Camper on my 130?

[R_Lefebvre]

Well, I wouldn't call it "haters". He asked for our thoughts, and a few politely voice theirs to the negative. This is an example of how criticism and disagreement can occur politely and maturely. So let's not get too excited.

 

[kellymoe]

You should be a salesman, I'm sold by that visual picture alone:sombrero:

Well you know what I think....


And the haters who worry about aesthetics, more often than not, are hatin' from inside their cozy home office... I can assure you that on the first night you're nestled in your camper, cooking dinner while the boys are playing cards on the bed and the Saline Valley wind is howling outside with rain on the Inyo's being imminent, the last thing you'll care about is the aesthetics...


.

 

[kellymoe]

No haters here just opinions so far which I appreciate. The weight does not concern me too much as my shell, rack, awning and interior shelves are not too light themselves. Reading a review of a 130 with a FWC the reviewer states he hardly felt it on the truck. Wind drag would probably be even less with a FWC compared to the huge rack I have on the truck now. Keep the thoughts coming.

 

[jatibb]

love it, comfy.... and warm.....and removeable.........

 

[Wonderland]

FWC/ATC would be cool. Would be even cooler if you color matched it to your 130, that green is awesome!

The FlipPac (even though very cool) you wouldn't be able to use your roof racks. Most likely have to loose part of the cab rack with a FWC/ATC.

Or build a slide in like this.

http://www.innovation-campers.de/

Photo isn't working, it is the third HiLux down

http://www.innovation-campers.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32&Itemid=23&lang=en


Their 130 Page:

http://www.innovation-campers.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=30&lang=en

 

[ersatzknarf]

Doesn't look like it would slide out too easily, which was one of the criteria I believe. Or at least a notable feature he liked.

It won't slide out at all, it's on there permanently. Yes, agreed, it was one of the original criteria, but I noticed a later statement:

I definitely like the slide on option as well as the low profile that will fit under my driveway overhang. As Lynn said I can take it off and go back to my current set up but I have a feeling once it's on it's there to stay. So far this is just a thought but thinking about it very seriously.

BTW the camper in the picture is the FWC Eagle. Alos considering the All Terrain Camper Bobcat.

Therefore, I recalled one of my favorite non-slide-on campers, the Azalai

Regardless, the FWC seems very good value for money.

Cheers,
Frank

 

[ntsqd]

The sole turn-down (I wouldn't call it a turn-off) for me with the FWC's is the corrugated siding. Having ripped a hole in the skin of my grandfather's airstream (at his guidance) I can see the easy to repair feature being a very nice bonus, but have to ask if that can also be done in a smooth side?

As long as the unit doesn't result in light steering I have only one issue with it sticking out to the rear of the bed. With the tailgate consumed/partly consumed, where's the porch? :sombrero:

 

[kellymoe]

As long as the unit doesn't result in light steering I have only one issue with it sticking out to the rear of the bed. With the tailgate consumed/partly consumed, where's the porch? :sombrero:

There is ATC that I believe is new called the Ocelot that looks like it might fit the bed and not have that heinous overhang. That might be something I will consider but yes that overhang is ugly but tolerable only because I can remove the camper when I get home.

 

[SeaRubi]

My hangups with the campers aren't just with aesthetics. In the 70's and early 80's, this style of cab-over campers were really popular with my family members. I myself never liked 'em to begin with.

Nowadays, my own preference is to stay as light as possible with the absolute minimum of gear to carry. It's easier on the vehicle, easier on fuel economy, and I spend less time worrying about the arrangement of objects and all of their needs, eliminating some of the planning and preparation time, which is limited to begin with, required to strike out on a trip.

The other huge liability with these campers, as far as I'm concerned, is the cost and complexity of maintaining the shell and it's systems. Having all the comforts of home means maintaining a second one! It's all nice when it's new, but after 3~5 years you've got plumbing to worry about, appliances that often are dedicated to that company or model making replacement costly, roofs and windows to keep sealed and, I would have to believe, extra wear and tear on your vehicle. Let's not forget all of the various storage tanks to fill, empty, clean and keep inspected - sewage, waste water, fresh water, and propane.

As for the convenience of the kitchen - how convenient is it, really? Are two roll-up style tables not about the same work area as compared to the small counter-tops inside one of these campers? And doesn't it stink up the camper when you cook? I mean, cooking out under an awning, outside of where you sleep means that there are no food odors adhering to your bedding and clothing. Same for the bathroom - how many of you know what it's like to get chased out of one of these things when somebody has to TCOB first thing in the morning and you just want to sit back and enjoy your comic and a cocoa? :snorkel:

Then there's the acquisition cost. All that money would go a long ways in gas in the tank to parts unknown. Say what you will about my opinion but for me, the logistics of prepping it for the trip , the costs, and the time required to maintain it don't add up.

Good luck in which ever route you decide!

cheers,
-ike

 

[kellymoe]

Good points but one of the reasons I am considering the FWC or ATC is that there is no sewage to worry about and the water system is as basic as you want it. The last thing I want is a toilet where I sleep. I have no problem taking a hike to do my business. These seem pretty simple and not much to maintain. Maybe someone with experience can pipe in and tell me if I am wrong.

My hangups with the campers aren't just with aesthetics. In the 70's and early 80's, this style of cab-over campers were really popular with my family members. I myself never liked 'em to begin with.

Nowadays, my own preference is to stay as light as possible with the absolute minimum of gear to carry. It's easier on the vehicle, easier on fuel economy, and I spend less time worrying about the arrangement of objects and all of their needs, eliminating some of the planning and preparation time, which is limited to begin with, required to strike out on a trip.

The other huge liability with these campers, as far as I'm concerned, is the cost and complexity of maintaining the shell and it's systems. Having all the comforts of home means maintaining a second one! It's all nice when it's new, but after 3~5 years you've got plumbing to worry about, appliances that often are dedicated to that company or model making replacement costly, roofs and windows to keep sealed and, I would have to believe, extra wear and tear on your vehicle. Let's not forget all of the various storage tanks to fill, empty, clean and keep inspected - sewage, waste water, fresh water, and propane.

cheers,
-ike

 

[adrenaline503]

I say go for it and paint it the same color as the Rover. It will blend right in, and IMO be the perfect vehicle.

 

[kjp1969]

The Flipack is nice but does it fit the 130? Also the Flipack has no cooking set up inside does it? My current configuration has a fold down table with awning. If I lose the current configuration I want to be sure I am not giving up too much of what I already have.

Give AT a call and see if they can make one for your application. They made one for that funky Ranger with the super-stubby bed that looks roughly like yours.

The Flippac is around 300lbs; its lighter than the FWC. But it's just a bed and a shell, so you'd have to build the rest yourself. Still, a chuck box along one side and an "L" shaped bench and you'd be set.

Edit: oh, and $4k vs. $10k.

 

[ShearPin]

I've always been a fan of some of the tray back slide ons from Aus. They were mentioned in a post here...

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1843

There is a 130 on the Aus land rover forum with one of these on.... Small enough to get in and out of tight spaces, dmountable, etc.

Henry

 

[bigreen505]

You will be endlessly ridiculed in the Land Rover community, both online and off, but you already know that. If you are ok with that it seems like a pretty awesome combination.

Take a look at a Flippac if for no reason other than to better understand the differences and similarities. The FWC is a camper that can handle off road use/abuse. The Flippac is possibly the ultimate shell/roof tent/changing area combination. On paper the FWC is 400 lb. heavier, but if you compared the weight of a FWC to a fully setup Flippac like Viking Vince has I would bet that the differences are much smaller. The FWC is fully contained/sealed where the Flippac mounts on top of the bed. A FWC allows you to mount racks or solar panels to the roof. You can't really do that with a Flippac.

There is a big cost difference, but functionally they fit completely different requirements. If you look at a FWC and think it is complete overkill and you don't need/want that level of comfort, the Flippac is the answer. If you look at a Flippac and think that if you are going that far you may as well go all the way, get a FWC.

Just remember that either way you go you are "ruining a perfectly good Defender" and will be ridiculed.

 

[Wonderland]

You will be endlessly ridiculed in the Land Rover community, both online and off, but you already know that....


Just remember that either way you go you are "ruining a perfectly good Defender" and will be ridiculed.

Sounds like Rover guys are a bunch of bullying elitist snobs, whaaat didn't they get enough hugs from their mums when they were kinder?:elkgrin::ylsmoke: