New Versions Of 21' Micro-Rvs On Trucks With Single Tires And Sf Rears

[zero]

I've been reading through estimated fuel mileage specs for micro-RVs in Australia and New Zealand. Doesn't look like much has changed as compared to our older tech rigs - at least with Toyotas. A new or newer 21 foot Toyota RV with a 2.7 liter four cylinder engine is rated for 15.6 MPG highway mileage (when converted to US gallons). I would of thought with a newer engine, and only single tires in back (less rolling resistance?) they'd do a little better.

The newest micro-motorhome based on a 2014 Ford Ranger is promoted as being better - but I have yet to find any figures. 2WD version comes with a 2.2 liter turbo-diesel and the 4WD comes with a 3.2 liter turbo-diesel. The 4WD version weighs 5,996 lbs and has a GVWR of 7,054 lbs. and that's with a semi-floating rear and single tires. I don't know quite how they do it. This RV is 18 feet long.

Also got a kick out of the Australian Chinook 4WD. Too bad these rigs didn't ever make it to the US so they could get worn a bit and sold used (and cheaper). The Chinook 4WD pop-top is diesel and claimed to get a best of 16 MPG in US gallons.

[linda s]

The Ranger has over a thousand lbs difference between the weight of the camper and the GVWR so that's a lot better than most Toyota dual wheels motorhomes.

The Winnebago Chinook, no relation at all to American Winnebago's, is very similar to the Earth Cruiser which is now made in America. A brand new one is less than 3 times the cost of that old one. The shell for these is shipped to Host in Bend Or and put on a Mitsubishi chassis there. Very nice rigs and at a fraction of the cost of an Earth Roamer

http://earthcruiser.com/

Linda S

[Debbit]

Wonder why we don't get some of these available to us?

[zero]

I assume that if there was enough of a steady market in the USA for micro RVs - and/or small trucks - we'd see a lot more. Problem is - there isn't. Same goes for small diesel pickup trucks. Many companies tried to sell them in the USA and sales were awful. Seems the average USA consumer only wants a small vehicle when there is some sort of fuel "crisis" or shortage. These perceived fuel crisis-times so far have been short-lived. Car and truck companies have to think long-term to stay in business. That is unless they are GM and Chrysler and live on tax-dollar bail-outs. GM sold diesel S10s, Blazers, and rebranded Isuzu diesel minitrucks (LUVs). Ford sold diesel Rangers and Broncos. Dodge sold rebranded Mistubishi diesel mini-trucks as Ram 50s and also sold a full size 1/2 ton truck for one year with a small diesel (1978). International Harvester sold diesel Scouts. Jeep sold a CJ with a small Perkins diesel in the 60s. Nissan, Isuzu, Mazda, and Toyota also sold them. Volkswagen sold sort-of small diesel Rabbit trucks that got 50 MPG.

Ford gave up selling the "mid" sized Ranger truck in the USA. It is still sold overseas and that gives RV makers something good to work with.

As I recall, nobody in modern times in the USA has ever made a true small truck like a Toyota, Isuzu, or Datsun/Nissan. The once "Big Three" automakers just rebranded small trucks from other makers. Dodge/Mitsubishi, GM/Isuzu, and Ford/Mazda. Now - Ford is talking about introducing a true minitruck into the USA of their own make for the 1st time. Whether it will really happen - who knows? It might be based on their Transit-Connect mini-van which is already been made into a small RV in Europe. Probably too small a RV for many USA Americans.

[Derek up North]

It's what the North American market demands. Bigger, bigger, bigger. Applies to pretty much everything. Houses, trucks, cars, TVs. About the only exception that comes to mind is electronics, besides TVs.

[Vanman]

I have a friend who has a Ranger, lots of 'em around here, and has been waiting for years to replace it. He is on the waiting list for a Colorado.

vanman

[5Toyota]

adventure rv is making a line of 18 foot class C on a ford chassis here in my town in the old western RV plant three sizes 18 i dont remmber the other two sizes but not real big ones small

[Derek up North]

Lightweight construction from Germany on the Landcruiser:-

http://www.tourfactory.de/downloads/Katalog2013w.pdf

[MontanaChinook]

I'd get along pretty well with something like that...

[Derek up North]

A few other German builders.

http://www.offroad-schmiede.com/index.php/rahmenverlaengerung-fuer-toyota-landcruiser

http://toms-worldcruiser.com/expeditionsfarzeuge/index.html

http://www.extremfahrzeuge.com/

[Derek up North]

And more:-

http://www.bimobil.com/modelle/pickups/

http://www.ormocar.de/index.php?id=20&L=1

and a very cool looking one. Mirage inspired?

http://www.geocar.com/_lccms_/_00025/CONDOR.htm?VER=110711144421&LANG=ger&MID=23

[zero]

I have a friend who has a Ranger, lots of 'em around here, and has been waiting for years to replace it. He is on the waiting list for a Colorado.

vanman

Ranger was never a "mini-truck." More a "midi-truck." Even so, seems it still was not big enough for the USA sales market. Only "mini-truck" I recall Ford ever putting its name on in modern times was the Courier 1972-1982 - that was made by Mazda. I'm not counting something like a Ford Model T stake-truck that only weighed 1400 lbs. I guess by today's standards it was a mini-truck. 14 horsepower on a good day and a top speed of 45 MPH and NO wheel brakes.

[Totem]

I don't think its a demand issue; I think its a liability issue. The lawsuit propensity with overloaded mini rvs is a risk most are not willing to take; and if one is going to use a 3/4ton vehicle in a package it may as well be a huge class c.

[Maineah]

Our local dealer has a couple of these nicely laid out very nice fit and finish, the front is kind of ugly but the rest of it is good looking. Single wheels on the rear and the dealer claims 15+ on a trip he made with one could be a contender for the mini market. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/02/winnebago-trend-travato-first-promaster-based-rvs/

[zero]

I don't pretend to know anything about the new Winnebagos that Maineah posted a link to. Part of the rhetoric in the story though sends up a little red flag to me. That is . . " The only disappointment we see in Winnebago's two new models is that they won't be offered with a diesel engine from Fiat, at least not yet. The inherent pulling power and fuel efficiency of diesel engines makes them ideal for RVs."

My complaint is the BS within that statement. Diesel engines do NOT have "inherent pulling power." Pound for pound and cubic inch for cubic inch, diesels have LESS pulling power then gasoline engines when aspiration and bore and stroke are equal. The "big power" thing with diesels is a well preserved myth. Diesels got that mythical reputation because in the past, they were mostly built for hard work and subsequently, got long strokes made for torque and high turbo boost. Whereas . . gas engines typically used in smaller vehicles doing less work did not get long stroke engines or high turbo boost except for a few rarities. One exception that comes to mind is the very popular 7.3 liter diesel Ford used for years in pickup trucks - made by International Harvester. That engine started out as a gas engine used in school buses. The gas version had more horsepower and more torque then the diesel version.

It's the fuel savings that was a big gain with diesels for a long time. Most big diesels have been direct injected where gas engines were not. Diesels also used a fuel with more BTUs of energy per gallon and that gallon often had cost less then a gallon of gasoline. That has all changed for most areas of the country. Now diesel fuel is often more then a dollar more per gallon then gas. Today - here in northern Michigan - diesel is $3.89 and regular gas is $2.58. Also many newer gas engines are now using direct injection and getting more efficient. That hoped-for 20-30% gain in efficiency with a diesel over a gas engine is not a set rule anymore.

[zero]

I don't think its a demand issue; I think its a liability issue. The lawsuit propensity with overloaded mini rvs is a risk most are not willing to take; and if one is going to use a 3/4ton vehicle in a package it may as well be a huge class c.

