Chinook Campers....
- Thread starter XJxplorer
- Start date
Curmudgeon
Adventurer
Not much. I see them all the time for $1000 or less. Sometime much less. Here are a couple in my area in just the last month.XJxplorer said:
http://salem.craigslist.org/rvs/692517862.html
http://salem.craigslist.org/rvs/709545094.html
-
Curmudgeon
Adventurer
That's actually considered a motorhome rather than a camper. And I see more of those for sale than the campers, at least in my area. Here are three listed in this area in just the last week.
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rvs/713717091.html
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rvs/719955796.html
http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/rvs/720363388.html
JP
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rvs/713717091.html
http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/rvs/719955796.html
http://portland.craigslist.org/clk/rvs/720363388.html
JP
77blazerchalet
Former Chalet owner
And don't forget the 4x4 General Motors versions (a complete bolted together motorhome, not a slide-in, ignore the nonfactory colors on this one) http://portland.craigslist.org/wsc/rvs/710640348.html
Last edited:
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
I've seen quite a few around here, most are not in great condition. Most common chassis seems to be the late 70's Toyota but it's not uncommon to see them with a (4th? generation?) 1984-88 Toyota chassis. Every one I've seen has been a 2wd and the vast majority have some variation of the 4cyl engine (20r or 22r, I would guess.)
Probably easier to find than a VW camper and I'd guess they'd be about even on performance (i.e. slower than molasses going uphill in January.) Definitely cheaper than a VW camper because AFAIK there's no "cult following" for Chinook campers.
I've seen photos of 4wd versions but never seen one "in the flesh." I don't believe the Chinook was ever offered from the factory as a 4x4 so my guess is that someone grafted the camper portion onto a 4x4 chassis. If that's the case I would be a little worried about stability and strength since the 2wd version probably had a beefed up frame to handle the extra weight.
Not sure what MPG would be. Again, my guess is that it would be disappointing. For one thing, I think most of them had 4 speed rather than 5 speed trannies (IIRC the 5 speed did not become common until the early 80's.) Second, that little 20r or 22r motor would have to work awfully hard to pull all that weight.
Still, they are funky looking little vehicles. With the price of gas one has to wonder how long it will be before the RV industry starts to adjust and produce more RVs based on small, efficient platforms.
Probably easier to find than a VW camper and I'd guess they'd be about even on performance (i.e. slower than molasses going uphill in January.) Definitely cheaper than a VW camper because AFAIK there's no "cult following" for Chinook campers.
I've seen photos of 4wd versions but never seen one "in the flesh." I don't believe the Chinook was ever offered from the factory as a 4x4 so my guess is that someone grafted the camper portion onto a 4x4 chassis. If that's the case I would be a little worried about stability and strength since the 2wd version probably had a beefed up frame to handle the extra weight.
Not sure what MPG would be. Again, my guess is that it would be disappointing. For one thing, I think most of them had 4 speed rather than 5 speed trannies (IIRC the 5 speed did not become common until the early 80's.) Second, that little 20r or 22r motor would have to work awfully hard to pull all that weight.
Still, they are funky looking little vehicles. With the price of gas one has to wonder how long it will be before the RV industry starts to adjust and produce more RVs based on small, efficient platforms.
locrwln said:Wow 28mpg.And it doesn't bog down on the hills. That is one amazing little camper.
I still think they are really neat.
Jack
Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I think they would have to be really really tiny hills...
There was a guy on ExpeditionCampers (not sure if he made the transition to this site) that owned a 2wd Chinook back in Colorado for a few years, and he said his bogged down pretty seriously. I think it was one of the larger models, though.
locrwln
Expedition Leader
Lynn said:
Sorry about that, yes my comment was dripping with it.
I find his gas mileage and power claims to be extremely unlikely. I have driven a stock 22re powered mini (no camper) and owned a 3.0 v6 4runner, both 5spd's/4wd's and neither got anything close to 28mpg and both certainly bog down on hills. At least here in the Sierra's.
Jack
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
locrwln said:Wow 28mpg.
I still think they are really neat.
Jack
Yeah, I'm a little skeptical of both of those claims. Especially the second one.
But for $2k it would make a nice little exploration vehicle for most of the US. As long as you understood you couldn't take it on anything really rough you'd do fine. And, really, I drove all over the West in my 2wd Ranger so it's really not that difficult to imagine.
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
XJxplorer said:
That probably depends on which body style the original vehicle is. Remember that up until 1979 Toyota didn't offer a factory 4x4 and many of the Chinooks I see are of this older body style.
But $900 sounds like a steal, depending, of course, on what kind of condition it's in. Honestly, if it were me I wouldn't even worry about a 4wd conversion, I'd probably just try to get some suspension lift and put some meatier tires on it and use it as a 2wd exploration machine! Better yet, strap a 200cc dual/sport on the back for those areas you can't get to via 2wd and you'd have the ultimate setup, at least for much of North America.