SkiMore wrote:
How much extra does a diesel truck cost in Australia? It's a lot in the US.
rjstractor wrote:RobertRyan wrote:
Those engines they have are a bit gutless for Off Road work. Also the frames they are built on are very light duty, they would need to be built as 1tonners, or in the US case on a 1 ton or 2 ton frame, then get beefed up for a "house" to be added.
I agree with you 100% on the frame and suspension. I know you hate gas engines, but the gas engines those trucks use have plenty of power. With low range gearing they would go straight up the side of a cliff if they had the traction. Also, the new Colorado is available in the US with a diesel.
DiploStrat wrote:
Robert,
To be fair, once you get up to an EarthCruiser, you are now squarely in the Sportsmobile (and Tiger) range as all are about the same size. As I may have mentioned, Beloved Spouse and I camped next to Michelle and Giles of EarthCruiser USA for several days at OEXPO East. We really like the EarthCruiser; lots of good ideas.
Sportsmobile make some rather gnarly beasts. My biggest/only quibble with the Sportsmobile is that, because of the Class B shape with the rounded corners, they have much less space inside than the square box of the Tiger. Also, they are generally less insulated. Insulation matters a lot to me right now, with temperatures between 0 and 15F! Also, the 9500 lb. GVWR (compared with the 11500 lb. of the Tiger) does limit you a bit on batteries, water, etc. Interestingly, I was chatting with Alan Feld of Sportsmobile and asked him why, now that they were making their own fiberglass bodies for the Ford Van (Ford has gone to cutaways only), the didn't square it off a bit to increase the interior space. He said that basically their customers really wanted the van shape. Of course, that also means that a lot of Sportsmobiles have a lot of boxes, etc., on the outside, and, while Aluminess makes nice stuff, I always worry about it shaking off on washboard.
The appeal of the Aussie beasts that you have been linking to is that they are fully one size smaller than my Tiger and competition, while still offering a rather large camper.
DiploStrat wrote:
Robert,
To be fair, once you get up to an EarthCruiser, you are now squarely in the Sportsmobile (and Tiger) range as all are about the same size. As I may have mentioned, Beloved Spouse and I camped next to Michelle and Giles of EarthCruiser USA for several days at OEXPO East. We really like the EarthCruiser; lots of good ideas.
Sportsmobile make some rather gnarly beasts. My biggest/only quibble with the Sportsmobile is that, because of the Class B shape with the rounded corners, they have much less space inside than the square box of the Tiger. Also, they are generally less insulated. Insulation matters a lot to me right now, with temperatures between 0 and 15F! Also Alan Feld of Sportsmobile and asked him why, now that they were making their own fiberglass bodies for the Ford Van (Ford has gone to cutaways only), the didn't square it off a bit to increase the interior space. He said that basically their customers really wanted the van shape. Of course, that also means that a lot of Sportsmobiles have a lot of boxes, etc., on the outside, and, while Aluminess makes nice stuff, I always worry about it shaking off on washboard.
The appeal of the Aussie beasts that you have been linking to is that they are fully one size smsaller than my Tiger and competition, while still offering a rather large camper.
You pretty well sum up the limitations of Sportsmobile and the advantages of the Mini Class C's
RobertRyan wrote:
Those engines they have are a bit gutless for Off Road work. Also the frames they are built on are very light duty, they would need to be built as 1tonners, or in the US case on a 1 ton or 2 ton frame, then get beefed up for a "house" to be added.