Ford dropping production and sales of the Ranger in the USA had nothing to do with RVs or law-suits. Just a demand situation and the competition it created with Fords F150. At least - that is what Ford Motor Company says on the subject. My father-in-law is a retired Ford engineer and still gets all the newsletters from Ford (that I read).

[linda s]

We are just starting to see the wave of Promaster Rv's coming up. Dynamax has one for 2015 and Safari RV's of Canada has a couple coming up with the diesel engine. These will be for sale in the USA. Only time will tell if they do well

Linda S

[kgibson4]

Our local dealer has a couple of these nicely laid out very nice fit and finish, the front is kind of ugly but the rest of it is good looking. Single wheels on the rear and the dealer claims 15+ on a trip he made with one could be a contender for the mini market. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/02/winnebago-trend-travato-first-promaster-based-rvs/

Nice rig, but at $90,000+ it's a little out of my comfort zone.

[Vanman]

OHH 90K plus, that's the rig a friend got new and the propane regulator blew up the first time he turned it on.

vanman

[Debbit]

I look at mini RVs ALL the time. On the road, on the Internet and at any dealer or lot I see a small one at.

This is just my opinion, but the new $$$ van type like sprinters, are very claustrophobic. Same with most of the class b+ rvs. Even if I could afford one, I wouldn't buy one. I think the smaller class Cs are nice, but most have a big engine and fuel economy would make wandering around the highway an expensive lifestyle. Over and over I read on RV forums that people try to keep their speed down to around 60... Well, my sunrader can do that and I don't have the payments.

Rialtas are almost perfect in many ways, but so expensive, and I believe not as dependable as they should be for their price. Getting one repaired outside of a sizable city is risky too, most shops aren't as familiar with VWs as other vehicles.

I do think the provan tiger vehicles are pretty perfect, but I've not seen one except on the Internet. http://www.tigervehicles.com/

We aren't ready or willing to purchase a new RV of any style, so these are just pipe dreams for me, and I can afford to be critical. And If something new and exciting comes out, by the time it is "pre-owned" I'll probably not be driving around the country anymore.

the conclusion I come to over and over is that the VW westfalia and the toyota mini motor home are the best ones to have. My westfalia is a very dependable vehicle. Although it takes maintenance and mechanical aptitude. It is simple to work on and we have an excellent VW mechanic for the big things. The sunrader is perfect too. Bigger, yes, but fuel efficient and dependable, easy to work on and mechanics able to work on them are everywhere.

Someday I might find the perfectly designed, fuel efficient, dependable mini RV that is newer than the ones I have, can cruise at 75 without strain, is bigger than the westfalia, smaller than the sunrader, for a reasonable price.....but I doubt it.

[zero]

Someday I might find the perfectly designed, fuel efficient, dependable mini RV that is newer than the ones I have, can cruise at 75 without strain, is bigger than the westfalia, smaller than the sunrader, for a reasonable price.....but I doubt it.

Plenty of new ones being made over-seas that meet all those requirements EXCEPT the "reasonable price" part. An 18 foot Sunliner based on a turbo-diesel Ford Ranger seems perfect but at $117,000 dollars Australian, and $97,000 in US dollars - I would not buy one even IF I had the money.

I notice they still make some pretty big RVs on Toyotas and Mazas over there with small single wheels and 5 or 6 lug wheels on semi-floating rear axles.

[Totem]

the reason diesel doesn't deliver in the USA is the choking of the engine with DPF, and all of the post emissions treatment of exhaust reducing the fuel economy of the motor. the new TDI motors of today cannot even get the MPG of motors past even though they are better motors they get choked off and in the end only get marginally better than their gas counterparts; so to me its less about long stroke and more about emissions reducing the performance but I agree overall with you jde.

This is also why I have a collection of 1998 diesel vehicles. It was the zenith of efficiency for many vehicles before being screwed by the epa.

