New Sunseeker MBS 2400B

[RedLdr1]

Forest River has posted the floor plan of another new Sunseeker MBS, the 2400B. The "B" replaces the "W" in the MBS line up. The "B" moves the closet and dresser drawers to the rear of the coach off of the slide out. Having owned a "W" I think this may help with slide out issues due to the weight carried in the slide out. Standing in the rain helping our "W's" slide out retract by pushing it in was no fun!
See It Here

[BehindBars]

The B looks like a possible improvement over the W. So much weight on the single slide on the W spells trouble. However, I have to wonder if the dresser area will be partly blocked by the bed when the slide is in. I like having all storage accessible when the slide(s) is/are in.


I sure hope it gets 4500 chassis with the higher GVWR.


I find the new two "color" body paint very unappealing compared to past color options, but shades of grey are big sellers in the automobile world.

[RedLdr1]

The Metallic option actually looks pretty good in photos. The Graphite, which I've seen and is not bad looking, is just too darn dark for the heat in Georgia. So we ordered our 2400Q in Metallic. You can see a 2400Q in Graphite on RVT.com Here.

The 4500 chassis is not going to be used by FR, at least for now, based on everything I've read here and heard at the last FROG Rally in Goshen.

[BehindBars]

I guess there is something undesirable about the 4500 that I'm not aware of. With all the CCC concerns in the MBS motorhome world, I expected RV manufacturers to jump at the chance to have a higher capacity MBS chassis. Maybe the reasons they're not using the 4500 will soon be revealed.

[RedLdr1]

Originally Posted by BehindBars

Maybe the reasons they're not using the 4500 will soon be revealed.

Bclemens, the GM of Dynamax division, addressed it a bit in the Dynamax sub forum. Besides adding more cost apparently while the 4500 adds CCC it takes away towing capacity as the GCWR stays the same. Since we don't tow I'd rather have the CCC.

[BehindBars]

Originally Posted by RedLdr1

Bclemens, the GM of Dynamax division, addressed it a bit in the Dynamax sub forum. Besides adding more cost apparently while the 4500 adds CCC it takes away towing capacity as the GCWR stays the same. Since we don't tow I'd rather have the CCC.

Yes, I saw Brian’s explanation but it doesn’t make sense. Say I load up my MBS motorhome to weigh 11,500 pounds, then I want to tow a 3500 pound car or trailer. I am within the weight limits of a Sprinter 4500, but I am overweight with a 3500. I would want the 4500. I don’t see how anything is lost in going to the 4500. GCWR may be the same, but GVWR is gained with the 4500.

Even if my 3500 pound trailer includes 350 pounds of tongue weight on the motorhome chassis, I can still do it with the 4500, but I’m over 800 pounds overweight for GVWR on the 3500.

These weight limitations are why I bought a Ford, but I would have very seriously considered the MBS if they were building motorhomes on the 4500.

[medalguy]

I also have the 2400 MBS W and I’ve been wondering about the advisibility of using supports under the slide. Comments?

[RedLdr1]

Originally Posted by medalguy

I also have the 2400 MBS W and I’ve been wondering about the advisibility of using supports under the slide. Comments?

I won't. If you put supports under the slide and the chassis shifts you risk bending, or misaligning, some very expensive parts. A slow leak in a tire, or a chassis leveling jack, could be really ugly.

Most manufactures have a warranty disclaimer about using slide supports.