2014 Winnebago Travato

[mlts22]

Originally Posted by Davydd

We can rationalize at how it would be used under any scenario, but that still doesn't excuse its poor functional design.

I was wondering about the funky design, but I think I found out why from a post on a Roadtrek forum this morning:

European vans use cassette toilets. These are essentially six gallon black water tote tanks that you open an outside hatch, yank out, wheel to a pit (which has water flushing down), and empty there. In theory, one can empty one of these down a toilet, but it means having to precisely maneuver 60 pounds of sewage, with the thumb on the vent valve release, to pour it down a commode without overflowing. Then once this is emptied, eight ounces of chemicals are poured in, then the cassette is placed back into the receptacle.

US campgrounds don't have the proper pit facilities for emptying cassette toilets. Trying to dump one down a conventional sewer hole likely will mean a mess unless one is very careful.

Winnebago's design is new because they couldn't go with the cassette toilet design (which for European vans, just means the toilet just has to be located by one wall of the vehicle for the access panel.) Instead, they had to figure out placement of a conventional (in the US that is) black water tank, and this takes far more engineering to have it drain correctly with the grey tank from one wye connector. I think they went with this layout because it was close to what a lot of European "B"s use. However, I think they should see about making a floorplan that is similar to the PW Ascent or the RT SS Agile as soon as they can, since the rear bed is pretty small for two people.

[stanw909]

Cassette is same as porta potti.Empty into any pit toilet or regular toilet BUT and a big BUT make sure the chemicals in the cassette or porta potti are formaldahyde free so it will not kill enzymes in the vault or septic system.

[erip]

"Winnebago doesn't have to partner with anyone in Europe. The just need to hire better designers. Sorry, that plan layout is atrocious. I don't know what they were thinking with a narrow odd shaped bed and inefficient bathroom with a wheel well tripper. Not a single European designer was that dumb."

Its one thing to have an opinion, its another thing to have no information.
While you may not like the travato floor plan, or think it would work for you, the degree of disdain and negativity kind of shuts down discussion.
You say not a single european designer was that dumb in designing this floor plan. Actually Winnebago was not so dumb as to "re-invent the wheel".
Perhaps you should check out the Autocruise Alto, and the Rapido V56. Two established vehicles with pretty good reputations from which the winnebago floorplan is copied. (minus the generator and roof A/C).

[Mike]

The 2 Euro models you've mentioned look quite interesting.... particularly the Altocruise Quartet with it's bunk bed configuration. Hard to believe it fits in a Ducato van.

[youtube:1ywuzjxk]V0A-1L_qCJk[/youtube:1ywuzjxk]

and the Rapido V56

[youtube:1ywuzjxk]L-NKcpsCbYo[/youtube:1ywuzjxk]

[markopolo]

Originally Posted by erip

..........Perhaps you should check out the Autocruise Alto, and the Rapido V56. Two established vehicles with pretty good reputations from which the winnebago floorplan is copied. ...............

Thanks for the info
Those two camper vans give us a great idea of what interior of the Travato will look and feel like. I checked the bed specs for both and they are within an inch of what Winnebago has published about the Travato.

http://www.rapido.fr/sites/gbr/en/prod. ... serie=vans
http://www.swiftgroup.co.uk/motorhomes/ ... ns/layouts

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by erip

"Winnebago doesn't have to partner with anyone in Europe. The just need to hire better designers. Sorry, that plan layout is atrocious. I don't know what they were thinking with a narrow odd shaped bed and inefficient bathroom with a wheel well tripper. Not a single European designer was that dumb."

Its one thing to have an opinion, its another thing to have no information.
While you may not like the travato floor plan, or think it would work for you, the degree of disdain and negativity kind of shuts down discussion.
You say not a single european designer was that dumb in designing this floor plan. Actually Winnebago was not so dumb as to "re-invent the wheel".
Perhaps you should check out the Autocruise Alto, and the Rapido V56. Two established vehicles with pretty good reputations from which the winnebago floorplan is copied. (minus the generator and roof A/C).

