Chevy Kodiak

[DiploStrat]

With Caveat that ...

I have never seen, let alone driven a Kodiak, I think there are some common points here:

-- US spec vehicles present issues overseas: parts, unleaded/low sulphur fuel, odd sized tires, etc. None of these is a show stopper, they are just factors.

-- All things being equal, you need a bigger truck than you think. See Earthroamer, now up to a Ford 550, and Tiger now up to 350/3500 HD. See also the bleats from those owners whose campers are based on lesser vehicles.

-- Long bad roads are a bigger issue than raw 4x4 ability.

-- Finally, while the Unimog is great, remember, 90+% of the time you will be on pavement or decent dirt. Do you REALLY want a vehicle with a top speed of 80km that requires you to wear ear plugs? Really? For a two year trip?

So if building on a US truck platform for overseas use, you are probably better off with the "1 ton" or larger truck to keep the whole package well below the max GVWR. A relatively larger truck gives you more room for fuel/water on the frame rather than in the camper.

I actually like the Kodiak in the pictures above - the external storage is most useful. For two people I would go for a conventional, not crew cab and a shorter camper, perhaps with a raising roof.

Stephan Stewart's page on choosing an overland vehicle is essential reading - especially if you DON'T plan to follow all of his good advice. http://www.xor.org.uk/silkroute/equipment/choosevan.htm (I'll even forgive him a dig or two at Americans as I probably saw him at least once in the '70's!) This is the holy grail of "Why an Overland vehicle is not a camper is not a 4x4."

 

[lowenbrau]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but if you move in the class 6 or bigger chassis you have the option of a Cat and and Isuzu engine instead of the Duramax. Surely they have to have better third world support.

One thing these things have going for them is they are cheap. You can get a crew cab 5500 here in town with a pickup bed, brand new for about 50K US.

I've always been interested in this body style since it used the Savanna van body and that opens up all kinds of cab modification possibilities.

 

[btggraphix]

I cut this up a little out of sequence...hope you don't mind...

-- All things being equal, you need a bigger truck than you think. See Earthroamer, now up to a Ford 550, and Tiger now up to 350/3500 HD. See also the bleats from those owners whose campers are based on lesser vehicles.
.......
So if building on a US truck platform for overseas use, you are probably better off with the "1 ton" or larger truck to keep the whole package well below the max GVWR. A relatively larger truck gives you more room for fuel/water on the frame rather than in the camper.

That was pretty much our guiding principle with this purchase...we had had truck campers for awhile and wanted to go much bigger, but most of the 11'+ campers overload a 1 ton dually right off the bat. We figured with a Kodiak or F550/Dodge5500 that wouldn't happen. Buy once, big, and not have to worry about modifications for carrying the weight. The price differences are very small until you jump to the 650/6500's not even counting 4x4 conversion.

-- Finally, while the Unimog is great, remember, 90+% of the time you will be on pavement or decent dirt. Do you REALLY want a vehicle with a top speed of 80km that requires you to wear ear plugs? Really? For a two year trip?

My wife would probably have divorced me if we bought a Mog and tried to drive across country (or the state!) with it. Our various camping friends might refuse to travel with us as well (there was a stretch where it seemed like every Sunday afternoon/eveing we got caught behind a line of Mogs/Pinzgaurs heading up Kenosha Pass and everyone would talk about how irritating it was)...of course, if I wasn't working, and traveling around with no care about how fast I got there, it would be a whole different story.

I actually like the Kodiak in the pictures above - the external storage is most useful. For two people I would go for a conventional, not crew cab and a shorter camper, perhaps with a raising roof.

Thanks! The crew is huge, and as I said I would have gone with an extended cab if they offered it (like the Ford) but for now we just couldn't handle not having a back seat. We may be traveling some with my mom in the future, and our dogs ride back there as well. It's all trade-offs, but until it is just the two of us, I think we are pretty happy with the crewcab. The flatbed with boxes was always part of the plan.....we never had space for our extra junk (outdoor stuff mostly, and tools) when we didn't take our trailer and bikes. Now it isn't a problem. I can't seem to find a picture with the boxes open at the moment, but the top boxes connect through, so I can put our downhill skis in there, or other very long items. The doors do drip in when I open them....not sure the best fix for that. I am not 100% satisfied with the mounting method he used either. The brackets are a little close to the tire and that might cause problems for putting on snow chains. I may need to change them a bit. He also used aluminum strapping and it has bent a bit. Here's a shot that show the boxes a little better, but still not open.

Our biggest issue is height. I may swap out the AC, but ultimately, either a pop-up like you mention, or a custom (and much shorter) camper would provide a much better solution. Then you could add the three-point bed, 22" super single wheels, better suspension etc. etc. etc. But now I'm dreaming again....

 

[HINO SG]

I
A more or less "world truck" sold by GM that appeals to me more: the forward control T series, in 7500 or 8500, perhaps with a 4WD conversion by Tulsa Truck.
Charlie

I've heard of T.T. before but hardly ever see their stuff in overland applications.
They seem to do a lot of work- do they only do fleet/government work or just really expensive..?

 

[btggraphix]

I've heard of T.T. before but hardly ever see their stuff in overland applications.
They seem to do a lot of work- do they only do fleet/government work or just really expensive..?

I think they did the EcoRoamer (F650) front axle (Meritor?)

 

[mhiscox]

Lots of good information here. And I know that this group, probably better than any other group around, knows that there is no "right" chassis choice. It's just a matter of compromising in the areas where compromise is most acceptable.

I've spec'd an new International 4x4 crew cab with all the right overlanding stuff, and it takes about double the Kodiak's cost to get into a serious discussion. If the chassis is for a $500K Unicat or some such, spending ten percent more for the better chassis might be smart. But that same $50K would go a long way toward fitting out a basic camper on the Kodiak or, alternately, pay for a lot of miles of travel. So is using a medium-duty GM truck, thus saving considerable money to spend on something else, a worthwhile compromise? Can't imagine anyone but Tomas can accurately judge.

. . .while the Unimog is great, remember, 90+% of the time you will be on pavement or decent dirt. Do you REALLY want a vehicle with a top speed of 80km that requires you to wear ear plugs?

On behalf of Unimoggers everywhere, I take umbrage at this. It suggests that our trucks are slow and noisy when they are, in fact, well, not quite as slow and noisy as implied.

Most older diesel Unimogs suitable for highway use will top 80 kph (50 mph) by a bit; 50-55 mph is a common cruising speed. And remember that one reason our Mogs are geared for that low top speed is that 80 kph is the large truck speed limit in many parts of the world. (My Mog even has a little red warning light in the speedo face that comes on when you exceed that speed.) The point being that lots of us manage the speeds OK in the US, and speed expectations are higher here than most anywhere. I'm guessing that on an around-the-world trip, the number of times a Mog's top speed became an issue would be pretty small.

And not all Mogs require ear plugs. Mine doesn't. (Which is not to say that the music from your iPod earbuds isn't considerable improvement over the Mog's engine drone. )

 

[charlieaarons]

On behalf of Unimoggers everywhere, I take umbrage at this. It suggests that our trucks are slow and noisy when they are, in fact, well, not quite as slow and noisy as implied.

Most older diesel Unimogs suitable for highway use will top 80 kph (50 mph) by a bit; 50-55 mph is a common cruising speed. And remember that one reason our Mogs are geared for that low top speed is that 80 kph is the large truck speed limit in many parts of the world. (My Mog even has a little red warning light in the speedo face that comes on when you exceed that speed.) The point being that lots of us manage the speeds OK in the US, and speed expectations are higher here than most anywhere. I'm guessing that on an around-the-world trip, the number of times a Mog's top speed became an issue would be pretty small.

And not all Mogs require ear plugs. Mine doesn't. (Which is not to say that the music from your iPod earbuds isn't considerable improvement over the Mog's engine drone. )

Thanks. The U500 tops out at 70 (110kph) and I can cruise at 60 (97-100kph) all day, listening to the CD player and/or talking to my wife.
On the Unicat site, the U1550 for sale tops out at 98kph; it would go 120kph with a Claas overdrive. The U2450s with 14.00R20s top out at 86 kph; 105 with the OD. The Claas is specifically designed for SBU Mogs.
Incidentally, the local GM dealer says base MSRP on a T8500 (gvw33-37000) is ~$80K. Add 20-25 for 4WD, more for options, it's right up there with a new U500 (if you could get them), without CTIS or super low gearing.
But it is a nice forward control heavy duty truck. With an Isuzu engine and an Allison 3500 or Roadranger 8LL 10spd.

Charlie

 

[haven]

The GMC W series and T series are Isuzu designs. So they would be close to the medium cab-forward truck Isuzu sells all over the world. No 4x4 Isuzus in North America, but Isuzu does sell them in Australia.

In Australia, the Isuzu FSS 550 and FTS 800 are available in crew cab 4x4 models. I imagine it would be possible to purchase the parts from Australia (T-case, front drive shaft, front axle) to convert a USA model Isuzu to 4x4.

Two USA companies sell Japanese cab-forward medium trucks that have been converted to 4x4.

Darrin Fink converts Mitsubishi FM models to 4x4. See http://www.ruf-inc.com/aatrecfm.htm Darrin is not crazy about selling the converted chassis without his camper, but he can be persuaded.

Pioneer 4 Wheel Drive converts UD cab-forward models to 4x4. The web site is http://www.pioneer4wheeldrive.com/ The advantage of Pioneer is that their work is a factory authorized option, so your warranty is maintained.

I see that the Pioneer web site is "under construction," which may mean the company is being reorganized. The contact phone number in Missoula, MT is 406-541-7447.

One company that sells 4x4 medium trucks in USA is Firematic. Their brush truck chassis seem close to what's needed for an ExPo camper. They use Ford F550 and F650. http://www.firematic.com/brat.htm

It seems to me that if you're building a truck for a world tour, you should consider purchasing a chassis and camper overseas. How about an All Terrain Warriors conversion of a Mitsubishi 4x4 chassis?

Their web site is http://www.allterrainwarriors.com.au

Chip Haven

 

[jayshapiro]

Considering MD options...

Tomas,

Sorry to show up late to the party (some great discussion already) - but I thought I'd add in my 2 cents, as well.

Last year we were in exactly the same place as you and considered the (and rejected) the Kodiak/Topkick. Like you we wanted a crew cab, medium duty, diesel, robust world machine - and like you, we put a 16ft custom camper on the back of it. (well, actually - 18.5ft when you include the rear 'veranda'.

If you haven't already, you might want to read some of the great discussions from this group on that same topic on the early EcoRoamer pages.

Here's a couple of the key points though:

- The GM is only sold with the factory 4x4 up to the 5500 level, which has a lower GVWR than the 6500 or Ford's 650. So you're moving to a medium duty type chassis but still constrained by the weight.

- The 5500 GM is only available with the Duramax engine, that we felt would be difficult to service / source parts for (as others have already said) We decided to go with the CAT C7 engine, because it is also used in Caterpillar's earth movers / generators and so you have access to a TRULY global service / parts network, since there are CAT dealers in just about EVERY country around the world. We've now tested that theory by taking the truck to a CAT dealer instead of a Ford dealer for servicing. We found them to be: more professional, better understanding of the vehicle, and much cheaper. ($20 for a fuel filter base vs. Ford's $145 for the same part)

- We decided to buy a used (pre-2008) vehicle because:

a) it does not require the ULSD, and is therefore globally ready, whereas the new trucks cannot go south of Texas.

b) It is more environmentally friendly (sort-of) to 'rescue'/reuse an existing truck, rather than bring yet another big new truck into the world.

c) It is MUCH cheaper, and there are LOTS of used F-650 Crew Cabs available online. Especially used moving/landscaping trucks (carrying crews around) or over-extended bubba's who bought the F-650 pick-ups. (that's what we bought, got the nice interior, took off the pickup bed and sold it.

- We rejected the International Chassis, because they are much more expensive, much taller and not available with the CAT engine until you get to the BIG chassis.

- We had the front axle converted to 4x4 by Ron at Tulsa Truck. They were FANTASTIC, and have 30 years converting MD trucks for use in the military, rescue trucks and oil fields (rough environments to be sure). They put a 14,000 lb Meritor axle on the front (same as used by the factory on the International 7400) and so with a used chassis + conversion, you're at about the same cost as a new Kodiak, but with a MUCH more capable machine.

- Lots of people talk about the cabover being better than a chassis like the Kodiak or F-650 because of the 'compactness' and saving that length for the camper. Yes - lot's of European trucks have made that choice and I understand. However, from our personal experience I would say that:
a) I think it is quiter/more comfortable to have the engine out front and not directly below you. (remember these are big, noisy diesel engines - not Pickup trucks)

b) I believe it is MUCH easier to service the engine with it out front, especially the simple stuff - belts, wires, fluids you want to check quickly without having to pack up your cab.

c) I feel safer knowing there's a huge engine between my family and whatever is ramming in to the front of us. (as opposed to the glass windshield 10" away)

d) Both the Kodiak and F-650 have very tight cuts on the front wheel wells, and have not bad turning circles, which helps to make up for SOME of the additional length.

e) Turtling is a potential issue due to the longer length on the wheelbase and the worse breakover angle. I've yet to resolve how big an issue this will actually be once we hit the (off)road, but don't underestimate how high all the components are, so even with a 250" wheelbase, we're still pretty good.

SO.... if you ask me, I'd go for the F-650 again if I had to make the same choice tomorrow.

If you are serious about it, talk to Ron at Tulsa Trucks and Chris at F650pickups.com - the economy is bad enough now that they may even know of some bargain (SLIGHTLY used) 4x4 chassis with desperate owners. 'tis the season!

