Weighed Class C on CAT Scale

[yosh53]

Not sure if I am just commenting, or looking for comments from others experience!                                                                                                                               
    I am driving a 2019 Jayco Greyhawk FS31 Class C Motorhome. I do not see curb weight on the sticker. Door sticker has a GVWR of 14500 lbs, with Steer axle rating of 5000 lbs. max, and a rear axle rating of 9600 lbs. max.  Yesterday I weighed the vehicle on a CAT scale.  Gross weight 14000 lbs. with steer axle weight 4760 lbs, and rear axle weight 9240 lbs. I also weighed half (half way on the scale) the vehicle with the driver side weighing 6880 lbs. I will assume the other side is 7120 lbs.  The vehicle was weighted with full fuel and propane, my wife and I, and camping accessories (chairs, hoses,outdoor cook stove, some tools,etc.). There was not any water in any of the tanks when weighed. Before travel I will add 2 gallons of water to the fresh and black tanks, about 32 lbs added.  That leaves me 468 lbs remaining, and I have not added the spare tire.  THIS DOES NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH CAPACITY FOR A BIG VEHICLE WHEN YOU CONSIDER I STILL NEED TO LOAD FOOD, CLOTHES AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS!  Is my math correct?

 

[SeilerBird]

Yes your math is correct and it is one of the main reasons why I keep telling noobies not to buy a class C but to buy a class A instead. You have very little CCC (cargo carrying capacity) with a C. Basically a C is a great RV for a couple who want to camp a few weekends a year. More aggressive use will demand a much more robust RV. This is typical for every C on the market. And it is why I also never recommend buying new, especially for beginners. They almost always get it wrong the first time and end up trading it in on a larger RV after a year or two.

 

[blw2]

I'm in the same boat.  It's the big c's that are the problem I think..... over 30 ft.... or maybe it's over 28-ish ft.... that aren't on a "super C" chassis.

I think the more reasonable sized c's that aren't stretched quite so far are likely a better design in this regard.  At some point as they go smaller, they change from the E-450 to the E-350, and I suppose the problem starts over again at that size...but I've never looked at the numbers for those smaller ones.

C's are a great design for a niche market.  Families mostly, in my opinion.  Folks not in that niche don't give them a lot of love.  I think this weight thing for the larger sizes is really the one real big problem with them.  Most of the other points brought up by the "C haters" are more related to the niche personal need or style and are only a problem if it is a problem for you.

personally, my other issue with the class is that the tanks are too small, but that's mostly I think because of the weight capacity...

Unfortunately I really don't have any advice to offer to "fix" the problem.  the fact that you are aware of the issue now is very very good, though.  Keep your speed down, Keep an eye on your tires and really take care of them.  Plan on having to change them earlier than it seems like you should have to... 
Oh, two things... I had been wanting to upgrade to the larger commercial wheels and tires offered by these folks.  I had it in the back of my mind, but when my blow-out happened and I had to replace the tires, I didn't have the time to do it....not to mention they're expensive.
but recently
I learned about a commercial rated "c rated" tire the same size as OEM, except slightly higher load capacity than the load range E tires we have now.  I'll be looking closer at them in just a couple more years if we still have this RV then...

 

[AStravelers]

The 20' & 22' Class C on the E-350 and the 26' on the E-450 are better on CCC.  However the longer one on each chassis really have very little CCC. 

There are a number of Class A in this category as well.  Buyers really need to do their homework.

Usually in the brochures for a particular model they show a chart with a list of lengths (well really model number that comes close to the length) across the top.  Then down a few lines they show the GVWR for each one.  It is always interesting to see the 32', 34' and 36' on the same GVWR chassis.  You know the 32' has pretty good CCC, but the 36', no way is it going to compare to the 32'.  Then to top it off sometimes the 36' has larger fresh water and holding tanks.

 

[youracman]

Most all us 30ft+ /class C owners are in the same boat, yosh.  I have a few hundred pounds more CCC than you do, but it is still a problem to be reckoned with.  One thing many do (me included) is to carry toolboxes, bottled drinks and other "dense stuff" in the toad..... where there is CCC to burn owing to the hefty GCWR (assuming a lightweight toad.)

Brad: "I learned about a commercial rated "c rated" tire the same size as OEM, except slightly higher load capacity than the load range E tires we have now.  I'll be looking closer at them in just a couple more years if we still have this RV then..."

I am anxious to see how these c-rated tires work out too.  They may ride like the proverbial "hay wagon"; but hopefully, not.  Of course they won't  increase the GVWR an ounce, but for me those itty bitty 16" tires are my biggest worry.  Yeah..... I have blown one (it was a non-event, but who knows about next time?

Safe travels.............

 

[kdbgoat]

Be careful when looking at some Class A's too. I saw a new Bounder a couple of years ago with a CCC of 1300#.

 

[Back2PA]

Motorhome magazine had a glowing review a couple years ago of a new Class C, mentioning at length the amount of storage it had. As a side note they mentioned it was overweight as it left the factory, i.e., negative CCC. I guess you could store feathers. (Or maybe Tribbles  )

 

[blw2]

Most all us 30ft+ /class C owners are in the same boat, yosh.  I have a few hundred pounds more CCC than you do, but it is still a problem to be reckoned with.  One thing many do (me included) is to carry toolboxes, bottled drinks and other "dense stuff" in the toad..... where there is CCC to burn owing to the hefty GCWR (assuming a lightweight toad.)

Brad: "I learned about a commercial rated "c rated" tire the same size as OEM, except slightly higher load capacity than the load range E tires we have now.  I'll be looking closer at them in just a couple more years if we still have this RV then..."

I am anxious to see how these c-rated tires work out too.  They may ride like the proverbial "hay wagon"; but hopefully, not.  Of course they won't  increase the GVWR an ounce, but for me those itty bitty 16" tires are my biggest worry.  Yeah..... I have blown one (it was a non-event, but who knows about next time?

Safe travels.............

here the thread on a different forum where I learned about them.
http://www.thorforums.com/forums/f10/16-inch-commercial-tires-9530.html

and here's a thread where someone is trying them out.  The only one I've read about so far but his early reports are good
http://www.thorforums.com/forums/f27/17-5-wheels-tires-class-c-9383-4.html

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

The chassis under a regualr Class C is just a van chassis, so the max GVWR is 14,500 lbs (the Ford E450 van chassis).  The bigger the C body, the more it weighs and thus the lower the remaining CCC. That's why a Class A, with a chassis designed for carry a motorhome, is always superior for carrying an RV body. That doesn't mean that the RV manufacturer can't overload it, but it's not artificially limited by the chassis GVWR. There are Class A motorhome chassis up to 60,000 lbs (that I know of).
The so-called Super-C's are actually medium duty trucks and those allow a larger GVWR.  Most of the Super-C RVs are diesels and upwards of 34 feet in length.

 

[yosh53]

I have tons of storage, but unfortunately, very little weight left until I max out.  As mentioned previously, the idea of transferring more of the weight to a Toad came to mind.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS!