Camper Builder Comparison (UNICAT vs. GXV etc.,)

[Joe917]

Maybe a class A towing a 4X4?

 

[Will58]

Better to discover the disconnect between your dreams and theirs now rather than after spending the money to get something that won’t satisfy everyone involved.

Well said! It is that I have worked hard all of life, fighting, saving, investing, losing doing everything I possibly can to do this and then have this is a hard pill to swallow. Where am I supposed to spend my cash? I am not paying at a Hilton, for sure!
I profusely apologize for the rant!

 

[Michelle@EarthCruiser]

we cannot have all he comforts of the home!

Glad to hear that you've sorted out your disparate views and sorry to hear that you won't be able to pursue your own personal dream.

Please note that comforts and amenities are very different which is probably where many people's disconnects come in. An EarthCruiser provides all the important comforts of home but not necessarily all the amenities of home.

 

[HAF]

I really appreciate the insight from this community. Victorian, from Total Composites, thank you so much for your comment. Given the encouragement from here, I am revealing my chassis. Bear in mind that this is company vehicle with defense contracts so unfortunately I won't be able to post pictures anytime soon; however, it is being removed from the fleet so eventually yes, there will be pictures! Now onto my chassis,

Details:
2003 Oshkosh Corporation M978 HEMTT Fuel Tanker, DD 8V92TA Diesel Engine with 450 HP and around 1300 lb-ft of torque.
Allison HT 740D transmission with an Oshkosh 55,000 lb 2-Speed transfer case in 8x8 configuration. GVWR of 66,000 lbs.

My firm acquired this is late 2011, and it has been modified quite a bit.

Modifications:
Rebuilt Cat C18 ACERT Tier 3 emissions with 810 HP and around 2800 lb-ft of torque. Complete rebuilt and re-gearing of transmission & transfer case to increase highway speeds upto 76 mph at 1300 RPM.
Dual 397 Amps alternator giving a peak current output of around 800 Amps and a continuous output of around 600 Amps.
Complete removal of the tanker configuration up to the frame, and full on rust prevention treatment. A frame extension of 7 ft after the rear axles was completed using the recommended steel and tested for 760 MPa of yield strength and torsional rigidity. Water fording capabilities have been upgraded to 60 inches for 5 minutes.
Cab has been brought up to modern civilian standards and provisions are there to have navigation, camera systems and digital dash etc., if need be.

Pros:
Massively capable off-road even in fully loaded configurations. The GVWR allows a lot of options in terms of expedition vehicle capabilities. I have driven and worked on this vehicle systems, so trouble shooting is easy for me. Reliability is a big plus even with the modifications. The DD motor served with no problem at all, and the conversion to Cat C18 was smooth with 600 hours of problem free operation.

Cons:
Size, too big according to people familiar with overlanding. I handle her pretty well, but yes this is a big truck. Huge turning radius of 105 ft, and no rear steering axle. Gas guzzler with a range of 300 to 350 miles. Most importantly, proprietary components which makes servicing difficult especially transfer case, axles and gearing. Cab-to-body pass-through not possible due to engine location. Tire availability is difficult.

Members, please comment on the chassis. I want truthful opinions as to if this is absurd to convert to an expedition vehicle. If it is so, then I have no problem reassigning to the fleet duty. My thoughts on this are that the range issue can be taken care of; however other aspects like turning radius is fixed. More so, the intimidating aspect of this truck can potentially inhibit export for building the body, and cause unnecessary trouble with customs.
Secondly, does anyone think that such a niche vehicle can cause problems with our travel plans of Africa, Central Asia etc.,

Thank you and if I am crazy please let me know!

I own an Oshkosh MK48 with is similar to an M978. Main difference is the MK articulates in the middle. These machines are massive, fuel hunger (2 MPG), loud (much of engine is in the passenger compartment). Even with 8-wheel drive and lockers on all four axels, they can get stuck.
If you run with this, save half of the tanker portion for fuel!

 

[Will58]

I own an Oshkosh MK48 with is similar to an M978. Main difference is the MK articulates in the middle. These machines are massive, fuel hunger (2 MPG), loud (much of engine is in the passenger compartment). Even with 8-wheel drive and lockers on all four axels, they can get stuck.
If you run with this, save half of the tanker portion for fuel!

Thank you for your comment.
Originally, my HEMTT came with the DD 8V92TA motor and a 150 gallon fuel tank giving us a range of around 300 miles. However, the DD motor was swapped out for CAT C15 rebuilt to C18 ACERT specifications with around 800 HP and 2700 lb-ft of torque. The truck is also re-geared for an highway speed of 80 mph max, and at 70 mph she cruises between 1250 - 1400 RPM with a fuel efficiency of 4 - 5 mpg. When converting to expedition vehicle specification we planned on adding another 150 gallon tank which should have sufficient.
As far as noise, the whole cabin was redone. The whole cabin especially back wall or bulkhead was completely insulated with dynamat and other sound proofings to reduce NVH. Externally, heat shield and sound proofings were also added to the motor to address this issue. Right now, from an NVH perspective it is miles better; however with any military vehicle it is difficult to completely isolate NVH.
Once again thanks, appreciate it. Right now, the project is scrapped!