[zero]

the reason diesel doesn't deliver in the USA is the choking of the engine with DPF, and all of the post emissions treatment of exhaust reducing the fuel economy of the motor. the new TDI motors of today cannot even get the MPG of motors past even though they are better motors they get choked off and in the end only get marginally better than thier gas counterparts; so to me its less about long stroke and more about emissions reducing the performance but I agree overall with you jde.

This is also why I have a collection of 1998 diesel vehicles. It was the zenith of efficiency for many vehicles before being screwed by the epa.

My comment about long stroke versus bore wasn't about fuel efficiency. Just about the ability to deliver low-end torque. Long stroke works on the same principal as when you put a piece of pipe on a wrench to make it longer to get more leverage. Same effect when a long stroke gives a connecting rod more leverage to turn a crankshaft.

Hard-working trucks and tractors usually have used long-stroke engines - gas and diesel. But gas engines pretty much got phased out (for HD use) around 1960. Since then we pretty much only see the diesels in long-stroke configuration. Back when there were gas and diesel engines built with the same block, bore and stroke - the gas engines just about always had more horsepower and more torque. We almost never get such figures to compare with small cars and trucks because there have been almost NO engines made in the USA where gas and diesel shared blocks, bore and stroke. I can only think of two. 350 Oldsmobile and the International Harvester 446. When the IH 446 got changed from gas to diesel - Ford called it their "7.3" diesel as used in pickup trucks. VW, and Isuzu also made some diesels out of gas engines (but not what I'm calling US engines).

5.7 liter 350 Olds diesel, 4.05” X 3.38”, 125 horse at 3600 RPM, 225 TQ at 1600 RPM

5.7 liter 350 Olds gas, 4.05” X 3.38”, 180 horse at 5000 RPM, 275 TQ at 2800 RPM

IH 446 diesel (7.3 Ford) 160 HP at 3300 RPM, Torque 312 @ 1400 RPM

IH MV-446 gas : 235 hp @ 3600 rpm; 385 lbs. ft. @ 2600 rpm

Isuzu 1.8 liter diesel (110 cubic inches) four-cylinder, 51 hp at 5000 rpm and 77

lb./ft. torque at 2000 rpm 3.31" bore x 3.23" stroke

Isuzu 1.8 liter gas (110 cubic inches) four-cylinder, 80 hp at 4800 rpm and 95

lb./ft. torque at 3000 rpm 3.31" bore x 3.23" stroke.

John Deere 1010 diesel engine, 2.4 liter, 145 cubic inches, 40 flywheel horsepower at

2500 RPM, 95 lbs. torque at 1500 RPM, 3.62” bore by 3.5” stroke.

John Deere 2010 gas engine, 2.4 liter, 145 cubic inches, 50 flywheel horsepower at 2500 RPM, 114 lbs. torque at 1500 RPM, 3.62” bore by 3.5” stroke.

In regard to fuel efficiency and MPGs - just the diesel fuel in itself being sold today has less BTUs of energy per gallon then it did before the ultra-low-sulfur fiasco. I still have several small and older diesel rigs. 1985 Isuzu 2.2 4WD diesel mini-truck, two 1991 Volkswagen Jetta 1.6 diesels. Just sold my 1981 Chevy Chevette with the 1.8 diesel. The Isuzu seems to get 28 MPG no matter what I do or how I drive. The VW Jettas have gotten a best up around 49 MPG. The diesel Chevette a best of 45 MPG. The VW diesels really shine with "around town" driving. Going up and down steep dirt mountain roads - the VWs will consistently get 38 MPG which is amazing. My 2.2 liter gas Subaru Impreza gets 21 MPG doing the same trips.

