Supertramp Flagship LT pop-up slide-in pickup camper
- Thread starter Chadx
- Start date
Hadn't been on any trails since loading up the camper so wanted to at least do some minor stuff before we leave for UT trip. Also an opportunity to attach our old Wilco swingout, the 1up and throw a bike onto the camper so see how things fit. Drove to a local riding area, on BLM land, so has a shooting range, bike trails, some vehicle trails and dispersed camping, etc. The the trail driving was my ulterior motive even though I went for a quick first-ride-of-the-year spin on the MTB.
Departure angle is compromised a bit with the Wilco but about the same as if the 1up rack alone was used.
Couldn't really find any places to get a good test of articulation, but bouncing down the trails and shaking things in the camper was the main goal to ensure things were packed and padded adequately.
Found a couple steeper gulches to drive down and up to test the camper tie downs. Stopped several times on the way down and the way up the other side. Doesn't look steep, but it was a fairly good slope.
Got it up to 20degress going down, but was at 19degrees at the place I paused to photo this.
Little bit of side angle nearing the bottom. I was very comfortable/familiar with previous pickup and camper on side slopes, but still need to get a feel for this new rig's capabilities.
Departure angle is compromised a bit with the Wilco but about the same as if the 1up rack alone was used.
Couldn't really find any places to get a good test of articulation, but bouncing down the trails and shaking things in the camper was the main goal to ensure things were packed and padded adequately.
Found a couple steeper gulches to drive down and up to test the camper tie downs. Stopped several times on the way down and the way up the other side. Doesn't look steep, but it was a fairly good slope.
Got it up to 20degress going down, but was at 19degrees at the place I paused to photo this.
Little bit of side angle nearing the bottom. I was very comfortable/familiar with previous pickup and camper on side slopes, but still need to get a feel for this new rig's capabilities.
Last edited:
Don't have weight of wet camper only, but have total payload, which may be helpful for those planning out which pickup to consider.
We ran across a CAT scale on the way out of town loaded up for a week. 2,315lbs. That was for wife and I (300lb combined), camper, clothes, food, tools, Safejack, step stool, chairs, ARB dual compressor, shovel, traction boards, winch, recovery gear, etc. This is about the same as our previous camper setup if not a touch lighter, which surprised me as I've added a fair bit of weight with recovery gear.
F250 Max payload: 3,195
GVWR: 10,400
Curb weight: 7,205
Scale: 9,520 (4,540F / 4,980R)
Load: 2,315lb with two people
Camper has two batteries, Inverter, table, side window, interior L track. Does not have A/C, nor any optional exterior L track/molle, awning, etc.
We'll often add an additional 100 to 300lb of tongue weight (MTB rack/bikes, fishing boat tongue weight, enclosed trailer tongue weight, etc.) so happy we are 880lb UNDER max we are sitting since we were well OVER max with Tundra and previous camper. F250 handles like a dream in comparison.
We ran across a CAT scale on the way out of town loaded up for a week. 2,315lbs. That was for wife and I (300lb combined), camper, clothes, food, tools, Safejack, step stool, chairs, ARB dual compressor, shovel, traction boards, winch, recovery gear, etc. This is about the same as our previous camper setup if not a touch lighter, which surprised me as I've added a fair bit of weight with recovery gear.
F250 Max payload: 3,195
GVWR: 10,400
Curb weight: 7,205
Scale: 9,520 (4,540F / 4,980R)
Load: 2,315lb with two people
Camper has two batteries, Inverter, table, side window, interior L track. Does not have A/C, nor any optional exterior L track/molle, awning, etc.
We'll often add an additional 100 to 300lb of tongue weight (MTB rack/bikes, fishing boat tongue weight, enclosed trailer tongue weight, etc.) so happy we are 880lb UNDER max we are sitting since we were well OVER max with Tundra and previous camper. F250 handles like a dream in comparison.
Last edited:
Did our yearly April UT trip but this was the first trip in the Supertramp and F250! Met Supertramper @knutsCO and his wife for part of the trip and had an amazing time. Still sorting pictures and will share some soon, but wanted to share mileage data for those that are curious.
Pickup info: 2024 Ford F250 Supercab with 7.3L gas and 3.73 rear diff. Max payload on my truck is 3,195 and GVWR is 10,400.
