Zion SRT

[islandrog]

Could some of you that have taken delivery on the SRT comment on how your like this unit? How does it drive, how was the fit and finish and what if any issues you have had.
Thanks in advance.
Rog

[islandrog]

Bump......any comments?

[mumkin]

Not that many have been produced yet... we haven't had any chatter on the RT facebook pages yet either.

[Jostalli]

I just did a quick search and it looks like all the big dealers have them in stock. One was advertising a pretty decent discount at $76,999.

[wincrasher]

The ones I've seen at shows had appalling fit and finish. If you buy one, look it over very carefully. Could be that is one thing holding back sales. Another is that it's not that much smaller or cheaper than a Zion. Could be people think it's worth it just to get the slightly bigger van.

Roadtrek seems convinced that people want a smaller van - thus the new models they've rolled out. Time will tell I guess. Personally, I think people really want a cheaper van, not necessarily a smaller one.

[jrobe]

I might be in the minority, but smaller is my primary criteria. I already have a big house. I don't need to drive a big living space around. I would rather be small and mobile when I am traveling. I don't even care about the cost. I am willing to pay more for high quality fit and finish as long as I can get up narrow roads and easily park in a normal parking space. I am probably in the minority though.

[booster]

Roadtrek has had better luck with the small models than other brands, it appears, as the 170 Chevy and the Agile are both still around. They did capitulate a bit a while ago when they eliminated the 170 Popular and went only with the more tourer Versatile only. They haven't had a lot of competition lately in the small stuff, but it looks like that is changing. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out. When we were shopping for our Roadtrek, for us and lots of folks we talked to, the major reason for moving up to a 190 from a 170 was the crosswise sleeping in the 170. Front to back sleeping in a small unit probably would make them much more acceptable in the market.

[avanti]

It makes sense to me that RT would do well with smaller units. As I read things, their bread-and-butter customers are first-time B-van buyers (simply because they have the best name recognition among B-van upfitters). These are relatively non-nuanced purchasers, and they have "we're going small" in their heads from the get-go. I think it takes experience to fully understand the tradeoffs between "tiny" and "really tiny".

[wincrasher]

It would be interesting to know what the "churn" rate is on the 170/190 size vans. Do alot of people buy them and shortly trade up to something a bit bigger? I could see that the double bite at the apple could be enticing to a manufacturer.

[booster]

Originally Posted by wincrasher

It would be interesting to know what the "churn" rate is on the 170/190 size vans. Do alot of people buy them and shortly trade up to something a bit bigger? I could see that the double bite at the apple could be enticing to a manufacturer.

We have a 190 Chevy, so we probably get a bit more "traffic" at campgrounds from other Roadtrek folks than some others, and biased a bit toward the Chevies. We have run in to 170 owners that were thinking of going up, usually to a 210 as they like the Chevy, skipping the 190 size. The 190 owners, if they are talking about going up, usually are looking at small C's like the Leisure stuff, if they can afford it, or lower priced Ford or Chevy. An intermediate step to a bigger b is not the norm that we have seen for 190 owners. I don't think enough Promaster stuff is out yet to have them in the mix yet of campground gossip. 210 owners seem to be happy with the size, but a bit unhappy with cargo capacity.

The "traditional" class b design that optimizes utility over openness is what almost all the Dodges and Chevies have, so those that have them often lament about the newer, primarily Sprinter, designs that use a lot of interior space as air in the quest for openness.

If I had to guess how many?? of each might consider a change. Maybe 15% of 170 owners, with the exception of single travelers which nearly 100% love them. 190 owners would be a tiny % who want a bigger B, but maybe 5% going up a class. 210 owners are almost all happy with size, perhaps 2% lamenting cargo capacity.

In general, Roadtrek owners are very happy with their choices, until they get to the point of wanting long stays or snowbirding instead of touring.

[GeorgeB]

Originally Posted by avanti

...I think it takes experience to fully understand the tradeoffs between "tiny" and "really tiny".

Originally Posted by wincrasher

T...Another is that it's not that much smaller or cheaper than a Zion. Could be people think it's worth it just to get the slightly bigger van. ...Personally, I think people really want a cheaper van, not necessarily a smaller one.