[Maineah]

The big difference is where the torque band is, the diesel in a vehicle is right where you need it the very most. My 2002 TDI got 50 MPG even if I drove it like a stole it, the power band was right where it's needed to be starting at about 1800 RPM my best tank was 902 miles it held 16 gallons. Having had gas tractors there is not a shot that I would ever buy a gas tractor ever again! I used to have to carry fuel for my gas tractor with me when I went out to mow so I did not have to come back to the barn to refuel not so with my diesels fill it up and run all day on 5 gallons. All the road fuel is ULSD that seemed to have no effect on my mileage and LSD is what I burn in the tractors there is some concerns about lubricity but I have never had an issue. Rudolf Diesel after all designed them to run on vegetable oil.

[WME]

Actually the first diesels ran on coal dust

[zero]

The big difference is where the torque band is, the diesel in a vehicle is right where you need it the very most. My 2002 TDI got 50 MPG even if I drove it like a stole it, the power band was right where it's needed to be starting at about 1800 RPM my best tank was 902 miles it held 16 gallons. Having had gas tractors there is not a shot that I would ever buy a gas tractor ever again! I used to have to carry fuel for my gas tractor with me when I went out to mow so I did not have to come back to the barn to refuel not so with my diesels fill it up and run all day on 5 gallons. All the road fuel is ULSD that seemed to have no effect on my mileage and LSD is what I burn in the tractors there is some concerns about lubricity but I have never had an issue. Rudolf Diesel after all designed them to run on vegetable oil.

You missed my point. Your TDI is NOT naturally aspirated. If you take a gas engine with the same bore and stroke as your VW "TDI" and give it turbo boost with the same PSI, it will have the same torque and probably more at the same low RPMs.

Name one diesel engine with same bore, stroke, and aspiration as a gas version where the diesel has more torque or horsepower at any RPM.

If you take your "TDI" and remove the turbo and run it naturally aspirated - again it will have less torque and horsepower then a gas engine with the same bore and stroke.

Not sure what Rudolph Diesel has to do with any of this. He did not "invent' the diesel,not does his design have much to do with what we are discussing here.

Farm tractors are often sold by their horsepower rating. Back when they were available in gas or diesel - the gas engines were just about always smaller so the horsepower and torque would be the same with either. Like the John Deere 350 or 1020. Gas version was 135 cubic inches and diesel 152 cubic inches. Same torque curve at same low RPMs. General Motors did the same when they had Detroit Diesel design a diesel power-equivalent to the 305 Chevy gas engine. The answer was a 379 cubic inch diesel called the "6.2" with the same horsepower and torque curve as the 305 gas engine.

Your comments about gas tractors being fuel; hogs as compared to diesels? You need to be more specific. Some gas tractors are more efficient and use less fuel for work done then some diesels.

When you compare and use the word "efficiency" - I guess the word needs more definition. A gallon of diesel fuel has more energy then a gallon of gasoline. So if a diesel does more work with a gallon of fuel then a gas engine - it does not mean more efficiency. Also - since in many areas of the USA - diesel cost more then a dollar more per gallon then gasoline - maybe we need to talk about work done per dollar?? A true measure of "efficiency" would be work done by BTU of energy.

Farm tractors are tested and rated in horsepower-hours-per-gallon. Why not miles-per-gallon like cars? Tractors often sit still doing work with their PTO shafts so miles would be meaningless. Nebraska Test Institute was created in 1920 so farmers could know which tractors performed the best and eliminate all the BS. The testing is still done.

A 1960 Oliver gasoline tractor holds the Nebraska Test record for fuel efficiency. That Oliver model 1800 made 73.9 horsepower with an efficiency figure of 13.1 HHG (horsepower-hours-per-gallon) of gasoline.

2nd place is with the 1962 test of an Allis Chalmers D-10 that made 33.4 horsepower and an efficiency figure of 13 HHG.

Here are some diesels that did worse. 1959 Porsche Super L-318 at 12.9 HHG. 1977 International Harvester 186 at 12.9 HHG. 1980 Massey Ferguson 205 at 12.8 HHG. 1978 Kubota L185 at 12.8 HHG. 1963 John Deere 3020 at 12.7 HHG. 1965 Ford Commander 6000 at 12.6 HHG. 1957 Mercedes Benz Unimog 30 at 12.4 HHG. 1961 John Deere 1010 at 11.9 HHG. 1980 Satoh-Mitsubishi Stallion S750 at 11.7 HHG. 1959 Case 610 at 9.2 HHG.

