Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2019, 02:11 PM   #141
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mumkin View Post
I'd say that this the number one reason that the major converters have dropped the Chevy. Takes up a lot of space and time on the factory floor. Rapido did not choose to go into the old RT factory that has those facilities already... which is why I expected the Chevy to disappear from the lineup.

Odd the positive talk about the Nissan van... probably the butt ugliest van ever built by any manufacturer... in the world. It makes my Promaster look like Marilyn Monroe. And I literally never see one on the streets of MN or AZ, nor on the highways in between.

Interesting, as we live in the outer ring of northwest suburbs of the Minneapolis area (blue collar end of town), and I have been seeing more of the Nissan vans lately, which had surprised me. I certainly agree on the ugliness factor, though.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2019, 03:48 PM   #142
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: western New York State
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mumkin View Post
Odd the positive talk about the Nissan van... probably the butt ugliest van ever built by any manufacturer... in the world. It makes my Promaster look like Marilyn Monroe. And I literally never see one on the streets of MN or AZ, nor on the highways in between.
Sorry, we're getting WAY off-topic here, but the Nissan doesn't hold a candle to the Citroen Type H van (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_H_Van), much a no other car I can think of can hold a candle to the Citroen 2CV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV).

dicktill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2019, 05:16 PM   #143
Platinum Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Arizona
Posts: 609
Default

And just to show there's no accounting for tastes, I actually kinda like the Nissan's boxy style. See quite a few in my area thanks to an aggressive local Nissan dealer and... ahem... large families. None in work duty, but a couple of DIY camper conversions. Reliability is an issue from what I've heard.

Promaster is the one I'd call face-ugly if not quite butt ugly...

On looks alone, I'd choose the Metris. It may actually have a chance to make it into the Rapido/Roadtrek North American lineup.
__________________
2014 Roadtrek 190 Popular
2008 Scamp 13
Jon in AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2019, 02:27 AM   #144
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: CA
Posts: 1,330
Default For me, the dual wheels were an essential safety factor

Pick whatever vehicle makes sense for you...

I wasn't going to look at any Class B without the dual wheels in the back.

It feels more stable to me in turns and also in crosswind situations.

Your might disagree and that's fine, but, I like it.

Also, there's virtually no way I can overload the van especially with the rear payload.
Roadtrek Adventuous RS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2019, 02:28 PM   #145
Platinum Member
 
Davydd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,967
Default

I currently have a Class B in design that deliberately eliminates duallies. Besides the design necessitating the layout without, I always thought dual wheels in the back to be a pain.
__________________
Davydd
2021 Advanced RV 144 custom Sprinter
2015 Advanced RV Extended body Sprinter
2011 Great West Van Legend Sprinter
2005 Pleasure-way Plateau TS Sprinter
Davydd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2019, 03:46 PM   #146
Bud
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: LA
Posts: 1,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davydd View Post
I currently have a Class B in design that deliberately eliminates duallies. Besides the design necessitating the layout without, I always thought dual wheels in the back to be a pain.
I agree. I think you can now purchase a 22 foot Transit with single wheels. Maybe an upfitter could be careful with the weight and avoid dual wheels.

Bud
Bud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 12:46 PM   #147
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: On, Canada
Posts: 9
Default

I do not think you can get very far with very much upfitting with a single rear wheel weight capacity. A basic van with a basic bed, sure. But a Air conditioned, heated, van with a high top.. not likely.
A single rear wheel extended van with a high top has a capacity of 3605lbs while a dual rear wheel (which also adds stability has a weight capacity of 5154lbs.
cobratom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 01:30 PM   #148
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobratom View Post
I do not think you can get very far with very much upfitting with a single rear wheel weight capacity. A basic van with a basic bed, sure. But a Air conditioned, heated, van with a high top.. not likely.
A single rear wheel extended van with a high top has a capacity of 3605lbs while a dual rear wheel (which also adds stability has a weight capacity of 5154lbs.

Trying to find a way through all the Ford inconsistent and contradictory specs is like playing hide and seek in corn maze.


