Never thought I would see one of these on a Street

RobertRyan wrote:

Made by SLR Motorhomes who do mainly Expedition type vehicles. Very well made. No not available in the US. Look at my first post that started this thread

Thanks! I wasn't sure if the first thread or two was all SLR or not and was trying to figure out which model that interior went with. I checked out their website and it appears to have been in a Commander which is the green one in the third pic. :)

Always an Exception to a Rule, an Expedition Motorhome with a Slideout. Company does Slideouts for Sprinters and IVECO based Motorhomes, normally not Expedition Motorhomes


One of their Interiors, not flashy but extremely well built

alliemac9 wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:

Can you tell me what make/model this is? Pretty interesting interior!

Made by SLR Motorhomes who do mainly Expedition type vehicles. Very well made. No not available in the US. Look at my first post that started this thread

RobertRyan wrote:

Can you tell me what make/model this is? Pretty interesting interior!

rjstractor wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
Yes a tiny 3 litre diesel, but as reliable with that drive train as Old Yella in Yosemite NP.

LOL, I think you mean Old Faithful In Yellowstone NP. ;)

Been there getting my Old's mixed up:)

No matter how internal wall structures might be built with slide-out holes in them, you just cannot get the shear strength that an integrated flat piece of stock - with no or minimum square holes in it - has. It's strength of materials and how they're used in play here - no way around it.

Even with our stick house - one of the main criteria for qualifying for our earthquake insurance is "are the home's living area walls and foundation crib walls made up of closely nailed intact large pieces (i.e. plywood) of material?". I figure if maximum shear strength is required to keep a stick house in it's original shape during earthquakes, then probably it's required to keep the living area of an RV in it's original shape when tipped/bumped/twisted during off-pavement travel. These shear strength considerations are of course in addition to any isolation of the coach area that might be done in an RV intended for occasional or frequent off-pavement use.

Design of RV's is just like design of any other product - there are good enough designs out there and optimized designs out there. It depends on how much you want to trust someones else's (even an engineer's) "good enough" skills and judgement versus your own "good enough" common sense. This assumes one cannot afford an optimized design in the first place.

With only a modest budget and still wanting some reasonable size and comfort when used intermittently off-pavement ... our version of good enough required this: A small Class C with no slides for best wall shear strength, and also on the optional E450 chassis - so as to gain the additional frame rigidity to help with twist (since the coach box is not isolated) that you get with small Class C weight from the E450's thicker frame steel - over that used in the the E350's frame. FWIW, I don't know about frame steel thickness differences between the Chevy 3500 and 4500.

Not really sure about the slide thing and Off Road RV's....In general the popular opinion does make sense. With all the bumps and bouncing it makes sense to have a solid structure without penetration for slides....BUT.....GXV builds the Turtle with a slide, and If you really examine the box of the Earthcruiser the entire box is topless, it's a box with one side missing....a six sided box is very strong, remove any side and strength will suffer....As a designer and builder (a different field) I can't help but think , if the structure is built SOUND before the slides are installed, and the mechanism that operates and joins the slide to the body, why can't the system operate correctly and stand up to the rigors of off road use? I am not addressing the weight issues, that's another hurdle, but I think this slide thing is doable if engineered properly....

Hmmm ... if I remember my movies correctly ... Old Yeller was reliable too ... but not all that fast. :)

RobertRyan wrote:
Yes a tiny 3 litre diesel, but as reliable with that drive train as Old Yella in Yosemite NP.

LOL, I think you mean Old Faithful In Yellowstone NP. ;)

pnichols wrote:
Those Host units on the Fuso 4X4 chassis sure look a little low on grey water capacity and LP capacity. However, fresh water capacity is great. I wonder where all that fresh water is going to wind up, considering that they're using a cassette toilet?

Their top speed (FWIW as a guage, only) versus their rated GVWR is indicative of what you give up with that little tiny diesel in them. Wow .... only 161 HP to move along a GCWR of 21,765 lbs.. Of course, the turbo will keep it pulling the best it's going to even in the High Sierras. Those very low ranges of available differential ratios (5.285:1 or 5.714:1) are probably what's absolutely required to get that little motor to do what it does - albeit slowly.

Yes a tiny 3 litre diesel, but as reliable with that drive train as Old Yella in Yosemite NP. Used to have a 4.9 but pollution regs killed that. These light trucks are used as very basic delivery vehicles here. Most countries outside the U.S. use Cassettes. Have not heard of problems with Grey Water or LP(Liquid Propane?)
IVECO Daily towing 38ft Redwood 5ver
Interestingly they use the IVECO Daily with a similar small 3 litre diesel to haul 38ft 5vers. To make up for the drop off in speed climbing long inclines a lot use LPG injected into the diesel to get better mileage and a similar speed up hills to a U.S. 6-6.7 Diesel