[zero]

Actually the first diesels ran on coal dust

First diesel produced successfully was by an Englishman named Herbert Stuart. His engine ran on what they called "paraffin oil" which is pretty close to what we call "diesel fuel" today. Rudolph Diesel's engine came later. Ruldoph got all the fame because his was the most successfully marketed diesel, not because his was the first. That is the way history goes with many important inventions. The people who get credit are often not the ones that really did the initial inventing.

[zero]

A few more spec tables with engines sharing blocks that were offered in gas and diesel versions. Note that these old gas engines had very low compression ratios and newer gas engines put out more power for their size.

Buda 153 cubic inch engine. Gas has 112 lbs. max torque @ 1500 RPM. Diesel has 102 lbs. @ 1400 RPM.

Buda 182 cubic inch engine. Gas has 134 lbs. max torque @ 1200 RPM. Diesel has 124 lbs. @ 1400 RPM.

Buda 230 cubic inch engine. Gas has 164 lbs. max torque @ 1000 RPM. Diesel has 156 lbs. @ 1400 RPM.

Continental 157 cubic inches. Gas max torque 121 lbs. @ 1100 RPM. Diesel max torque 109 lbs. @ 1200 RPM.

Continental 243 cubic inches. Gas max torque 186 lbs. @ 1400 RPM. Diesel max torque 169.5 lbs. @ 1200 RPM.

Continental 572 cubic inches. Gas max torque 440 lbs @ 1000 RPM. Diesel max torque 400 lbs. @ 1200 RPM.

Oliver-Hercules 130 cubic inches. Gas max torque 97 lbs. @ 1400 RPM. Diesel max torque 96 lbs. @ 1200 RPM.

Waukesha 779 cubic inch engine. Gas max torque 595 lbs. @ 800 RPM. Diesel max torque 600 lbs. @ 1000 RPM

Waukesha 1197 cubic inch engine. Gas max torque 865 lbs. @ 800 RPM. Diesel max torque 840 lbs. @ 1000 RPM

[MontanaChinook]

First diesel produced successfully was by an Englishman named Herbert Stuart. His engine ran on what they called "paraffin oil" which is pretty close to what we call "diesel fuel" today. Rudolph Diesel's engine came later. Ruldoph got all the fame because his was the most successfully marketed diesel, not because his was the first. That is the way history goes with many important inventions. The people who get credit are often not the ones that really did the initial inventing.

Next you're going to tell us Thomas Edison didn't really invent the lightbulb.

[MontanaChinook]

And yes, that is sarcasm.

[zero]

I get the sarcasm. Putting that aside, Edison's light bulb wasn't even 2nd or 3rd. Maybe the 5th or 6th? Many before his. Again - he gets credit because his was the most successfully marketed bulb. I've been to Thomas Edison's workshop. Pretty neat place. His camping pal - Henry Ford moved the whole damn shop to Michigan. Even moved the dirt that was around the shop. Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, and Thomas Edison had some pretty need RVs back when such a thing was pretty rare. They really camped in style. I think Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone came close to inventing the idea of a motorized "RV." Kind of ironic that many of us have Harvey Firestone air-bags holding up the rears of our Toyota RVs.

The guy that invented (or discovered) the principal that makes LEDs work was a British employee of the Marconi Company - Marconi being the Italian guy given credit for inventing the radio. He was Captain Henry Joseph Round. Probably a name few people have heard or ever will. That was around the time when the Ford Model T was first getting popular so LEDs are pretty old. Just took a long time to make good lights out of them . Also took a long time to come with a reason to need them -like expensive energy.

[Totem]

holy crap I want henry fords chinook! that thing is freaking schweet!!!