville, KY in December 2005

[WinnebagoDRVR]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*it excludes several desirable toads such as the Edge/MkX/MkZ, Colorado/Canyon, Saturn Aura-Outlook-V6 Vue, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Hummer H3, Honda CRV 4x4, all Jeeps, Escape and Mariner Hybrid, Grand Vitara, Ford Explorer and Pontiac G6 that can all be towed with a 5000 lb tow rating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My 4x4 CRV is just shy of 3100 pounds.

Vitara is @3200 as well.

Saturn coupes are under 3500.

Don't go by GVWR, weigh them like you'll tow them; almost empty.

Most of those others are bigger than I need for a toad anyhow.

[WinnebagoDRVR]

Oh, and I'll have to disagree with "cubic inches are king".

I'll take well behaved quiet managed power over a tiny bit more delivered noisy hot and harsh.

And believe me, there is no real perceived difference between the two in the test I did.

Two weight ratings?

Ford=Optimist
Chevy=Pessimist

If you haven't driven both, and compared them like I hvae done, you can't even begin to know what I am talking about. Sorry...

[The Shadow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WinnebagoDRVR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*it excludes several desirable toads such as the Edge/MkX/MkZ, Colorado/Canyon, Saturn Aura-Outlook-V6 Vue, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Hummer H3, Honda CRV 4x4, all Jeeps, Escape and Mariner Hybrid, Grand Vitara, Ford Explorer and Pontiac G6 that can all be towed with a 5000 lb tow rating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My 4x4 CRV is just shy of 3100 pounds.

Vitara is @3200 as well.

Saturn coupes are under 3500.

Don't go by GVWR, weigh them like you'll tow them; almost empty.

Most of those others are bigger than I need for a toad anyhow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is going by GVWR? Not me. I"m going by the MANUFACTURERS' quoted curb weights.

Let me explain a bit more. GM says the curb weight for my Tahoe is 5,529 lbs. So that is with STANDARD equipment and a full tank of fuel and NOTHING else (no people or cargo). Now, I have an LTZ - it is not standard. It has 2 more seats in the back and a lot of other equipment that can really start to add up. We had a chance to put it on a scale and it weighed 5700 lbs - almost exactly what we expected (remember to add the baseplates and towing package as well).

If you take the time to check the manufacturers' stated curb weights for the vehicles I listed you will find they are all over 3500 lbs. Got to the Suzuki web site and you will find the curb weight for the Grand Vitara with AUTOMATIC transmission is 3505 lbs. If you check the Honda site you will find the all 4WD CRV's weight in at MORE than 3500 lbs as well and the 2WD units are over 3400 lbs. No doubt you are going by the weights of older models of these products.

For our Colorado (previous toad) we had to go by the scale weight as we had a Z71 4wd with automatic, a cap over the box and a bed roller - it was no where near GM's 4100 lb CW - these additions took it up to over 4500 lbs.

I'll stand by my statement even if you don't like it - and that is a 3500 lb towing capacity is not adequate and I personally wouldn't buy one with that towing capacity. If you wish to that is fine, but I sure would not.

[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:
Who is going by GVWR? Not me. I"m going by the MANUFACTURERS' quoted curb weights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Shadow, The manufacturer sets both the GVWR and the the Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) and under no circumstances should the combined rating be exceeded. The GCWR is the total GVW + The towed load (weight) combined but I'm sure you already know this.

What are the curb weights you are concerned with? Are you speaking about the GAWR? The rating systems have been designed to keep the information from the manufacturer to the RV owner simple and there are only 4 ratings that we need to be concerned with, curb weight not being one on them.

[WinnebagoDRVR]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who is going by GVWR? Not me. I"m going by the MANUFACTURERS' quoted curb weights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to go by the scales.

My 2002 CRV All wheel drive is 3247 with 1/2 tank of fuel.

[The Shadow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WinnebagoDRVR:
Oh, and I'll have to disagree with "cubic inches are king".

I'll take well behaved quiet managed power over a tiny bit more delivered noisy hot and harsh.

And believe me, there is no real perceived difference between the two in the test I did.

Two weight ratings?

Ford=Optimist
Chevy=Pessimist

If you haven't driven both, and compared them like I hvae done, you can't even begin to know what I am talking about. Sorry...[/QUOTE

Sorry, don't agree with your assessment again. By the way, just to cut off DriVer and you at the pass in case you think I'm anti Chev, this is photo of our driveway a few weeks ago:
My vehicles

[Our last few vehicles prior to these included a Caddy, Bonneville SSEi, Colorado, Montana and Silhouette.]

What DriVer and you are telling me is that a 6L engine with 300hp and 360 lbs ft of torque with a 4 speed transmission on top of it is not only adequate but really better than the 6.8V10 with 305 hp and more than 400 lbs ft of torque and a 5 speed. Am I reading your comments correctly?

Well, let me repeat, Vortec and WCC lovers have been saying exactly the OPPOSITE for years. I was NOT slamming your personal view but noting that suddenly we have a double standard. What we have is GM evangelists (and how could anyone call DriVer anything but an GM/WCC evangelist? pumping their favourite products.

