No sway motorhomes

[Phil G.]

My 24ft 2005 E450 Itasca came from Winnebago with front and rear sway bars, as well as a front steering shock absorber.

Being a 24 ft. Class C and weighing only around 11,800 lbs. total, the E450 chassis was way under the GVWR for it. As such, it drove and handled like a van from the day we bought it new in 2006. I rarely drive above 60 MPH, but the times I've had it above 70 MPH there was no change in handling - it was still rock solid.

I don't understand what's going on with the Ford chassis based Class C motorhome complaiants that I read about.

[sibe]

amazing of the differences in models, on same chassis, from being white knuckle to fine or acceptable..

For the record I have been in super C on the GM chassis and it was a rocker..

I just think that the RV / house itself and its design options is the entire issue... Call it right or wrong of point a finger at the industry..

they pack 10lbs of poop into a 7lb container with the heavy stuff on the top....

[sibe]

Also, I have a POS 1996 30ft minnie RQ.. around 35k on it.. GVWR 12400... Ready to travel with me,wife,2 dogs and stuff for a long weekend,, this includes, spare 20lb propane, small grill, chairs, 10 gallon extra water, 2 cases of bottled water etc etc etc,, I scale from 11840 to 12,080... depends.. this leaves me enough for my trailer if needed.. or my carrier on back..

It did not come with a rear sway bar.. E350..
We have new toyos up frt, Michelins outback.. aired up real good.. I just added a rear helwig. it has a typical steer stabil HD unit.. KYB shocks, caster set over 5..

I can sing down the interstate until the relight then MIL comes on in limp mount for exceeding safe speeds 95+, long story and Iaint gonna do that again,, but passing rigs , there is no sway LOL

Yeah I am an arse for doing it, but traffic was crazzy, i got chatting with wife.. got in fastlane,, oh oh "poop" it shuttered and I said wow. what happened, pulled over.. called junior , master auto tech, put scan tool on that old OB1.. exceeded safe speed or some crap.. It fired right back up after i shut it off..

MY POINT is the layout of how my old POS centers and hold weight low, no slides, tanks in center section,, large compartments near front for heavy stuff, I place more stuff under dinette seats, my 4 batteries are mid located..
the back end has the genny, the bed with just bedding and clothes, the very rear i have some cords, hose, recovery straps and few hand tools, belts, etc.. not alot..


ANYway, it is like a nice old caddy going cruisin.. sure it rools abit at slow speed off camber approaches on ramps or parking lots but hell it is a house on wheels.. It is not my BMW or old dirt track modified...

[Ron Dittmer]

Hi amstier,

I wrote THIS POST ON SUSPENSION EVALUATION. Consider reading it, followed by "The Test".

There are also some things you can inspect to assure the suspension upgrades you have are effectively working.

1) Make sure the sway bar end-links are moderately snug. If there is no compression in the rubber or polymer bushings, there is likely some inherent "play", rendering the sway bar partially ineffective. They should therefore be tightened.

2) Jack up each corner of your rig, one at a time at the frame so the axle hangs. Don't jack up on the suspension itself. Then inspect the associated upper connection of the shock absorber.
CLICK HERE to see a post of mine that describes the condition to inspect for. The post has pictures to review.

[amstier]

I am starting to think this way after reading this article:
"And what about the wandering? The guy behind www.dealdata.com says:

The wheelbase-to-length ratio is the ratio of the length of the wheelbase (measured from the center of the front axle to the center of the rear axle) to the length of the motor home. We consider 54 percent as a minimum wheelbase-to-length ratio for safe highway travel. The categories for wheelbase-to-length ratio are as follows:
Excellent - 58% and above. Any wheelbase in this category should maintain a straight and steady course under most adverse driving conditions.
Good - 54%-57%.
Fatiguing - 51%-53% is considered fatiguing to drive because it will most probably not maintain a straight and steady course under normal highway driving conditions with side winds or heavy truck traffic.
Dangerous - 50% or below is considered dangerous at any speed on any road.
A Toyota Sienna minivan comes in at 58.7%. A Honda Accord sedan at 56.4%. These include bumpers. And of course the sedan is not very subject to crosswinds over the hood or trunk. A 40' Alpine diesel pusher coach that was rated excellent for driveability by a dealer comes in at 57.5%. The Winnebago Rialta (VW conversion) is over 60%. The Winnebago Class C Minnie 24D is at 55%. Even after taking off 11 inches for bumpers, the Sightseer comes in at a dismal 49%. But so do a lot of other RVs. People buy them and are apparently happy. Perhaps some of the impetus for the relatively short wheelbase is that it allows relatively tight turning circles. The 158" wheelbase of the 27' Sightseer isn't all that much longer than the 114" wheelbase of a Toyota minivan or the 106" wheelbase of an Accord. Is it "Dangerous" as the dealdata.com guys would suggest? Maybe, though it is tough to believe that the engineers at Winnebago haven't thought about this stuff."

I had a hard time finding the wheelbase listed for 27u, but the one I did find put it the low 50's. Jayco didn't list the wheelbase on their site, but I am wondering if they did that on purpose. I thought mine had a large overhang pass the rear wheels. So much that I bottom out on a slight incline.

[sibe]

The 158" wheelbase of the 27' Sightseer

interesting..

It takes digging and to bad RVs dont have specs easy to find but not many care only us goof balls.. ponder and re engineer etc etc..

