4X4 190 Popular Roadtrek--2014

[booster]

GULP!!!!

$128,412

http://www.lakeregionrvs.com/new_veh...60&pov=3655465

[jrobe]

If someone was looking for a off-road 4x4 rig and had a budget in this general range, it would be hard to choose a Roadtrek 190 4x4 conversion over a Tiger Bengal RV. I would much prefer the much higher clearance of the truck chassis, the more roominess of the Tiger design, the bigger bathroom, etc. etc..

[mlts22]

That is about right. If you take a Ford E-350, add a 4x4 conversion and add all the gewgaws, I'd probably guess it would be around six digits from Sportsmobile. I might be wrong, but I thought the Tiger models were a bit more expensive (upwards of the 150k, if not 200k mark.)

A 4x4 Roadtrek does make sense, not for off-road, but general use, and more clearance so the generator and tanks don't get banged on rocks. However, for getting to the backwoods where only the pickup trucks and TCs go... I'd go the Sportsmobile upfitted Ford first.

[booster]

The dealer we got our Roadtrek at said that the 4X4 was only 3/4" higher, which seemed like a waste, with as low as these things are stock. The dealer was useless, however, so that could be totally false.

[Davydd]

About the only time I would need a 4x4 is for a quick getaway in the winter just to get up my driveway.

However, last week I almost wished I had 4x4. I was trying to find a dive restaurant in southeast Iowa and the GPS led me down what looked like a dead end dirt and gravel road with mud almost up to the rims because of the thawing snow. I barely made it out and threw a lot of mud up the side of the B. Turned out the restaurant was on a dirt road but easily more accessible from the other end.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by booster

The dealer we got our Roadtrek at said that the 4X4 was only 3/4" higher, which seemed like a waste, with as low as these things are stock. The dealer was useless, however, so that could be totally false.

What about that 3.42 rear end ratio? Does that seem like they're trying to improve fuel economy in a vehicle that could need extra torque if it ever did get off the pavement? Unless the 6 speed transmission is going to offset the other gearing oddity.

[booster]

Originally Posted by Mike

What about that 3.42 rear end ratio? Does that seem like they're trying to improve fuel economy in a vehicle that could need extra torque if it ever did get off the pavement? Unless the 6 speed transmission is going to offset the other gearing oddity.

The 3.42 gears showed up on the Roadtreks with the 6 speed transmission, replacing the 4.10 gear used with the 4 speed. I did the calcs at one time, and I think the total gearing in low gear is actually a little better with the 6 speed.

[Mike]

Better, as in power, or fuel economy? Or both?

[booster]

Higher numerically, more power in low gear.

[Mike]

In that case, it's a shame the ground clearance isn't a bit better. You could get to some more difficult campsites with it. I'm assuming it's just the Chev AWD 1500 chassis platform upfitted to the heavier 3500 one?
btw, those Tiger Trucks are pretty cool. No doubt out of the reach of the average RVer, price-wise.

[accrete]

Originally Posted by Mike

...I'm assuming it's just the Chev AWD 1500 chassis platform upfitted to...

Just for conversation's sake our Chevy AWD 1500 came with 11" of ground clearance (lower edge of differential to ground). We added a 3" lift kit but that didn't change the clearance...though it added some cool factor. . . at least now it looks like it is home on the forestry roads we often travel

Oh, as others have stated, we too would go for AWD over 4x4. For us, the experience here on the soggy oregon coast is that AWD is a useful year-round tool. 4x4? Only if i were into rock crawling.

. . . and if my wife and i want to go rock crawling we do so with these two radio controlled versions

[Mike]

I was thinking of making an offer on this awesome 4X4 I found in Albuquerque a few weeks ago.

I realized I had no where to park it, so I decided to pass on it.