With Supertramp, my wife and I in the cab, all gear (food, water, clothes, chairs, tools, recovery gear, air compressor, etc.), the CAT Scale said we had 2,315lb of payload and 9,520lb gross weight (4,540F / 4,980R). That is 880 below max. So nice to be that far BELOW max with a heavy duty pickup rather than that far OVER max like on a Fullsize pickup.
Pickup has around 4,000 miles on it so engine may continue to loosen up a bit and slightly improve with more miles.
Odometer reading was 1,413. Tires were changed from stock 275/65R20 to 285/75R18 so 2.1% larger diameter. Corrected mileage is 1,443 miles. This was 540 miles of highway and interstate. 50 miles of that was slower canyon roads, but mostly 75mph and 80+mph as we ran the speed limit + the entire trip. Had strong headwinds for several hours, too. Then four days of gravel roads or slow, rough trails with a few minor sections of highway to connect trails. Then the same 540 miles home of high speed highway and interstate.
108.43 gallons of fuel used per the pump readout. Pickup gauge calculated 11.3mpg. Hand calculated is 13.03mpg based on uncorrected odometer reading of 1,413 miles and calculates to 13.31mpg using 2.1% corrected mile number of 1,443.
Very happy with 13.3mpg. My Tundra with 4.6L V8 with OEV CAMP-X and similar weight, would get the same to 1mpg less gas mileage than the Superduty in same conditions (high speed highway, gravel roads, trail driving, etc.). In the six speed Tundra, I would mostly lock out 5th and 6th and run about 3,000 - 3,200rpm in 4th. The 7.3L, 10 speed w/3.73 rear diff lopes along in 10th gear except when it gets hilly where it would shift as low as 8th (still an overdrive). Didn't record cruising rpm at different speeds, but seems it mostly hung around 1,100 - 1,200 rpm. On gravel roads going 40mph to 60mph, would easily pull 8th, 9th or even 10th gear, though I often locked out 10th and sometimes 9th depending on how long the straightaways were . On the slower sections (30mph - 40mph) or with lots of curves and turns, I'd lock out all three overdrives and limit the transmission to 1:1 (7th gear) to reduce shifting., but was amazed how the grunt of the 7.3 would allow upshifts and holding a gear at such low speeds. Much different personality, as expected, than the 4.6L V8 that liked to rev to make power/torque.
For the trail driving, 4hi was appropriate most of the time. 1st is really quite low and I only ran 4lo a few times for particular hills or obstacles and in a few other sections just to play with it. Stock FX4 had plenty of clearance even in some ledges and interesting terrain. Nothing crazy on this trip, though, and limited to trails rated 4/10. I used to run 4lo a lot more in the Tundra and liked manually shifting while in 4lo in that truck. 4lo shifting in the F250 isn't as pleasant in my opinion. The truck holds each gear too long (high rpms) and even manually shifting, it won't let you shift to a higher gear unless the revs are pretty high. I foresee using 4hi way more in the F250 than in the Tundra because of the shift pattern and because 1st and 2nd seem to be plenty low even when transfer case is in high range.
Having 34 gallon fuel tank rather than 24 gallon tank has been huge improvement. I haven't yet recalibrated my head around that extra range when planning offroad routes and ended up making out-of-the-way drives for fuel when, in hindsight, it wasn't really needed. Having 30 useable gallons vs 20 useable is a huge improvement since we've proven the 7.3 will get the same mpg, or better, as the 4.6L when camper and truck are stocked for a week trip.
I mentioned it before, but also so nice to be able to drive decisively when loaded rather than very conservatively. Fullsize pickups required absolutely slowing down to the suggested curve speeds on highways where the Superduty easily handles the curves 10 - 15mph over suggested which is usually at the main posted speed limit.
Previous rig, the day-to-day handling was sound enough if driven conservatively, but I was always concerned about emergency maneuvers. I typically drove 100% of the time where with the Superduty, my wife easily and enjoyably took the wheel, for a couple hours on the drive down and back, on interstate sections with 80mph speed limit. Great!
------------------------------
Pickup displayed 11.3mpg and 1,413miles. Actual miles were 1,443 after correcting for tires.
Hand calculating 108 gallon fuel burn shows 13.3mpg over entire entire trip.
31 hours total drive time (20hours of that on highways and the remainder gravel or trails).
Pickup info: 2024 Ford F250 Supercab with 7.3L gas and 3.73 rear diff. Max payload on my truck is 3,195 and GVWR is 10,400.
With Supertramp, my wife and I in the cab, all gear (food, water, clothes, chairs, tools, recovery gear, air compressor, etc.), the CAT Scale said we had 2,315lb of payload and 9,520lb gross weight (4,540F / 4,980R). That is 880 below max. So nice to be that far BELOW max with a heavy duty pickup rather than that far OVER max like on a Fullsize pickup.
Pickup has around 4,000 miles on it so engine may continue to loosen up a bit and slightly improve with more miles.
Odometer reading was 1,413. Tires were changed from stock 275/65R20 to 285/75R18 so 2.1% larger diameter. Corrected mileage is 1,443 miles. This was 540 miles of highway and interstate. 50 miles of that was slower canyon roads, but mostly 75mph and 80+mph as we ran the speed limit + the entire trip. Had strong headwinds for several hours, too. Then four days of gravel roads or slow, rough trails with a few minor sections of highway to connect trails. Then the same 540 miles home of high speed highway and interstate.
108.43 gallons of fuel used per the pump readout. Pickup gauge calculated 11.3mpg. Hand calculated is 13.03mpg based on uncorrected odometer reading of 1,413 miles and calculates to 13.31mpg using 2.1% corrected mile number of 1,443.
Very happy with 13.3mpg. My Tundra with 4.6L V8 with OEV CAMP-X and similar weight, would get the same to 1mpg less gas mileage than the Superduty in same conditions (high speed highway, gravel roads, trail driving, etc.). In the six speed Tundra, I would mostly lock out 5th and 6th and run about 3,000 - 3,200rpm in 4th. The 7.3L, 10 speed w/3.73 rear diff lopes along in 10th gear except when it gets hilly where it would shift as low as 8th (still an overdrive). Didn't record cruising rpm at different speeds, but seems it mostly hung around 1,100 - 1,200 rpm. On gravel roads going 40mph to 60mph, would easily pull 8th, 9th or even 10th gear, though I often locked out 10th and sometimes 9th depending on how long the straightaways were . On the slower sections (30mph - 40mph) or with lots of curves and turns, I'd lock out all three overdrives and limit the transmission to 1:1 (7th gear) to reduce shifting., but was amazed how the grunt of the 7.3 would allow upshifts and holding a gear at such low speeds. Much different personality, as expected, than the 4.6L V8 that liked to rev to make power/torque.
For the trail driving, 4hi was appropriate most of the time. 1st is really quite low and I only ran 4lo a few times for particular hills or obstacles and in a few other sections just to play with it. Stock FX4 had plenty of clearance even in some ledges and interesting terrain. Nothing crazy on this trip, though, and limited to trails rated 4/10. I used to run 4lo a lot more in the Tundra and liked manually shifting while in 4lo in that truck. 4lo shifting in the F250 isn't as pleasant in my opinion. The truck holds each gear too long (high rpms) and even manually shifting, it won't let you shift to a higher gear unless the revs are pretty high. I foresee using 4hi way more in the F250 than in the Tundra because of the shift pattern and because 1st and 2nd seem to be plenty low even when transfer case is in high range.
Having 34 gallon fuel tank rather than 24 gallon tank has been huge improvement. I haven't yet recalibrated my head around that extra range when planning offroad routes and ended up making out-of-the-way drives for fuel when, in hindsight, it wasn't really needed. Having 30 useable gallons vs 20 useable is a huge improvement since we've proven the 7.3 will get the same mpg, or better, as the 4.6L when camper and truck are stocked for a week trip.
I mentioned it before, but also so nice to be able to drive decisively when loaded rather than very conservatively. Fullsize pickups required absolutely slowing down to the suggested curve speeds on highways where the Superduty easily handles the curves 10 - 15mph over suggested which is usually at the main posted speed limit.
Previous rig, the day-to-day handling was sound enough if driven conservatively, but I was always concerned about emergency maneuvers. I typically drove 100% of the time where with the Superduty, my wife easily and enjoyably took the wheel, for a couple hours on the drive down and back, on interstate sections with 80mph speed limit. Great!
------------------------------
Pickup displayed 11.3mpg and 1,413miles. Actual miles were 1,443 after correcting for tires.
Hand calculating 108 gallon fuel burn shows 13.3mpg over entire entire trip.