I agree with your comments.

It's a real test for small Bs. With the Zion SRT and the LINK, RT is maybe trying to test the market if they can stop offering their Chevy based Bs and streamline their production facilities.

In Europe the norm is the 6M (19' 7") campers.

see the Hymercar vs. Westfalia album on my FB page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...2388992&type=3

I am curious to see how the market will react in North America to those small but still expensive Bs, like the Hymercar and the SRT. We don't have the same constraint of space as in Europe. If you are a first time buyer and you want a very small high-top B in North America then the smallest of them all, the length of a car, would be the LINK or the Safari Condo MX (photos).

But if you want more space I think the 6,36 m (20'9") ProMaster based vans is not significantly bothering for our North American campgrounds, roads and parking spaces. But the first time buyers market is different (for people who never drove a van for ex.) and small or tiny is reassuring. Reassuring enough for spending 80K on a tiny camper is yet to be confirmed.

Our market in Quebec is different, we love small cars and small campers, that's why the Safari Condo MX is so popular here.



The RT Link






The Safari Condo ProMaster MX




.

[mumkin]

Can someone explain what the difference if between a Roadtrek "Versatile" versus a "Popular?"

It certainly isn't at all clear from the RT website.

[cruisefx]

The Versatile has the traverse sleeping area. Only suitable for shorter people. Also there is the 'crawl over' issue. The Popular RVers sleep lengthwise. Our Versatile comes with the second row passenger seats. During the summer, we removed the one behind the driver and added a storage unit. We assembled it so that we could interchange with the seat easily. This still gives us access to the window which I do not believe is in the Popular.

[GeorgeB]

Originally Posted by cruisefx

The Versatile has the traverse sleeping area. Only suitable for shorter people. Also there is the 'crawl over' issue. The Popular RVers sleep lengthwise

For me transverse beds are deal breakers. The smaller European vans and compact motorhomes all have east-west beds. I guess you get used to crawling over at night, but it's not for everyone.

The Safari Condo owners tested one of those 6M (19') long vans in Europe and didn't like the fact that one gets stuck crawling over. That's why even in their tiny 5,45m (17') long vans (in the MX like the Zion Link) they are installing beds lengthwise, albeit no enclosed bathrooms. http://www.safaricondo.com/en/motorises_Promaster_MX

The van Safari Condo owners rented in Europe
https://www.facebook.com/12310412785...type=3&theater





There's a new trend in European campervans is to fit lengthwise beds in 6m vans (19') (like the Zion SRT)

The Westfalia Amundsen E
https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/mo...-review/900215

Or the DREAMER D58




.

[cruisefx]

I have to concur with regards to the transverse bed. Fortunately one of us does not get up in the middle of night and we are both still agile enough to do the climbing without knocking ourselves out. The length of the bed in the transverse position is a little tight for one of us so we are looking to change our rig in the near future. We do like having the extra seating up front which allows us to leave the bed set up all the time when travelling.

[mumkin]

Originally Posted by cruisefx

The Versatile has the traverse sleeping area. Only suitable for shorter people. Also there is the 'crawl over' issue. The Popular RVers sleep lengthwise. Our Versatile comes with the second row passenger seats.

I will never keep those two names straight as they make no sense to me at all. LOL So... all 170s are Versatiles. I got two cabinets in the front of mine. The 190 and 210 can have a power sofa in the rear that allows you to choose whether it is versatile or popular... depending on what direction you decide to sleep.

Makes even less sense now that it has been explained. But thanks anyway...

[MsNomer]

I'm sure glad there are options. In ten years camping with a lengthwise bed, my husband never learned to get out without taking the covers with him. I'm very thankful to have a crosswise one now.

[mumkin]

That's a first... I don't think I've ever heard any member of a couple say that they preferred a crosswise bed.

[MsNomer]

Look at it this way: in addition to keeping the covers intact, I get at least a kiss every time he crosses over. Pretty darned good deal, if you ask me.

[mumkin]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

Look at it this way: in addition to keeping the covers intact, I get at least a kiss every time he crosses over. Pretty darned good deal, if you ask me.

Sounds like you have a system...