Cabover vs. Long-Nose Platform

[ReluctantTraveler]

My DIY plans have always centered around a long-nose truck (somewhere in the F-350/3500 -> F-550/5500 range) with a cabover sleeper. But lately, the compact maneuverability of 4x4 cabover trucks (notably EarthCruiser and their Core program) have started to catch my eye.

What are the pros and cons of one versus the other?

A few things that immediately come to my mind...

• Long-nose trucks generally provide a more comfortable ride, and a bit of increased safety in an accident.
• Cabover trucks provider super views and visibility.
• Cabover trucks are harder to work on because the engine compartment is under the seating area.
• Long-nose trucks are (potentially) more expensive in today's truck market.
• Crew cab/dual cab cabovers (a requirement for us) are harder to find than crew cab long-nose trucks.
• While cabover trucks have a shorter footprint, you also often lose the cab-over sleeper because of their height, meaning you end up with a smaller living space OR a truck that ends up being the same length for a similar layout.

I'm sure there's a LOT more that I'm missing though. Thoughts?

 

[mog]

• Cabover trucks are harder to work on because the engine compartment is under the seating area.

I'm sure there's a LOT more that I'm missing though. Thoughts?

Both the cabovers I had (Fuso FG, MB1017A) were a dream to work on the engines as the whole cab tilted up so you had easy access to everything (including the lower sides of the engines), and in the case of the MB1017A even a roof over your head as you worked. 😉


However, this does not apply to Doublecab Fusos if that is what you are looking at.
Also, a few 'special' long-nose trucks like the C4500/5500 Kodiaks have the whole front end that tilts out of the way for the same easy access as the above cabovers.

Depending on your knees and agility, the cabovers are harder to access. I poo-poo'ed that idea when I had my Fuso (and was younger), but even the difference between the steps from the Fuso to the MB1017A made a noticeable difference. With the MB1017A being easier with at least some angle. Even if you are young and agile, this could apply if you travel with little children, dogs, or plan on 'company' on some of your trips.



Now the factory 'wide' running boards on the Kodak put those to shame.


center step folds down when not 'off-road

Another thing to consider is the wheelbase of the truck. A lot is focused on overall length, but the wheelbase (and front wheel turning angle) make a huge difference in maneuverability. My Fuso FG could run rings around my F250 CCSB, and the MB1017A was more maneuverable than my F250, even as a 25.5k GVWR truck on 46s as its wheelbase was 12" shorter and had a better steering angle. On the flip side, my Kodiak has a 194" wheelbase and even with a 53° steering angle, it needs the proverbial 40 acres to turn around.

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

Both the cabovers I have had (Fuso FG, MB1017A) were a dream to work on the engine as the whole cab tilted up so you had easy access to everything and in the case of the MB1017A a roof over your head as you worked.


However, this does not apply to Doublecab Fusos if that is what you are looking at.
Also a few 'special' long nose trucks like the C4500/5500 Kodiaks have the whole front end that tilts out of the way for the same easy access as the above cabovers.

In general, a cabover is going to ride rougher than a longnose as you are sitting right over the front wheels. That can be mitigated to some extent with suspension or air-ride seats.

Depending on your knees and agility, the cabovers are harder to access. I poo-poo'ed that idea when I had my Fuso (and was younger), but even the difference between the steps from the Fuso to the MB1017A made a noticeable difference.

Is the agility what makes them a popular choice, then?

 

[mog]

Is the agility what makes them a popular choice, then?

If this is a crewcab F-350/3500>F-550/5500 vs a crewcab EarthCruiser Core match-up, and not other 4x4 cab overs like


it makes a much easier comparison. In the old days, the complaints about the Fuso's low power, and post-2007 models, mechanical/electrical problems and no 2-speed transfercase, etc. have been corrected by CORE. Both options are pretty close in that it boils down to cost, lead-time, comfort (the long-nose still win), and options you want. No clear cut winner IMO (disclaimer-I'm not an expert and do not play one on TV)

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

If this is a crewcab F-350/3500>F-550/5500 vs a crewcab EarthCruiser Core match-up, and not other 4x4 cab overs like
View attachment 816268

it makes a much easier comparison. In the old days, the complaints about the Fuso's low power, and post-2007 models, mechanical/electrical problems and no 2-speed transfercase, etc. have been corrected by CORE. Both options are pretty close in that it boils down to cost, lead-time, comfort (the long-nose still win), and options you want. No clear cut winner IMO (disclaimer-I'm not an expert and do not play one on TV)

Yea, you've got it right. I'm comparing say a crew cab F-550 to dual cab EC Core.

I guess the other piece here is cost. Even with the absurd truck market right now, a new F-550 with 4wd is still 50% cheaper than an EC Core. A used Isuzu NPR could be converted, but that's quite costly and the team doing the work needs to know what they're actually doing.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that for DIYing (within my constraints), the long-nose probably wins.