31 hours total drive time (20hours of that on highways and the remainder gravel or trails).
Vsgfoster
Continuous Improvement
Great report!
In our 2023 Ram 2500, 6.4 Hemi gas with 8 speed trans and 4.10 rear, with about 3,000 miles on it. On our 3 week return home trip from Colorado to Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Indiana and Kentucky, on a good mix of interstate, two lane and dirt road (but not much 4wd) we had a total average of 13.2mpg over the 5,100 miles. Seems very close to your experience.
tacollie
Glamper
13mpg is pretty good if you're doing 75-80 with wind. The front of the ST is ~6" lower than OEV and I think that is where you gained your 1mpg. We lost 1.5mpg switching from FWC to OEV. Carrying a camper with a proper truck is so much more enjoyable. The only time I miss the Tundra is when I need to make a u-turn.
I am curious about your mpgs at 65 vs 80. We gain 3mpg slowing to 65 from 80. I'm also interested how your experience of the ST compares to the Camp-x .
I am curious about your mpgs at 65 vs 80. We gain 3mpg slowing to 65 from 80. I'm also interested how your experience of the ST compares to the Camp-x .
I'd have to check dimensions, but the cabover thickness seems about the same between the OEV CAMP-X and Supertramp. Both are significantly thicker than our FWC was. And overall height (from footprint to highpoint of roof) of the Supertramp is a few inches taller than the CAMP-X if I recall correctly. Would have to go back and look at specs, but when making the move, it seems to me I'd figured the camper itself was around 3" taller and the bed of the new pickup was about 3" taller, so I was gaining around 6" overall height for the new rig. I'd need to go look at specs. The angled front, rear and sides of the Supertramp roof perhaps aid with aero.
Tonight I did a long enough drive to get some rpm data. Really hard to ready exact rpm on the gauge. I don't recall if one can adjust the center of the tach to give exact rpm. I'll have to take a look. Anyway, the following is fairly accurate. This is with 3.73 gearing and tires 2.1% larger than stock (285/75R18).
65mph: 1,500rpm
70mph: 1,650rpm
75mph: 1,800rpm
80mph: 1,900rpm
Speed checked the speedometer with GPS and with the taller tires. I'm going about 0.8 - 1mph faster than the speed reeds at both 70mph and 80mph. Speedometers tend to read 3 or 4mph slow stock so when I've upsized tires one size, the speedo becomes more accurate. Opposite is true for odometer as they typically are right on (and have to be within a certain percentage and that is a smaller margin than speedometers). Since my tires are about 2.1% larger than stock, I suspect my speedometer read only about 0.8 mph slow, which is better than my previous pickups.
No mileage comparisons at slow speed, but I can add two samples from today. On the drive home, I drove 70mph on the interstate. No mountain passes, but usual hilly southwest Montana and a route I've driven many times. Truck downshifts from 10th to 8th on the hills when driving 70mph. 22 mile drive and pickup indicated 12.3mpg. That compares to about 11.3mpg indicated for mostly 80mph driving. I don't think the display's mpg is accurate, but perhaps the percentage difference is useful which is an 8% improvement slowing 10mph. Interestingly, once I was off the interstate, I reset trip and then drove 12 miles on 55 mph roads. Hit around 5 stop lights on the way home evenly spread out (ever 2 or 3 miles). Even with the very efficient cruising speed of 55 - 60mph, I only got 11.1mpg per the gauge. That was coasting down to lights when I had time to react. As expected, having to start from a stop has a huge impact. I found that even when running empty.
This was a small sample size, though. More data is needed to draw any conclusions about efficiency gains for various speeds. Obviously there are, but need more data to determine how much.
Last edited:
tacollie
Glamper
@Chadx The ST tapers at the front. I estimated the 6" from the dimensions in post number 2 based on the taper not the overall height. Our 6.2 6 speed is usually around 10.2mpg at 80 but wind can really change that number. I'm just curious if the softer edges of the ST make much of a difference.