OK, fair enough. How about they were not so dumb to come up with their own design but just managed to copy the worst of the lot and poorly at that? Sorry, like it or not, Winnebago pooped in the ProMaster nest on their Travato for their first American example. I'm giving them no benefit of doubt that would encourage their initial stupidity on the Promaster. They may have other and better floor plans because if you read their website they mention a flex-bed similar to the ERA in the works for the ProMaster.

[gerrym51]

Originally Posted by Davydd

OK, fair enough. How about they were not so dumb to come up with their own design but just managed to copy the worst of the lot and poorly at that? Sorry, like it or not, Winnebago pooped in the ProMaster nest on their Travato for their first American example. I'm giving them no benefit of doubt that would encourage their initial stupidity on the Promaster. They may have other and better floor plans because if you read their website they mention a flex-bed similar to the ERA in the works for the ProMaster.

Davydd,

not necessarily. the flex bed picture that shows up is the same in the via and a couple other rv. flex bed can be different in different rv's. the travato says flex bed which is the front bed but if you click on flex bed at at travato site it shows the one thats in the era and via

[Davydd]

The front bed?

BTW, here is a comparison on capacities between the Travato and the Pleasure-way Ascent.

Winnebago Travato
Wheelbase 159"
GVWR 9,350 lbs
Length 20'-11"
Ext. Hgt. 9'
Ext Width 6'-11"
Int. Hgt. 6'-3"
Int. Width 6'-2" (74")
Bed 46" x 75"
Fresh Water 22 gal
Water Heater 4 gal
Black Tank 11 gal
Gray Tank 14 gal
LP Tank 6 gal

Pleasure-way Ascent
Wheelbase 144"
GVWR 8550 lbs
Length 19'-6"
Ext. Hgt. 9'-7"
Ext. Width 6'-8"
Int. Hgt. 6'-3"
Int. Width 5'-11" (71")
Bed Queen 68" x 72"
Fresh Water 20 gal
Water Heater 6 gal
Black Tank 10 gal
Gray tank 15 gal
LP Tank 10 gal

Neither compare well to the 170" wheelbase models.

[gerrym51]

the table converted to bed is called flex bed sytem on travato


http://winnebagotouring.com/products/20 ... loorplans/



however if you look at the flexbed system that explains flexbed on era and travato the picture used is the ERA

http://winnebagotouring.com/products/20 ... /flex_bed/


it is this same bed that is used in all model previews of winnebago products.

the trend appears to have the same front dinette as travato. this might be the flex bed they are actually talking about.

[Mike]

Wonder what the price will be for the 2014 Travato, and will there eventually be a diesel option? The website only shows the gas V6.
I don't mind the layout, if the floor plan diagram is to scale, the bathroom area looks "comfortable". If the price were near the number suggested by the name ($59G?), it would be a winner.
Sounds pretty well equipped, although it only has one GR31 coach battery, but maybe that's all you'd need?

2014 Travato .....sneak peek
http://winnebagotouring.com/products/2014/travato/

Specs refresher, fairly comprehensive list....
http://winnebagotouring.com/products/20 ... fications/

[markopolo]

I think the Travato MSRP was initially reported at $84,000. So getting one for around $70,000 could be possible.
Someone on a Rialta forum commented that the $84,000 Travato MSRP means you might be able to get one for $59,000 to $63,000 at Lichtsinn's.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by markopolo

I think the Travato MSRP was initially reported at $84,000. So getting one for around $70,000 could be possible.
Someone on a Rialta forum commented that the $84,000 Travato MSRP means you might be able to get one for $59,000 to $63,000 at Lichtsinn's.