They list that they have 9400# gross available as a single wheel but then in the this chart they don't show a 9400# only 9500#. Load capacity on the 9500# high roof extended shows 3920# single wheel rating which is not too bad and similar to what the single wheel conversions in the past would have been on Chevies and Fords.


https://www.ford.com/commercial-truc...passenger-van/


My guess is that Ford is getting pushed by the trades buyers, as they seem to want single wheel rear drive for jobsite traction over duals, and they want load capacity similar to what they have had with the Chevy and Ford vans in the past.


Personally, I don't particularly like the way dual wheel trucks drive, and would always opt for SRW is possible.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 03:17 PM   #149
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 654
Default

Quote:
I do not think you can get very far with very much upfitting with a single rear wheel weight capacity.
I think you can, everything is just going to have to be smaller capacity and lighter... and likely much more expensive. I'd be curious to hear what the limitations were from David, the cost difference for an Advanced RV may not be indicative given their high price.
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 03:53 PM   #150
Platinum Member
 
Davydd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 5,967
Default

Dubbed "Mies - Less is More", I think I got as much capacity and features in a van 5 feet in length smaller than my current extended body 3500 Sprinter van.

I could duplicate my design with any 144 2500 2 WD Sprinter van with any company willing to take it on or I could DIY (not willing). Only Advanced RV was willing and have the things I want and the quality I'm accustomed to. That's the only difference.

Limitations? I'm not getting VB Air Suspension or 4x4. I'm not getting the levelers ARV offers. ARV needs to deliver a base cargo van at 5,000 lbs built out at no more than 7,400 lbs but with a 9,100 load capacity. So I have 1,700 lbs to work with. I can envision only about 800 lbs I can add (people, clothes, toys, kitchen items, food, water, etc.) so I have another 900 lbs to work with in additions. So after I take possession I am free to add levelers and VB Air Suspension If I want. Or I could add a roof rack and ladder. I doubt I would add the VB Air Suspension since no one rides in the back.
__________________
Davydd
2021 Advanced RV 144 custom Sprinter
2015 Advanced RV Extended body Sprinter
2011 Great West Van Legend Sprinter
2005 Pleasure-way Plateau TS Sprinter
Davydd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2019, 07:04 PM   #151
Platinum Member
 
GeorgeRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobratom View Post
I do not think you can get very far with very much upfitting with a single rear wheel weight capacity. A basic van with a basic bed, sure. But a Air conditioned, heated, van with a high top.. not likely.
A single rear wheel extended van with a high top has a capacity of 3605lbs while a dual rear wheel (which also adds stability has a weight capacity of 5154lbs.
I built Westfalia like layout fully loaded way under the limit on 144” WB 2500 Sprinter. With additional roof AC and full-size shower, I would still be way below. Increasing fresh and gray water tanks volumes, adding LPG tank would require decreasing road clearance which would be against my objectives and would get me closer max.

Main weight reduction was achieved by using lightweight aluminum framing with thin HDPE side panels. A production conversion using welded aluminum framing would be even lighter than my 80/20 extrusions and considerably lighter than 5/8” – 3/4“ plywood, MDF, particle boards, or hardwood.
GeorgeRa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2019, 01:25 AM   #152
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 654
Default

"So I have 1,700 lbs to work with."

For contrast, my Roadtrek Etrek has most of the bells and whistles including 8 AGM batteries (probably 600-700 lbs) and the specs say I still have 2500 lbs for occupants and cargo (including water). I doubt the difference would ever matter since, as you indicate, we are unlikely to ever carry that much weight, unless we decide to tow something.
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 01:40 PM   #153
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: On, Canada
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeRa View Post
I built Westfalia like layout fully loaded way under the limit on 144” WB 2500 Sprinter. With additional roof AC and full-size shower, I would still be way below. Increasing fresh and gray water tanks volumes, adding LPG tank would require decreasing road clearance which would be against my objectives and would get me closer max.

Main weight reduction was achieved by using lightweight aluminum framing with thin HDPE side panels. A production conversion using welded aluminum framing would be even lighter than my 80/20 extrusions and considerably lighter than 5/8” – 3/4“ plywood, MDF, particle boards, or hardwood.
Sure, its possible with minimal systems. The problem is the european approac of lighter, smaller = better is just a trend that has come into the USA recently. Prior to this everything was larger = better.

Nice build by the way!
cobratom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.