Yep, you are absolutely right on the CAMP-X being THICK. I went back and looked at my CAMP-X dimension diagram measurements and the leading edge of that cabover was 17.75" tall! I didn't remember it being that tall, but it's been a year. The leading edge of the STC is 11.75" in the diagram but that is only the fixed part of the cabover and not include the roof height. I had to know so just ran out to the shop and measured. The leading edge of the STC cabover is 14.75", so about 3" shorter than the CAMP-X. 6" further rearward, measured immediately after the front 45 degree corner (the first flat, vertical edge of the side of the cabover), overall height is 16". That is 12.25" for fixed portion of cabover and another 3.75" for the roof. I couldn't measure this, but based on the STC diagram, the overall height from the bottom of the cabover to the high point on the roof (not counting vents) is 19.75", so that measurement is 2" taller than the same measurement on the CAMP-X. Likely, that front and rear slope make it a bit more slippery through the air even thought overall height is taller.
One more interesting shape on the STC is the leading edge of the cabover is a slight V nose rather than flat. Think of the V on the front of a V nose trailer, but less pronounced. Too awkward to measure, but the middle looks to be about 3" further forward than the driver and passenger corners. We have a standard queen mattress in ours rather than the STC mattress and from the inside, there is a gap between the mattress and cabover in the center. So overall, there are angles happening all over the place. The V nose, the two 45 degree cuts on the front corners, the roof sloping up from the leading edge of the cabover then back down on the rear, and the left and right top sides slant down from center to edge as well.
In the end, it would be interesting to see mpg difference on same pickup with CAMP-X and STC, but just didn't work out that way.
Since I had my diagrams up, I wanted to check overall height as well. Overall height being defined as height from base/footprint to high point of roof (not including vents). CAMP-X was 63.75" and STC is 65.5". So 1.75" taller for the camper itself. The vents on the STC are taller than the CAMP-X because they are the auto-deploy type, but I don't know by how much. The Superdutys have a tall cab which required a 2" bed mat with the STC. Side note, for the Superdutys, they use a styro bed mat rather than livestock mat since 2" of livestock mat would weight 250+ pounds. So far, very happy with the styro mat. No noise and probably weighs less than 5lbs.
My CAMP-X and Tundra only required a 3/4" mat (started with 1.5" to be safe, but was able to go down to 3/4"). The CAMP-X only needs to be supported under the frame, though, so I had 5" wide strips of the 3/4" matt under the two sides and front of the footprint frame but nothing under the rear since it stuck out further than the Tundra bed. I don't know how much bed mat height would be needed for the CAMP-X on my Superduty, but looking at the diagrams, the CAMP-X was about 46" from base to bottom of cabover and STC is 45.75", so CAMP-X would have needed at least 1.75" of bed mat thickness (or pucks as they use nowadays) in a Superduty.
One more interesting shape on the STC is the leading edge of the cabover is a slight V nose rather than flat. Think of the V on the front of a V nose trailer, but less pronounced. Too awkward to measure, but the middle looks to be about 3" further forward than the driver and passenger corners. We have a standard queen mattress in ours rather than the STC mattress and from the inside, there is a gap between the mattress and cabover in the center. So overall, there are angles happening all over the place. The V nose, the two 45 degree cuts on the front corners, the roof sloping up from the leading edge of the cabover then back down on the rear, and the left and right top sides slant down from center to edge as well.
In the end, it would be interesting to see mpg difference on same pickup with CAMP-X and STC, but just didn't work out that way.
Since I had my diagrams up, I wanted to check overall height as well. Overall height being defined as height from base/footprint to high point of roof (not including vents). CAMP-X was 63.75" and STC is 65.5". So 1.75" taller for the camper itself. The vents on the STC are taller than the CAMP-X because they are the auto-deploy type, but I don't know by how much. The Superdutys have a tall cab which required a 2" bed mat with the STC. Side note, for the Superdutys, they use a styro bed mat rather than livestock mat since 2" of livestock mat would weight 250+ pounds. So far, very happy with the styro mat. No noise and probably weighs less than 5lbs.
My CAMP-X and Tundra only required a 3/4" mat (started with 1.5" to be safe, but was able to go down to 3/4"). The CAMP-X only needs to be supported under the frame, though, so I had 5" wide strips of the 3/4" matt under the two sides and front of the footprint frame but nothing under the rear since it stuck out further than the Tundra bed. I don't know how much bed mat height would be needed for the CAMP-X on my Superduty, but looking at the diagrams, the CAMP-X was about 46" from base to bottom of cabover and STC is 45.75", so CAMP-X would have needed at least 1.75" of bed mat thickness (or pucks as they use nowadays) in a Superduty.
Last edited: