Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#2816859
09/03/20 11:19 PM
09/03/20 11:19 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,473 Candler,NC / Myrtle Beach, SC
JDMopar
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,473
Candler,NC / Myrtle Beach, SC
|
We had a 79 Dodge class C motorhome for a few years, 440/727/Dana 70 with dual rear wheels. It had a full frame under it like a truck....100% positive. It originally came from Canada, so I don't know if that makes a difference or not? It was 28' bumper to bumper. It was a big heavy monster, but I'm sure some of the smaller ones probably came with a unibody type frame. I sold mine to another Moparts member. He used it a few years, and the engine wiring harness burnt up....and I think he junked it.
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: JDMopar]
#2817181
09/04/20 10:56 PM
09/04/20 10:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,486 Freeport IL USA
poorboy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,486
Freeport IL USA
|
The campers with the Dodge van nose are a class "B" motor home and are much more light duty then the truck chassis class "C" motor homes. The two classes of motor homes (B and C) are light years apart from each other, both in the cost and in the chassis under them. Any Dodge camper with the B van front end has a unibody chassis, if it was built after 1973. It has the front boxed frame like the old Fury's had, that is bolted to the unibody chassis starting under the doors. Then the chassis is unibody all the way to the rear, until the camper manufacturer added the tube rear extension onto the rear box of the B van chassis (any motor home over 18'- 20' long or however long a Maxi B van is). The van chassis are pretty sound, but the point the rear extension was added on is often an issue. Too much weight on the add on extension causes the Van's rear chassis box to deform and the rear bumper can bend to the ground. A trailer with a lot of tongue weight will eventually bend the rear van chassis box. I've reinforced a lot of them and its not easy nor pretty, and if they keep pulling the heavy tongue weight trailer, it will fail again. Some believed me, but some didn't and found out the hard way. There is no fix the 2nd time, short of installing new frame rails from the front frame to the rear bumper. Gene
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: poorboy]
#2817272
09/05/20 07:10 AM
09/05/20 07:10 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
The campers with the Dodge van nose are a class "B" motor home and are much more light duty then the truck chassis class "C" motor homes. The two classes of motor homes (B and C) are light years apart from each other, both in the cost and in the chassis under them. Any Dodge camper with the B van front end has a unibody chassis, if it was built after 1973. It has the front boxed frame like the old Fury's had, that is bolted to the unibody chassis starting under the doors. Then the chassis is unibody all the way to the rear, until the camper manufacturer added the tube rear extension onto the rear box of the B van chassis (any motor home over 18'- 20' long or however long a Maxi B van is). The van chassis are pretty sound, but the point the rear extension was added on is often an issue. Too much weight on the add on extension causes the Van's rear chassis box to deform and the rear bumper can bend to the ground. A trailer with a lot of tongue weight will eventually bend the rear van chassis box. I've reinforced a lot of them and its not easy nor pretty, and if they keep pulling the heavy tongue weight trailer, it will fail again. Some believed me, but some didn't and found out the hard way. There is no fix the 2nd time, short of installing new frame rails from the front frame to the rear bumper. Gene You better do more research. You have the B and C reversed. Class C is the van front
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2817295
09/05/20 08:39 AM
09/05/20 08:39 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,007
Bend,OR USA
|
All the Mopar made camper chassis where group into three names, class A, B, and C. The class A chassis where bare trucks chassis with no cabs, the Class B and C where van chassis with the cabs on them. Some where 3/4 ton with single rear wheel rear ends and the rest where 1 ton chassis with dual rear wheels. The class B had generators and the C did not, or maybe vise a versa
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 09/05/20 08:40 AM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2818006
09/06/20 10:23 PM
09/06/20 10:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,473 Candler,NC / Myrtle Beach, SC
JDMopar
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,473
Candler,NC / Myrtle Beach, SC
|
Poor Boy has it right, and explained it much better than I did. A Class B camper is simply a long wheelbase van, and will retain the unibody chassis structure....nose included. A Class C motor home had a full truck chassis, but had a van nose to right behind the drivers and passenger side front seats. I see where the confusion was now, thanks to Poor Boy. The camper we owned was a Class C, as was the very nice looking camper Pittsburgh Racer posted that his parents had. A company called Road Trek makes the Class B campers that still look like a complete van with a high roof with AC on top. Every camper factory in Indiana made Class C campers out of Dodge, Chevy, and Fords that had van noses only.
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: pittsburghracer]
#2818212
09/07/20 03:58 PM
09/07/20 03:58 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,848 Memphis
HemiRick
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,848
Memphis
|
You better do more research. You have the B and C reversed. Class C is the van front
You are wrong he was right.
Take care, Rick 68 Coronet R/T 440 & 68 Charger 528 Hemi,and 5 Challengers! 6 cyl, 318, 360, 383, 451
|
|
|
Re: 1976 Camper Chassis
[Re: HemiRick]
#2818275
09/07/20 07:04 PM
09/07/20 07:04 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,116
PA.
|
You better do more research. You have the B and C reversed. Class C is the van front
You are wrong he was right. I guess I was. I’ve had two class C’s And now the 25 foot class A. Sounds like a thin line between the C and B. I was told by many othes the Class B was a heavier duty truck front with heavier duty suspension but he guess that is false. This small class A I have right now powered by a big block FI Chevy tows great.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
|
|