Wanna see something ridiculous? Dynamax Rev 24TL

[wincrasher]

Check out this B+ rig. Has what they are calling a "tailgaiting package" which consists of a ridiculously large exterior TV and a custom paint scheme. I think this holds the record for the largest TV in a B/B+ or C motorhome.

Otherwise a fairly nice RV at a low price. Like the interior, and like the paint job.

[youtube:235g6pvp]_Vk1ut2UKY4[/youtube:235g6pvp]

A model I like better is the 24RB. It has a much smaller exterior TV (which may be something that could be deleted), but also a side dinnette with nice captain's chairs and a drop-down queen bed. It could use the paint job option from the TL.

[youtube:235g6pvp]ib5fmoNEcc0[/youtube:235g6pvp]

If you are in the market for a Trend/Viva, I'd look at these too.

[mlts22]

I was surprised at how much a lot of RV-ers value their TVs. A few years back, when I went camping, the neighbors by me actually set up an inflatable projector and sound system just to watch their reality shows. Thankfully they went all inside and were asleep by the time I got back.

Maybe I'm just old... television just isn't on my list of things to do when out. I don't mind having a LED screen that can double as a monitor for a laptop (so I can use a "real" keyboard and mouse), but seeing rigs come from the factory with 6-8 TVs? No thanks.

[wincrasher]

Likely there is a market for a tailgating machine. I suppose this would be quite nice as a party bus to college football games, painted in your team's colors. 65" tv would definitely make you king of the parking lot!

In my case, painted bright orange with purple accents would be quite the spectacle if you decided to take it camping!

[bobojay]

The REV's might be fairly nice class C's, but they have a rubber roof. Too much maintenance and leak possibilities....

[Robert Ryan]

A outside of the overtly large TV, the lack of a GPS would be annoying. I think a display that just shows you Compass settings does not cut it

[wincrasher]

Good catch. I had assumed it had Tom-Tom like all the rest. Cost cutting I suppose.

Too bad they all don't just get the Nav off you phone. It would work better and you wouldn't have to concern yourselves with updates. Some of the new cars do this like Honda Fit.

[booster]

Originally Posted by wincrasher

Good catch. I had assumed it had Tom-Tom like all the rest. Cost cutting I suppose.

Too bad they all don't just get the Nav off you phone. It would work better and you wouldn't have to concern yourselves with updates. Some of the new cars do this like Honda Fit.

Doesn't navigating off of your phone require you to have an internet connection for maps?

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by booster

Doesn't navigating off of your phone require you to have an internet connection for maps?

It requires a cellular connection to the Internet for Google Maps and several others and I found this year that is probably a 95-99% probability now. However, you can also load TomTom, CoPiilot and a few others on your phone that have preloaded maps just like their standalone units. The GPS chipset in the phones do the rest with those.

I have Apple's CarPlay but haven't explored that aspect yet to put my iPhone on my dash Pioneer unit's 7" screen.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Davydd

I have Apple's CarPlay but haven't explored that aspect yet to put my iPhone on my dash Pioneer unit's 7" screen.

Davydd,
Please keep us informed once you get a chance to explore CarPlay. A properly-done integration among phone-based apps, fixed head-unit displays and steering-wheel controls would be a huge step forward, especially when it comes to mapping/navigation. I doubt that Apple is there yet (even their base mapping technology is still a work in progress), but if anybody ever pulls it off, it is likely to be them.

[skiMore]

There was a thread about these and weight over at rv.net. CCC got very low once you filled gas, water and propane.

http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fu...d/28209876.cfm

[booster]

That thread pretty much confirms what we all suspected about Promasters for a class C. They are just too light duty for it. Kind of reminds you of all the underpowered Toyotas that were running around a long time ago.

[wincrasher]

Funny how all those "light" Toyotas are mostly still in use and highly coveted by owners and restorers. I get a chuckle when I read comments about them. how terrible and unsafe they are, but they are still on the road being 30+ years old. I just read another thread where the guy said how "lucky he was to make it to year 12 of his ownership before he installed a DRW kit which he used for the remainder of his 24 year ownership!

It is a shame that even reputable manufacturers will offer up RV's with so little useable capacity (on paper anyways) and then try to hide the data, or at least obscure it. It's like they are basically betting on using up the safety margin that is built into all these ratings. A shame really.

Not that you couldn't make an extremely lightweight RV to go with a lightweight chassis. But they are using traditional methods and materials - probably to keep costs down. There are a ton of ways you could make this RV alot lighter. Conceivably, you could make it lighter than a metal body van conversion.

But how, in good conscience, can you offer an RV with less than 1000 lbs of OCCC and put in all those nice, big storage cabinets, and seatbelts for 5 or 6 passengers?

I doubt that a DRW conversion would offer much more cargo capacity to this vehicle. You'd still quickly get up against the limits of the front axle. The solution is to make the house lighter, not beef up the chassis. Or pick another chassis that is more suitable. I suspect you'll see Transits take over this segment fairly quickly, if their price is reasonable.

[rectalogic]

Originally Posted by Davydd

It requires a cellular connection to the Internet for Google Maps

Google announced yesterday that Google Maps will support offline maps and offline navigation later this year.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/28/86803 ... navigation

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by rectalogic

Google announced yesterday that Google Maps will support offline maps and offline navigation later this year.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/28/86803 ... navigation

That will be interesting. Will it be something in the class of TomTom in capability and be a stripped down GPS? That wasn't clear. Things like Street Views probably won't be in it and I wonder if satellite views and extensive database will be part of it. If a place on the Internet exists, Google Maps can search and find it for a destination. Those things would simply take up too much data capacity. Even the TomTom app needs cellular to tap a more extensive database to find places even though maps and turn by turn is all built in.

As I mentioned before, cellular in the United States is getting so extensive the use of Google Maps (or Apple Maps, Waze, etc.) is somewhat moot now. A few years ago you could go in great swaths of land with no navigation using those apps. You can still go into some wilderness and remote areas and lose maps for navigation, but I doubt there are many areas of Interstate and US highways uncovered that you could not navigate via cellular coverage for general long range travel.

10 short years ago I never saw auto turn by turn map GPS or had any idea of its capabilities. My first Garmin, looking back, was quite an adventure. On our last leg home trip this week via the UP and Wisconsin we resorted to the paper maps. When traveling in scenic areas the GPSes like to route you the obviously fastest way and almost always to the best highways. We wanted to meander on the two lane back roads and oddly we beat the times the three GPSes we used quoted. In northern Wisconsin we had the two lane roads almost always to ourself. Very few trucks. Very little passing or being passed. GPSes are not good in advising interesting routes.

[wincrasher]

I've used the Copilot app on ipad and iphone for several years. It's quite a good GPS program and it uses maps you download into your device. The GPS doesn't need a cellular connection at all - I don't even have a cell plan on my ipad and it works fine.

[rkloud9]

Getting back to the topic of the REV, although it is not a "B", my wife and I saw it at a show in January, and it has some nice features. We have been dancing between B's and C's, and DW really doesn't like the wet baths in most all B's. Both the abovementioned RB and TL have a really nice rear bath with large shower. The drop down bed in the RB looks pretty functional, but I don't think we would fancy climbing up there on a daily basis. Aside from the crazy big outdoor t.v. screen, the TL is really not set up for sleeping (2 short Jacknife sofas). We wanted to see what the twin bed model (TB) was like, so during Spring break we took a trip down to Elkhart and visited the Dynamax factory. Although we just dropped in, they were really accomodating. Before we went there, we spent some time at Sportsmobile, so it was quite a contrast, from a totally custom 7 man shop to a production line in a factory with 100's. Dynamax seems to have a pretty good reputation, and the build quality looks solid. The paint scheme you see on the TL at the top of the thread is custom (it was just getting finished while we were there), but all the units will have the painted front bumper and stripe along the bottom and back. The company has really gone "all in" on the Rev. We were told that they had ordered 500 Promaster cut-aways, and there were at least 100 in the lot, and they were finishing 1 to 2 a day. The beds in the TB seemed pretty nice, with lots of cabinets. The lounge area in the front had a fairly mediocre couch. The kitchen is pretty spacious with a nice large refrigerator, 2 bowl sink, 3 burner stove. The systems are pretty "yesterday", propane, generator, single battery, no inverter. But there is a nice slide out battery tray on the outside that will hold at least one more battery, and an exterior plug for portable solar panels.

The Promaster diesel engine is an option, and one was on the line. The big issue with this product it's carrying capacity, and adding the heavier diesel engine does not seem wise. We are waiting for some solid feedback from real world owners.

[wincrasher]

The diesel does seem ill advised. In the Travato, it reduces OCCC by over 300 lbs.

I really expected that this drivetrain would give more capability in towing as well as OCCC, but alas, the limitations are the suspension/axles, etc. Looks to be solely an MPG play.

500 chassis seems like a lofty goal. That is quite a commitment considering the size of this market!

[Jostalli]

Originally Posted by wincrasher

500 chassis seems like a lofty goal. That is quite a commitment considering the size of this market!

500? They may sell 50.

[booster]

Originally Posted by wincrasher

The diesel does seem ill advised. In the Travato, it reduces OCCC by over 300 lbs.

I really expected that this drivetrain would give more capability in towing as well as OCCC, but alas, the limitations are the suspension/axles, etc. Looks to be solely an MPG play.

500 chassis seems like a lofty goal. That is quite a commitment considering the size of this market!

I wonder how much more capacity they get from the cutaways in Europe, where they cut off the original frame and add an aluminum rear frame? Do they also use a heavier rear axle then also? Duals? Might be something Robert Ryan would know.

[stanw909]

Maybe they have less lawyers in Europe so they don't have to underestimate carrying capacity to keep from getting sued out of business if something were to go wrong.