BIG CAMPERS

[billiebob]

Saw this

Then saw this from 1979



On this 1979 F250 Crewcab which just sold for $36K


Amazing that Ford actually said....
"Your pickup is not recommended for carrying slide in campers."

I had a 1979 Ford 4x4 Crewcab for 15 years, definitely one of the best vehicles I have ever owned.

 

[jbaucom]

That'll buff out. Just needs a new spring pack and some frame strengthening for the long haul.

 

[jbaucom]

That's a really sharp 79 model. Ford, GM, and Dodge trucks from that era have all aged well with clean, classic lines. $36,000 almost seems like a bargain.

 

[zoomad75]

Anybody that dumb to put a camper that big in a 1/2 ton anything deserved what they got.

So much of the weight of that camper is beyond the rear axle there is no surprise to me that the frame taco'd like that.

I'm betting the poor sucker that bought it didn't have a clue, but the jerk that sold it was probably giggling as it drove off.

 

[billiebob]

Anybody that dumb to put a camper that big in a 1/2 ton anything deserved what they got.

So much of the weight of that camper is beyond the rear axle there is no surprise to me that the frame taco'd like that.

I'm betting the poor sucker that bought it didn't have a clue, but the jerk that sold it was probably giggling as it drove off.

The internet is full of these pictures but you miss the point.
40 years ago the manufacturer flat out said on paper.....

"Your pickup is not recommended for carrying slide in campers."

there must be a reason this is happening....

 

[Kingsize24]

There is a reason. Wheelbase is too short, frame is too thin.

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

It appears, you can't have OK Mpgs and a hd truck at the time
UNLESS you order one.
New trucks are obese/ bodacious and manly looking , but weak.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

The internet is full of these pictures but you miss the point.
40 years ago the manufacturer flat out said on paper.....

"Your pickup is not recommended for carrying slide in campers."

there must be a reason this is happening....
View attachment 750962View attachment 750963View attachment 750964

Both of my most recent GM trucks ('17 Canyon and '18 Silverado, both crew cabs) have/had stickers in the glovebox stating similarly; that the truck was not designed for slide in campers. So some manufacturers are still doing it that way. This is not my sticker but it's similar:





The information is there. Folks are just ignoring it, it seems!

 

[vintageracer]

NOBODY reads a sticker in the glovebox!

That's why GM put it there.

I guess that's GM's "We told you so" without "Telling you so"!

Not our problem!

 

[zoomad75]

The internet is full of these pictures but you miss the point.
40 years ago the manufacturer flat out said on paper.....

"Your pickup is not recommended for carrying slide in campers."

there must be a reason this is happening....
View attachment 750962View attachment 750963View attachment 750964

Oh, I got the point. It's pretty obvious the legal eagles in the OEMs are playing CYA in so many ways. But as you noted it's been going on for years. I've got a pic of a Label in a '91 K5 that a buddy has that he bought with a Four Wheel Camper on it like mine.

Yep says the same thing. Ironically it was the K5 platform that just over a decade earlier GM was selling *gasp* a slide-in camper in a "factory" package as the Blazer Chalet/Jimmy Casa Grande. The body didn't change in the underpinning from 1977 to 1991, the frame didn't change either. So what caused the change in outlook at GM besides the potential liability?

What makes it even more ironic is how much larger/heavier a Chalet is vs a FWC unit on a Blazer. Anytime you extend weight beyond the rear axle it has an effect to cantilever on the frame with the rear axle as the pivot point. The further it is from the axle centerline the worse it gets. The examples you pulled from the web only prove that point. All you showed were ultra-short short boxes where the majority of the camper is past the axle centerline. In those trucks there isn't any solid way to carry a camper and not have that happen, hence the disclaimer is pretty accurate. Though it doesn't make sense that they also put that disclaimer on larger/heavier trucks that have longer beds that would properly carry the weight of a camper within it.


It's not that GM and Ford don't know how to build a truck specific for camper duty. They did once upon a time. During the 68-72 generation of trucks they produced the "Longhorn" version that added 6 inches to the wheelbase and the bed of the truck. This allowed for the CG of the camper to be in front of the rear axle for a better weight bias.

Ford's version was the Super Camper Special which didn't increase the bed length but moved the rear axle back to a whopping 140" wheelbase.

Between rising fuel costs and other changes in the automotive world, these giants just didn't pan out as volume sellers. Which sucks because I bet they handled big campers so much better than ones with a shorter wheelbase. Could you imagine a new GM, Superduty or Ram built with this kind of radical wheelbase change to handle a large camper better?

 

[vintageracer]

8 years ago a business partner of mine bought 13 Blazer Chalets in various conditions from a collector. Over the years I to have owned, bought and sold 6 different Chalet's myself.

All one has to do is drive one of these vastly overloaded Blazer Chalets to understand why they were "Quietly and Quickly" discontinued by GM. I would say Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" moniker was far more appropriate when describing the Blazer/Chalet that than the Chevrolet Corvair!

 

[ttengineer]

It’s my understanding that there is a weak point purposefully designed into the frame at the cab/bed intersection for crash rating. When the ZR2 came out I remember trailers with heavy younger weights causing it as well. I believe Chevy has since slightly reinforced that area to keep trailers safe, but the break point is still there to keep the crash rating up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zoomad75]

8 years ago a business partner of mine bought 13 Blazer Chalets in various conditions from a collector. Over the years I to have owned, bought and sold 6 different Chalet's myself.

All one has to do is drive one of these vastly overloaded Blazer Chalets to understand why they were "Quietly and Quickly" discontinued by GM. I would say Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" moniker was far more appropriate when describing the Blazer/Chalet that than the Chevrolet Corvair!

I don't disagree that they had issues in how they handled. Massively heavy, underpowered and CG that's way up and rearward over a stock K5. But the main reason they went away was they couldn't give them away. The cost was extreme and it still was a time when fuel costs were rising radically. I keep in touch with the last guy I worked for at GM who was a young District Sales Manager within Chevrolet back when the Chalets were being sold. I asked him how they went over when they came out. He responded they were great on paper, but awful to sell because of the price. He said he had to beg dealers to take just one. Most of the time he had to bribe them with other product that was more likely to move to take the Chalet.

They missed the mark in execution. The Chalet needed beefed up suspension with a full floating axle out back to safely carry the extra weight and a rear sway bar. Given the anemic power even the 400 small block that some Chalets were optioned with they should have spec'd a 454 to beef up the torque numbers. Granted the 454's weren't any ball of fire back then either, but they still were better. If anything it put a little more weight on the nose that it could use with all the extra weight out back. I'm sure adding content wouldn't have made it any less expensive, but it could have been more value for the price in a better running/driving truck.

It’s my understanding that there is a weak point purposefully designed into the frame at the cab/bed intersection for crash rating. When the ZR2 came out I remember trailers with heavy younger weights causing it as well. I believe Chevy has since slightly reinforced that area to keep trailers safe, but the break point is still there to keep the crash rating up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I was still at the dealer I worked at up to earlier this year I never saw anything in Service details that they did or didn't beef up the frame on the Colorado trucks. I will say most crumple zones though are built into the areas in front of the wheels up front and behind the wheels out back. I say that based on seeing them get wrecked and come through our body shop at the dealership. A small sample size for sure, but most wadded up on the ends of the frames, and not much damage was seen between the wheels.

 

[Sooper Camper]

Ford's version was the Super Camper Special which didn't increase the bed length but moved the rear axle back to a whopping 140" wheelbase.

I have one of these, and the frame was unique to that truck (as far as trucks with beds go). It's basically a shortened version of a stake bed/cab and chassis frame from the same era. It is pure beef and significantly stronger than an F250 or similar. It's 9" tall under the cab, and roughly 1/4" thick, which is utterly ridiculous if you think about it.

Ever seen the special camper they made for that truck? it is also, utterly ridiculous.

 

[Sooper Camper]

Could you imagine a new GM, Superduty or Ram built with this kind of radical wheelbase change to handle a large camper better?

FWIW, its actually the same wheel base as a single cab long bed Super Duty. The F150 long beds from the 97 body change on up also have a heavy rear offset on the axle location. No one really buys long bed 1/2 tons though.