Community Forums

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 11:33 AM

OK I was just checking weights and measures on my 2021 E-350 DRW super duty chassis..

My GVWR is 12,500 lbs and the wheel base listed on door says it's 158 inch's..

However when I measure the wheelbase from center of axle's front and back it measures 170 inches.
[ checked 3 times ]

2021 E-350 specs says 158 or 176 wheelbase but mine is 170 inches ??

What is going on

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 11:58 AM

I am so baffled by this I measured it again and its 170 inch's from center of rear axle to center of front axle..

No way can I be off 14 inches from what is listed on the door spec tag by Ford.. [158 inch's]

Maybe I will remove the wheel liners to get a more accurate but center is center and the wheel liners can't be off 14 inch's..

Somebody is wrong and my tape measure dose not lie..

DonaC · 03-25-2021, 01:24 PM

On my rig, I can get underneath easily as the ride height allows me to crawl under with no jacking. So I've looked at my frame and I can see that it's extended behind the rear axle and is not cut or welded welded anywhere in front. So get a flashlight and have a look at yours, see if it looks like it has been extended anywhere.

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonaC

On my rig, I can get underneath easily as the ride height allows me to crawl under with no jacking. So I've looked at my frame and I can see that it's extended behind the rear axle and is not cut or welded welded anywhere in front. So get a flashlight and have a look at yours, see if it looks like it has been extended anywhere.

I will do this but I thought they were not aloud to extend the factory Ford chassis between the axles, only add extension in the rear..

Would have been easier to just buy the 176 inch chassis instead..

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 02:43 PM

Update :

I looked under the chassis in the middle and the chassis was stretched about 12.5 inches, there is a added frame and a extra metal all wrapped around that area for extra strength, even the driveshaft behind the transmission has a label that it was modified and the name MorRyide on the driveshaft, that explains the MorRyde sticker on the passenger door jamb.

[ I have been under this RV before but never noticed this till DonaC pointed this out, Thanks ]

I knew I wasn't losing my mind..

Still don't know why they didn't just order the 176 inch chassis and made it worked..

https://www.morryde.com/

CHASSIS
Our business rides on service, and in the MORryde chassis division, it starts with delivering a solid vehicle foundation. Partnering with manufacturers from five different states and a variety of industries, we’ve become a leader in chassis modifications, including wheel base alterations, chassis upfits, and component installation.

Ron Dittmer · 03-25-2021, 05:04 PM

jackreno,

It's good that you did your research and answered your own question. It is possible the outfitter started with a 176" wheel base and made it shorter to avoid the need to "add" base metal framing. Your chassis VIN will say what it started out as, information a Ford dealer could get for you.

Why the wheel base was adjusted, is likely related to the need of your specific floor plan.

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Dittmer

jackreno,

It's good that you did your research and answered your own question. It is possible the outfitter started with a 176" wheel base and made it shorter to avoid the need to "add" base metal framing. Your chassis VIN will say what it started out as, information a Ford dealer could get for you.

Why the wheel base was adjusted, is likely related to the need of your specific floor plan.

The Ford spec label on driver door jamb says 156 inch WB, so it started out shorter, I am thinking the 176 inch WB would have caused a problem with the black/gray water tank location cause of the axle further back and the floor plan as you said.

170 inch WB now.

Good news my wheelbase ratio to length is now 56.64..

Mich F · 03-25-2021, 06:27 PM

Ford makes the E 350 with a 138, 158 or 176" wheelbase.
The E 450 is made with 158 or 176" wheelbase.
Any wheelbase other than the above, are made by other companies modifying the Ford chassis.
Going by the vin number my class C with a 220" wheelbase, was built on a 158" wheelbase from Ford.

Kenny Loney · 03-25-2021, 06:56 PM

I agree with the others. My Winnebago Outlook 29b has a wheelbase of 195", but it started life as a 158" WB so a 37" extension between the wheels plus the extended rails behind the rear axle.

All modifications to the Ford chassis MUST be done to Ford specs and then only by a Ford QVM Qualified Vehicle Modifier. I believe that Ford lists, or they used to. I know that Winnebago was one, I think that to there were some chassis only, possibly for some smaller manufacturers.

Ken

Ron Dittmer · 03-25-2021, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackreno

Good news my wheelbase ratio to length is now 56.64.

My 158" wheel base (284" rig length) is 55.63% ratio. It's surely not ideal but given the the impact in applying a longer wheel base into my particular rig, I accept that one deficiency.

Trade-offs, trade-offs, it's all about trade-offs.

jackreno · 03-25-2021, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Dittmer

My 158" wheel base (284" rig length) is 55.63% ratio. It's surely not ideal but given the the impact in applying a longer wheel base into my particular rig, I accept that one deficiency.

Trade-offs, trade-offs, it's all about trade-offs.

Above 55 ratio is good from what I here.

Ron Dittmer · 03-27-2021, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackreno

Above 55 ratio is good from what I hear.

So I am "on-the-edge".

Phil G. · 03-27-2021, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Dittmer

So I am "on-the-edge".

Thinking about the physics and forces involved with regards to what "Rule-of-Thumb" to use as an estimate of the quality of Class C handling - I'd think that using the wheel base length to rig length ratio makes WAY LESS sense than using the weight-on-the-front-axle to weight-on-the-rear-axle ratio.

I may be mistaken ... but several times in the past I think you've hinted at using the front/rear weights ratio as the best overall estimate for good handling.

Ron Dittmer · 03-27-2021, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil G.

Thinking about the physics and forces involved with regards to what "Rule-of-Thumb" to use as an estimate of the quality of Class C handling - I'd think that using the wheel base length to rig length ratio makes WAY LESS sense than using the weight-on-the-front-axle to weight-on-the-rear-axle ratio.

I may be mistaken ... but several times in the past I think you've hinted at using the front/rear weights ratio as the best overall estimate for good handling.

Yes there seems to be two different schools of thought. You surely make a good point. Just maybe axle-ratio applies unless there is a serious weight-ratio imbalance like I manage with. They can work hand-in-hand in many circumstances, but not a hard fast rule.