I grabbed the winnebagos, since i have one and looked at 96 vs 2020,, 350/450.. etc etc..

comparing.. 190 wb vs lenght.. newer are 2-3 ft shorter body on same wb.. they carry a tad more liguids water, waste propane.. all else sizes close..
2-3 ft longer bodys have 30" more WB.. that is good.. carry just a tad more basics..
again this only a winnegabo look, and those change makes some sense being the e450 is a tad more HD, carries more weight as slides add as do the new gadgets and materials..
blah blah...

[Roy-c]

First, there is no substitute for size and weight. At 35' and 35K+ lbs weight our Wanderlodge doesn't have this issue. If you have a long overhang after the rear wheels the issue will be exaggerated and I don't believe there is anything that will completely solve the issue.
A larger, heavier RV, with tag axle will solve the problem but I realize that is not a viable solution for everyone.
You can only do the best you can as far as suspension mods and deal with it if you want to stay in your size range. There is no magic fix.

[Phil G.]

Originally Posted by amstier

I am starting to think this way after reading this article:
"And what about the wandering? The guy behind www.dealdata.com says:

The wheelbase-to-length ratio is the ratio of the length of the wheelbase (measured from the center of the front axle to the center of the rear axle) to the length of the motor home. We consider 54 percent as a minimum wheelbase-to-length ratio for safe highway travel. The categories for wheelbase-to-length ratio are as follows:
Excellent - 58% and above. Any wheelbase in this category should maintain a straight and steady course under most adverse driving conditions.
Good - 54%-57%.
Fatiguing - 51%-53% is considered fatiguing to drive because it will most probably not maintain a straight and steady course under normal highway driving conditions with side winds or heavy truck traffic.
Dangerous - 50% or below is considered dangerous at any speed on any road.
A Toyota Sienna minivan comes in at 58.7%. A Honda Accord sedan at 56.4%. These include bumpers. And of course the sedan is not very subject to crosswinds over the hood or trunk. A 40' Alpine diesel pusher coach that was rated excellent for driveability by a dealer comes in at 57.5%. The Winnebago Rialta (VW conversion) is over 60%. The Winnebago Class C Minnie 24D is at 55%. Even after taking off 11 inches for bumpers, the Sightseer comes in at a dismal 49%. But so do a lot of other RVs. People buy them and are apparently happy. Perhaps some of the impetus for the relatively short wheelbase is that it allows relatively tight turning circles. The 158" wheelbase of the 27' Sightseer isn't all that much longer than the 114" wheelbase of a Toyota minivan or the 106" wheelbase of an Accord. Is it "Dangerous" as the dealdata.com guys would suggest? Maybe, though it is tough to believe that the engineers at Winnebago haven't thought about this stuff."

I had a hard time finding the wheelbase listed for 27u, but the one I did find put it the low 50's. Jayco didn't list the wheelbase on their site, but I am wondering if they did that on purpose. I thought mine had a large overhang pass the rear wheels. So much that I bottom out on a slight incline.

I've read about the same as you say many times on the various forums - but I am not quite sure that the ratio of those two physical lengths is the most important key to good Class C handling, regardless of suspension modifications.

Intuitively it seems to me that the ratio of the weight ahead of the rear axle to that behind the rear axle is more important. It is of course good that a Class C has it's heaviest drive components (engine plus transmisson) ahead of the rear axle, but it is also the best if builders also keep heavy items such as propane tank, built-in generator, and slides ahead of the rear axle - which is not always the case.

[Steamertoo]

Try the rear sway bar, it made a difference adding one on my 25' Chevy based Class C. Was fairly easy to install and I didn't have to lift any wheels.

[Ron Dittmer]

Weight "distribution" with consideration to length and wheel base is a science project all it's own. My own evaluation of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser 2350 is illustrated here. It is built on a 2007 E350 with a 158" wheel base and an over-all length of 23'-8". A quick observation shows that when the fresh water tank is full (as we always travel so), there is a lot of weight resting behind the rear axle. The teeter-totter effect lightens the front axle which negatively effects handling.

Fortunately I was able to compensate with suspension upgrades and changes to the front coil springs installing lower-rated ones. Today the rig handles extremely well, is comfortable to drive and to ride as a passenger. I can't blame Ford or Phoenix for the challenge in getting the rig right for me. Motor homes are what they are, each with it's own character.

[bobcohomes]

Amstier:: I have a tip on steering. My issue was the "walking" or steering drift .. it seemed like I had to work hard on the steering wheel to go straight. I purchased the following. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071CLY4J2...ing=UTF8&psc=1. This made by 95 p30 drive like a car! Seriously... Many bell cranks have a flat spot in the pinion fir a pin to hold it in. The play is imperceptible but transmitted across your steering creates the walking issue. This new bell crank had tapered bearings so no flat spot....it was a crazy improvement... Hope that helps.

[pauldub]

Two other items that I don't think were mentioned, tire pressure and steering box play. Make sure your tires aren't overinflated or underinflated. Do not inflate per any information from the motor home manufacturer, weight the front and rear axles and set inflation for load in accordance with the tire manufacturers specs. It's not uncommon for the steering box to have insufficient preload. Ford put out a TSB on this and it can be adjusted to reduce play in the steering box. My '03 had a loose steering box and several of the rod ends in the steering linkage were not tight. After addressing these issues, my motor home drives acceptably. It will never drive like a car.

[pauldub]

https://www.brakeandfrontend.com/for...e-series-vans/

[cornwall]

Just replaced our MB Sprinter for a super C on an International chassis. The handling is very bad. After installing and considering all sorts of 'fixes', we've decided to bite the bullet and install LiquidSprings. Fingers crossed!