Making sense of the CCC February 04, 2019, 09:54:34 pm Hello everyone, I just purchased a 2001 23.5TK model. I know this topic has been beaten to death, but I need someone to help me make sense of the weight ratings in the attached image. I have done many searches here, and read many of your posts from the past 15 years. I have learned that the 2001 23.5 an 26.5 were both on the same chassis, with a GVWR of 11,500#. So, how is it that my 23.5 only has a CCC of 562#? If that is the case, it stands to reason that the 26.5 would have next to nothing for its CCC, all other things equal. Yet I haven't read of super low CCC ratings for any coach outside the older 30' models. What am I missing? Of note, my 23.5 has a generator and 2 solar panels from the factory. Paul2001 23.5TK
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #1 – February 05, 2019, 01:11:28 am You have an E350 chassis, with the lower GVW of 11,500-lbs,Yes, you have a low CCC. In return you have an overall lighter RV and a 4.11 rear axle ratio, both working together to provide a 2-3 MPG advantage over the E450 23.5' models. It's all about compromises. The pre-1996 models 26.5' models had next to no CCC. We owned a 1983 22' FL and wanted to buy a one but the lack of CCC stopped us. Starting In 2003, the 23.5' models were built on the E450 wide-body chassis, with a GVW of 14,050-lbs. Larry
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #2 – February 05, 2019, 02:46:36 am In 2001 the 23.5 and the 26.5 were Not on the same chassis. The 23.5 was built on the E-350 chassis GVWR of 11,500# The 26.6 was built on the E-450 chassis GVWR of 14,050#Both were on the so called 'Super Duty cutaway' chassis. That was with the 6.8l. V10 engine. The E-450 chassis weighed more, so the increase in capacity wasn't the difference in GVWR, (2550#), but about 1500#. I'd have to see the weight sticker that Lazy Daze provided for the 26.6 model and floorplan in question.reference I used was: 2001 Ford Econoline Specifications - Ford-Trucks.com Your CCC for the TK allowed weight for 4 passengers and full water tank. You do have a 55 Gallon fuel tank. My '99 TK has a CCC of 865# but I only have a 37 gallon fuel tank. I don't usually drive with a full water tank. The holding tanks (black and Gray) won't hold that much anyway. RonB 1 Likes
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #3 – February 05, 2019, 03:22:51 am There is a lot of information on the differences between model years in the LD Pocket Guide.Lazy Daze Pocket GuideLarry
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #4 – February 05, 2019, 08:36:56 am Quote from: Larry W - February 05, 2019, 03:22:51 amThere is a lot of information on the differences between model years in the LD Pocket Guide.Lazy Daze Pocket GuideLarryThanks Larry, I had already found the Pocket Guide and read through much of it in regard to the chassis. But on the forums the numbers for CCC are all over the place, and I hadn't found anyone saying that the CCC was at or below zero for the 26.5 model. But apparently it was, before they went to the E450 chassis.
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #5 – February 05, 2019, 10:45:17 am Attached a PDF with the specifications of all 2001 models (which came with my Lazy Daze).
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #6 – February 05, 2019, 01:24:13 pm Quote from: Klaus - February 05, 2019, 10:45:17 amAttached a PDF with the specifications of all 2001 models (which came with my Lazy Daze).Thank you. That is interesting information. I see the EW of the mib-bath is 10,715#, and in a pre-1996 year such as 1995 it was only 9,788# (as best I can tell. I found the spec sheet files on Techsnoz). Since the overall design did not change appreciably, I wonder how much of the extra weight on the newer chassis is due to the weight of the chassis itself. Furthermore, in the sheet you provide they allow approx. 1800# for liquids and passengers. If we apply that same allowance to the pre-1996 models, those models would have a total weight of 11,588# on a chassis designed for 11,500#. I know some of the liquid capacities were lower pre-1996, but still, as Larry pointed out the pre-1996 models must have left no positive CCC. At the end of the day, these analyses are fun and instructive, but I'm going to put what I need in my motorhome and take off down the road. I don't think I stand any chance of staying below the GVWR, and I'm betting many of you have surpassed it as well. Paul
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #7 – February 05, 2019, 01:54:39 pm Quote from: Epicardium - February 05, 2019, 01:24:13 pm Since the overall design did not change appreciably, I wonder how much of the extra weight on the newer chassis is due to the weight of the chassis itself. At the end of the day, these analyses are fun and instructive, but I'm going to put what I need in my motorhome and take off down the road. I don't think I stand any chance of staying below the GVWR, and I'm betting many of you have surpassed it as well. There is are big differences between the E350 and E450. My brother owned a 2005 24' Class C Winnie, built on a E350 chassis. It was a much different machine to drive, with a much softer suspension, we almost immediately installed a set of rear air bags and a Helwig rear anti-sway bar, to tame the rear end. The brakes are smaller with vacuum boost, rather than the much more powerful hydraulic brake boost used in the E450s.The E450 frames are thicker, the axles bigger, with much heavier brakes. The suspension has many more leaves in the rear leaf springs, overall the whole chassis is stiffer. The E450 has a rear anti-sway bar, where the E350 doesn't.The E350 uses an 4.11 rear axle ratio, compared the E450's 4.56 axle ration. This mean the E350's engine is spinning slower at any given speed. This, and the reduced weight, make the E350s the mileage champs, getting much better mileage than any E450.Larry 1 Likes
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #8 – February 05, 2019, 04:05:05 pm QuoteAt the end of the day, these analyses are fun and instructive, but I'm going to put what I need in my motorhome and take off down the road. I don't think I stand any chance of staying below the GVWR.... Paul, I have similar CCC issues with my 31 IB. When traveling, I carry a minimum amount of water 1/4-1/3 tankful. The times I've boondocked (read Quartize) I filled up in town and drove a mile or two with the full tank. As Joan says, YMMVSee you down the road Joel
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #9 – February 05, 2019, 04:24:23 pm "I have similar CCC issues with my 31 IB. When traveling, I carry a minimum amount of water 1/4-1/3 tankful."And I, on the other hand, carry 50% to 60% regardless the distance I need to travel. That amount will be sufficient to carry me beyond the capacity of the grey and black tanks, up to just short of two weeks. And all the time remaining within the limits of the CCC.
Re: Making sense of the CCC Reply #10 – February 05, 2019, 04:41:56 pm Paul, I guess you know that the CCC is specified without the "official" weight of 154 lb for each of the allowed number of passengers, which in your case means that the total permitted payload (on top of the vehicle weight incl. standard equipment, batteries, oil, coolant, fuel, water, propane) is 1,208 lb. I would say it depends majorly on the number of people that are traveling in the rig how difficult it is to stay within the GVWR limit for your rig.
Topic: Making sense of the CCC (Read 278 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Making sense of the CCC (Read 278 times)
previous topic - next topic