I HAVE a GM with a V8 that puts out 320/340 and believe me it has a major weakness - a 4 speed transmission. [BTW - I've also had a 6.8V10 in a Class A MH with GVWR of 20,500 lbs AND a 4 speed] My son, who is an MEng in the auto mfg biz in Detroit suggested I go for the Yukon with the 6.2L engine and 6 speed instead of the Tahoe. Only problem was that combo is only available in AWD and is NOT towable.

You may have loved the test drive you had, but clearly you have different standards of what is acceptable compared with mine - and that is fine since no one can argue that either opinion is a matter of fact - they are both opinions and I don't buy yours and you don't buy mine.

This takes me back to all the dumping on Ford for its 4 speed tranny vs WCC class A chassis wiht a 5 speed Allison. Horrors, Ford was deemed very deficient. Well, believe me, the GM 4 speed in a MH is EVERY bit as deficient.

DriVer, I got a 6 speed Allison in my Jayco. Good thing, but it still has an engine that revs like a top compared to my two previous diesels - and it only gets 8 mpg when not towing the Tahoe (I hope no less but first tank was only an estimate based on fuel gauge reading and I'll have an exact figure in a few weeks based on precise fills). I haven't been following some of these forums that closely lately but I assume you've been even handed and now that diesel is so much cheaper than gas in many locations you've repented with respect to your very outspoken view of "who really needs a diesel" when diesel jumped above regular gas. Actually, I thought of you last week when I was toping up one of our cars at the Flying J in London. Converted to a US gallon and in US $$ diesel was "only" 70 cents a gallon less than regular. Everyone should have known diesel was going to be lower than regular - all they had to do was observe that I was switching from a diesel to a gasser and they would have known.

OH, over the past four years (since I started into this hobby) we've been treated to all the explanations why a big V8 is better than a smaller higher revving V10. I gather the new GM engine you are referring to just might be a higher revving V10? (what do your sources have to say on this rumor?) It will be interesting to watch the shifting positions on this one if the new GM engine is a V10. I gather Caddy has a V12 coming in a few years as well.

It might appear that I'm being a bit nasty this evening but I think if one looks back over the opinions expressed on these forums over the past four years, all of my observations are valid as I'm just pointing out what certainly appear to be significant inconsistencies.

Don

ps. DriVer, so far things are going pretty good with the Jayco. Hardly anything on the punch list now which is pretty good compared with our Ambassador and outstanding compared with our Journey. Only huge difference is getting back to a noisy gasser vs much quieter diesels (well, not really that quiet - just that the noise was was far far away .

[The Shadow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 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:
Who is going by GVWR? Not me. I"m going by the MANUFACTURERS' quoted curb weights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Shadow, The manufacturer sets the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and under no circumstances should this combined rating be exceeded. The GVWR is the total GVW + The towed load combined but I'm sure you already know this.

What are the curb weights you are concerned with? Are you speaking about the GAWR? The rating systems have been designed to keep the information from the manufacturer to the owner simple and there are only 4 ratings that we need to be concerned with, curb weight not being one on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm. Seems to me you may need a lesson in weights. First, you are using GVWR and then referring to a combined weight. That is GCWR which refers to the vehicle plus whatever you are towing - BUT the vehicle weight itself must not exceed the GVWR (which is what the brakes, susspension, tires etc are configured for). Then, the vehicle or trailer being towed should not exceed the capacity of the hitch. If towing 4 down there is no weight on the hitch but if towing a trailer the hitch weight has to be added to the vehicle weight in making sure it does not exceed the GVWR.

The manufacturers set out the curb weights in their material and they are as I described.

Curb weight defined


In the Mh biz the equivalent would be the UVW (all fluids and no cargo or people). So, what I'm saying is that the Curb Weight for so many toads exceeds the 3500 lb hitch rating before MH users use it to store and carry items (especially in some C and B+ models that have limited basement storage). Understand that I'm VERY conscious of weights. When I swapped the Colorado for the Tahoe (which towed very easily and nicely behind the Ambassador), and then a couple of months later decided to downsize since we no longer needed a monster Class A (we have a park model and MH lot side by side in FLA now) , I had to get a C Class that could tow the 5700 lb Tahoe (and MORE if we put anything in it). That narrowed our choice to the Super C group immediately.

Don

ps. You will find, just like in the MH biz, that the curb weights are rarely as low as indicated by the manufacturer unless your purchase is limited to standard equipment and absolutely nothing else.

[The Shadow]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WinnebagoDRVR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who is going by GVWR? Not me. I"m going by the MANUFACTURERS' quoted curb weights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to go by the scales.

My 2002 CRV All wheel drive is 3247 with 1/2 tank of fuel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the way, the FMCA towable list for 02 (details are provided by the manufacturers) reports 3201 for a 2wd CRV with full tank and 3347 for a 4wd with full tank (without options). If you look at the 2007 numbers you will find they (like so many others) have put on some weight over the 5 years. My comment applied to buying a new toad, not a used one that was 5 years old (although having said that, I've been contemplating getting another small used toad that I would take when we would only be using it for short trips sightseeing trips around an RV park and not to return 1400 miles from FLA at Xmas.). I wouldn't mind a used CRV but I found they have really held their values well and command pretty high prices, especially with low mileage.

Don