 

[Peter_n_Margaret]

We have driven our OKA now for 20 years. It is a unique Australian designed and built forward control unit designed from the ground up to be a 4WD. Simply put, it means that it does not have the poor ride quality usually associated with forward control/cab over vehicles due to much longer than normal leaf springs.
It has a short 3m wheel base and a rigid ladder frame chassis which makes it ideal for building a bed-over-cab camper as the box can be fixed to the cab.
We have seating in the rear that allows 2 adults to travel legally there while travelling. There is also a child restraint seat on top of the engine compartment in the cab, so all the passenger options are covered without wasting lots of space on a dual cab.

Prior to this vehicle we had a Ford F350 4WD camper.
How ever you look at it, most other vehicles that are available in the weight class are almost all designed as 2WD local delivery trucks with 4WD added as an afterthought. They therefore need lots of mods to the suspension and wheels to make an acceptable expedition truck. The exception is the Unimog which is simply too large for many Australian tracks (IMO, and way outside our maintenance budget) and the 4WD Iveco which would be the best other viable choice from our perspective.
We would never go back to a "long nose platform", unless we lived in the USA and were forced to .
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

We have driven our OKA now for 20 years. It is a unique Australian designed and built forward control unit designed from the ground up to be a 4WD. Simply put, it means that it does not have the poor ride quality usually associated with forward control/cab over vehicles due to much longer than normal leaf springs.
It has a short 3m wheel base and a rigid ladder frame chassis which makes it ideal for building a bed-over-cab camper as the box can be fixed to the cab.
We have seating in the rear that allows 2 adults to travel legally there while travelling. There is also a child restraint seat on top of the engine compartment in the cab, so all the passenger options are covered without wasting lots of space on a dual cab.

Prior to this vehicle we had a Ford F350 4WD camper.
How ever you look at it, most other vehicles that are available in the weight class are almost all designed as 2WD local delivery trucks with 4WD added as an afterthought. They therefore need lots of mods to the suspension and wheels to make an acceptable expedition truck. The exception is the Unimog which is simply too large for many Australian tracks (IMO, and way outside our maintenance budget) and the 4WD Iveco which would be the best other viable choice from our perspective.
We would never go back to a "long nose platform", unless we lived in the USA and were forced to .
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

I’m curious about that last sentence, Peter.

I know you and I have chatted about your build it a few times, and that it’s served you well for many years.

What is it specifically about the Cabover platform that you prefer over a long nose?

 

[DirtWhiskey]

Love the cabovers for all the reasons above. The only catch for those of us in North America is that they don't exist in 4wd config with Fuso exiting the market. Aftermarket outfit only. Tulsa Truck is the only company widely doing these conversions. Also F550 et al are ubiquitous and parts, drivetrain and service are a known commodity. I wish it wasn't so but here we are.

 

[vintageracer]

No long nose Overlander built in Europe.

The cabover design for Overlanders came from Europe.

Europe and the rest of the world can have narrow roads, undeveloped roads and all sorts of other "tight quarters" situation not normally seen in the USA.

Cars, homes, and most everything else smaller in Europe.

Everything BIG in USA!

Makes "Cents" that the cabover design Overlander would start in Europe and ultimately migrate to the USA.

 

[Herbie]

This is a mission criteria that may or may not matter to all users, but "fits into a shipping container" is definitely an open question.

Depending on your needs and build, a small cabover truck can be made to fit into a 20ft container. A "long nose" truck almost certainly will not, unless you're going with single cab and the shortest of beds. (Incidentally this similar to why when searching for trucks to put under a flatbed 4WC, I was limited to extended-cab/shortbeds - my driveway is only 22' long, and any 8' beds or crew cabs would put me out over the sidewalk...)

A 40' container is an option, but obviously more spendy. Maybe that's a cost worth eating, though, for international travel.

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

No long nose Overlander built in Europe.

The cabover design for Overlanders came from Europe.

Europe and the rest of the world can have narrow roads, undeveloped roads and all sorts of other "tight quarters" situation not normally seen in the USA.

Cars, homes, and most everything else smaller in Europe.

Everything BIG in USA!

Makes "Cents" that the cabover design Overlander would start in Europe and ultimately migrate to the USA.

That was one of the other things on my mind, actually! The tight turning radius, easily visibility, and more narrow design of something like the EarthCruiser (or similar designs) seems like it'd lend itself better to non-US travel than something like the Earthroamer (and similar).

I don't have any plans to travel internationally at the moment, but that could change in the future, and it'd be nice to have the option to ship my own rig vs. renting someone elses.

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

This is a mission criteria that may or may not matter to all users, but "fits into a shipping container" is definitely an open question.

Depending on your needs and build, a small cabover truck can be made to fit into a 20ft container. A "long nose" truck almost certainly will not, unless you're going with single cab and the shortest of beds. (Incidentally this similar to why when searching for trucks to put under a flatbed 4WC, I was limited to extended-cab/shortbeds - my driveway is only 22' long, and any 8' beds or crew cabs would put me out over the sidewalk...)

A 40' container is an option, but obviously more spendy. Maybe that's a cost worth eating, though, for international travel.

I was looking into this the other day, and I wonder if the "shipping container" benefit is overrated? Seems like you can ship expedition trucks with Drive-On/Drive-Off services as well, and from my (admittedly limited) research, the cost actually seems to be about the same.

 

[Ozarker]

My DIY plans have always centered around a long-nose truck (somewhere in the F-350/3500 -> F-550/5500 range) with a cabover sleeper. But lately, the compact maneuverability of 4x4 cabover trucks (notably EarthCruiser and their Core program) have started to catch my eye.

What are the pros and cons of one versus the other?

A few things that immediately come to my mind...

• Long-nose trucks generally provide a more comfortable ride, and a bit of increased safety in an accident.
• Cabover trucks provider super views and visibility.
• Cabover trucks are harder to work on because the engine compartment is under the seating area.
• Long-nose trucks are (potentially) more expensive in today's truck market.
• Crew cab/dual cab cabovers (a requirement for us) are harder to find than crew cab long-nose trucks.
• While cabover trucks have a shorter footprint, you also often lose the cab-over sleeper because of their height, meaning you end up with a smaller living space OR a truck that ends up being the same length for a similar layout.

I'm sure there's a LOT more that I'm missing though. Thoughts?

With the exception of your first noted opinion and the fifth reason, I'd like to hear your basis of such an opinion. Example, long nose trucks being safer, just can't buy that since I'm sitting high up over the impact.

Assuming that if you're talking about a 550/5500 level truck then you're talking about a MAN or MB not a Fuso delivery truck.

I'd think a shorter footprint would be a good thing, for one, the approach angle should be much better, not sure about the wheelbase as that could be the same.

Easier to work on the "long nose" I'd think not, a tilt cab makes life much easier in a the garage.

Can't buy these assumptions, way too generalized to compare types when we should be considering ie. F-550 to a MAN.

Well, just another brain teaser?

How is the rest of your DIY project camper going, now around the 2 year mark?

Well, after reading more of this thread I see much of the same has been addressed.

 

[Herbie]

Like I said, question #1 is whether shipping is even a needed criteria. I built my first adventure van w/ shipping in mind, which turns out to have been a silly daydream, since I had a grade-school aged daughter and was in a growing career, long-term international travel wasn't really in my future. Our new rig is built for North America only. When the kiddo is off to school, I can reevaluate.

RORO as an option comes down to your required shipping route(s) and security needs. If I were doing the Panamerican Highway, I'd certainly keep RORO in mind for the Darien crossing. But if I were doing a big trans-oceanic shipment, the cost structure changes a LOT, plus I'd maybe reconsider my options vis-a-vis worries over having stuff stolen. The upside of a container is that you keep the keys and the box goes into the stack, so everything stays groovy until you meet your rig with the customs agent on the other side.

 

[ReluctantTraveler]

With the exception of your first noted opinion and the fifth reason, I'd like to hear your basis of such an opinion. Example, long nose trucks being safer, just can't buy that since I'm sitting high up over the impact.

Assuming that if you're talking about a 550/5500 level truck then you're talking about a MAN or MB not a Fuso delivery truck.

I'd think a shorter footprint would be a good thing, for one, the approach angle should be much better, not sure about the wheelbase as that could be the same.

Easier to work on the "long nose" I'd think not, a tilt cab makes life much easier in a the garage.

Can't buy these assumptions, way too generalized to compare types when we should be considering ie. F-550 to a MAN.

Well, just another brain teaser?

How is the rest of your DIY project camper going, now around the 2 year mark?

Well, after reading more of this thread I see much of the same has been addressed.

Actually, I'm comparing an F-550/5500 to a Fuso or Isuzu N-series. I realize they're in a different class, but the payload is the limiting factor on something like an F-350/3500, which means the F-550 and Fuso/Isuzu are much more similar in that regard.

Safety & Comfort: I've been told (and I think it was even mentioned in this thread) that sitting directly above the wheels in the cab-over means the ride is a bit more bumpy. Plus getting in/out is a bit more difficult because you need to climb up higher.

I've also seen various people note that a long-nose is safer in a crash because you have the whole nose in front of you to collapse and take the impact before it reaches the cab. Based on how cars and crumble zones work, that makes quite a bit of sense.

Working in the garage: dual cabs don't flip forward. You need to access the engine from inside the cab itself.

"Can't buy these assumptions." I didn't come here to argue. I asked some questions and was looking for information. Not really sure where all of your attitude is coming from.