Supply and demand will probably help to determine the price at some dealers at some point.
If the initial demand is strong, closer to $80K. If they don't sell well for some reason, maybe cheaper, as new models are released to market. I would also think they'd have to be priced lower than the in house competition to sell well. I'd probably rather have an ERA than a Travato, if the prices were comparable.

[stanw909]

Isn't it strange that there are no pics?That tells me that the show model was just a prototype and not the end result.

[Mike]

Yes. Perhaps the best is yet to come. I hope they learned a few lessons from ERA V1. Seems like the ERA 2.0 versions are much improved from their predecessors, so that's a good sign.
I wish they'd add the diesel drive train to the mix, but maybe they've committed to the gas engine models in advance for some reason, and are locked into a finite number of gas chassis models. I would think Winnebago would have sufficient clout in the real world to correct that sort of oversight fairly quickly, without a significant financial penalty.
As always, wait and see?

[bobojay]

Originally Posted by Mike

Yes. Perhaps the best is yet to come. I hope they learned a few lessons from ERA V1. Seems like the ERA 2.0 versions are much improved from their predecessors, so that's a good sign.
I wish they'd add the diesel drive train to the mix, but maybe they've committed to the gas engine models in advance for some reason, and are locked into a finite number of gas chassis models. I would think Winnebago would have sufficient clout in the real world to correct that sort of oversight fairly quickly, without a significant financial penalty.
As always, wait and see?

The diesel model isn't in the mix because it doesn't go into production till early next year is last I was told by a WGO source. As of a couple weeks ago, it hadn't been emission certified yet in the USA.

[Mike]

Interesting. I wonder if Winnebago is so intent on getting something out on a Ducato/Travato chassis, that they feel they can take the chance that the gas engine/drive train will be sufficient to get the ball rolling. The difference in torque between the engine options is so great that I can't see the gas version selling well, with a diesel model on the horizon.
With a big price tag, it's worth the wait for the diesel, in my books. However, if the price tag is heavily discounted based on reduced projected performance specs, it might be worth a gamble.
Doesn't the EU have higher emission standards than California? That part should be pretty much a rubber stamp, if it's true. If not, could be a stumbling block.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Mike

Interesting. I wonder if Winnebago is so intent on getting something out on a Ducato/Travato chassis, that they feel they can take the chance that the gas engine/drive train will be sufficient to get the ball rolling. The difference in torque between the engine options is so great that I can't see the gas version selling well, with a diesel model on the horizon.
With a big price tag, it's worth the wait for the diesel, in my books. However, if the price tag is heavily discounted based on reduced projected performance specs, it might be worth a gamble.
Doesn't the EU have higher emission standards than California? That part should be pretty much a rubber stamp, if it's true. If not, could be a stumbling block.

Hi Mike,

As I said in another thread, I don't think I would get all hung up on the gas vs diesel torque numbers, in relation to power, especially if the there is a big price advantage to the gas version. Big torque numbers don't always relate to good acceleration.

http://classbforum.com/phpBB2/viewto...&t=2647#p15904

If these are the same engines as in that thread, the gas should do as well, or better, than the diesel at moving the van, if it is geared right for both versions. Higher rpm, yes, lower mileage, yes, but not a power problem if the specs are correct. Nothing wrong with diesel power or gas, just need to make the choice based on what is important to you.

There are an awful lot of gas Ford V10s out there moving some really big class C motorhomes, and it has been the engine of choice for the heavy stuff for years.

[Davydd]

How would a 4 cylinder gas engine push a Travato across the Rocky Mountains? The Mercedes Benz turbo diesel has no problem at the highest of elevations.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Davydd

How would a 4 cylinder gas engine push a Travato across the Rocky Mountains? The Mercedes Benz turbo diesel has no problem at the highest of elevations.

From the link

"Gas engine is standard. 3.6L V6, 260 HP at 6,400 RPM. Torque 258 lb/ft at 4,175 RPM. Transmission 6-speed automatic."

Not a 4 cylinder gas engine, but a quite powerful V6.

The turbo diesel does well at altitude primarily because of the turbo, more than the diesel. A turbo gas engine would also do very well. Fords new turbo, direct injection gas engines, which are some of the first which seem to be designed to be able to run boost for long periods without overheating, are proving to be very good engines in the pickups, and I would guess drag a class b over mountains very well.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by booster

Hi Mike,

As I said in another thread, I don't think I would get all hung up on the gas vs diesel torque numbers, in relation to power, especially if the there is a big price advantage to the gas version. Big torque numbers don't always relate to good acceleration.

http://classbforum.com/phpBB2/viewto...&t=2647#p15904

If these are the same engines as in that thread, the gas should do as well, or better, than the diesel at moving the van, if it is geared right for both versions. Higher rpm, yes, lower mileage, yes, but not a power problem if the specs are correct. Nothing wrong with diesel power or gas, just need to make the choice based on what is important to you.

There are an awful lot of gas Ford V10s out there moving some really big class C motorhomes, and it has been the engine of choice for the heavy stuff for years.

Hi booster,
I hear you. However, I'm not really concerned about acceleration, as much as having enough power to comfortably make it up a > 5% grade, possibly stuck behind slow moving traffic, with out turning the engine and transmission into a glowing ember under the hood. My recent change in preference of diesel over gas is based on the (theoretically) better hill climbing ability, and the difference in the torque ratings at different RPMs for the diesel versus it's gas counterpart. We typically spend a fair bit of time climbing hills in the western US mountains and the higher torque rating at a lower RPMs is an appealing feature of diesel drive trains, as I've found after 5 years of driving a gas engined class B van. As you alluded to in your referenced/linked thread, the important paragraph to me was as follows....

booster wrote: "Theory aside, the diesels do pull well, both in reality and perception. They operate at a reduced rpm range compared to gas, so they can be at torque peak without as much noticeable effort as a gas engine screaming at 5000 rpm. Most gas engine setups are also not setup to be able to run at peak torque or hp for long periods without overheating or other issues."

Perhaps my position on gas versus diesel has changed because we've done the geared down, screaming engine routine (we have the 5.7L V8 pulling over 8,000lbs. remember) more than once, and sometimes it has been in situations where we're actually stuck behind slower moving traffic going uphill. It has happened to us in the hills of Cape Breton, and again in Lake Placid, and also on stretches of I-17 between Flagstaff and Phoenix, and many other places, and every instance is memorable in a negative way. It's unavoidable for us because that's where we like to travel. To complicate things, we've driven many of these uphill grades when the ambient air temp has been fairly high, and our van has struggled to get enough air through the rad to keep things cool at reduced speed, which supports the situation you mention in the last sentence of the quoted passage. I've run for short periods at well over 212F WT, and it's not something I care to do on a regular basis. I've waited at the side of the road for traffic to clear once or twice before assailing a steep grade.

I appreciate what you're saying, and it's probably true for people that mostly drive the flatlands. Gas is probably the better choice, for reasons of economy. Maybe it's more of an issue for me because our particular Roadtrek model is underpowered IMO, and I've stated that more than once in other threads on this forum.
There are some other compelling reasons to go gas for sure, like sharing fuel with a built in generator, and the (usually) lower price of the fuel itself, but most diesel class B vans do get slightly better mileage overall so that one may be a saw off.
I just know that if a diesel model were available at a (not ridiculously) higher price point, I would probably wait and go with it, just to gain that lower RPMs power curve advantage over the gassers. I don't care how fast it gets to the top of the hill, just that it does it more easily in terms of overall drive train stress. I doubt many Sprinter owners on this forum have ever given a bit of a hill climb a second thought, because their vans handle them more easily than ours. Downhills too, with the newer models with engine braking. I guess we'll have to wait for the Winnebago Travatos/Trends with gas engines to get some miles on them, and see what their owners say about them in regard to this topic.
Just my opinions and thoughts.