Good luck and let us know if we can help at all. I've built up a great list of who to use / not-use in your construction/conversion.

Most of all, have fun - it's a fantastic project to work on!

Cheers,
Jay.

PS - We are getting ready to start offering eco-roamers through our non-profit foundation for people interested in doing some good while traveling around the world, so if you like what we've done let me know!

 

[GlobalMonkey]

I am not an expert, just learning as I go. So as I read your comments, I do have some questions. The number one question right now is length. Why is it so important to save a 2-3 feet in length and go for cab-over design?
Tomas

 

[charlieaarons]

A difference of 2-3' inside a camper makes a big difference as far as liveability. The difference in length between a conventional hood crewcab and a forward control single cab is more like 7-8'. So if one is set on a camper length of 16', it's the difference between total length of 24' vs. 32'. Big difference in driveability particularly in close quarters.

Charlie

 

[btggraphix]

A difference of 2-3' inside a camper makes a big difference as far as liveability. The difference in length between a conventional hood crewcab and a forward control single cab is more like 7-8'. So if one is set on a camper length of 16', it's the difference between total length of 24' vs. 32'. Big difference in driveability particularly in close quarters.

Charlie

2'-3' IS a big difference. Our old truck camper was 8.5' and the new one 11'9". A world of difference in space.

However, keep in mind that a Kodiak is not a "conventional hood" design like a regular pickup. While it is not as short as a true cabover design, it is somewhere in between. On a crew cab version, you get a much bigger cab, for the same overall length. In a regular cab, you get a shorter length than a regular cab traditional truck. The hood tips forward and the engine sits more or less in the middle of the firewall....kind of like some full size vans.

So if one wanted to minimize overall length, and only needed space in the cab for two....yet, wanted those other positives of the Kodiak cab (a little bit of front end protection, a tilt-forward hood without a tilt-forward cab, quieter ride? etc.) then it's not too bad an option.

I believe the regular cab, shortest wheelbase Kodiak turns a sharper corner than a regular cab full size truck (though I don't think the shortest wheelbase Kodiak has enough frame length for a decent sized camper. If I build a custom box, my biggest decision will be putting a bed over the cab like Jay did in his 650, or not. If not, then I would probably need more frame length & wheelbase than I have....and yeah, then I'd perhaps start regretting the crew cab.

I think if I were doing an out-of-North America trip, I would agree with Charlie and likely want to go with a standard cab (Kodiak type) or a real cabover cab like he's promoting....OK, probably the cabover for that kind of trip to maximize the cabin space. :iagree:

 

[jayshapiro]

So if one is set on a camper length of 16', it's the difference between total length of 24' vs. 32'. Big difference in driveability particularly in close quarters.

Charlie

Just for comparison sake...

Our vehicle with an 18.5" total camper, plus the crew cab, plus the extra extension on the cab, plus the hood out front - comes in at just about 30 ft.

So long as we're on the topic of dimensions:

HEIGHT - We set ourselves a limitation of 12ft 6" just to be 'safe'. We managed to build right up to the limit by taking the air-conditioning off the roof and using a chassis mount system. So there is only the vents, solar panels and rub rails that will be up there. The net result is that the camper LOOKS huge, but in actual fact the total clearance is the same as most RV's we just got rid of the 18" of 'stuff' up there and replaced it with living space.

WIDTH - We had a strong desire to come in at 96" total width so that we could fit onto a shipping pallette (won't fit WITHIN a container) thereby avoiding the need to use a RoRo ship. However, one day we were working in the shop and someone noticed that the total width of the front Meritor axle, and other parts on the cab already came to 100" so that defeated all the efforts we were putting in to keeping the camper within the 96". This led to several minutes of bashing our heads against a brick wall, and then redesigning the camper out to 102", with a glorious additional 6" inside.

Proving once again, that size does matter....

Cheers,
Jay.

 

[ntsqd]

A friend who was riding in my 1966 Ford Econoline van commented "Wow, when you have an accident you're the first one there!" That has stuck with me over the years and I can see it applying to any cab forward design.

In the case of the Econoline, my knees were forward of the radiator........
In those days (mid 80's) I was not aware of any of the superior heat & sound insulation that I know of now. I really liked the vehicle, but the engine noise & heat was wearing.

I recall one member here who has added significant length to the front of his truck (Isuzu?) in the form of a custom bumper. I don't recall the above reason being why this was done, but it does make me wonder. Now if only I could recall his user name as there are pictures of the truck posted here.

 

[Lynn]

I recall one member here who has added significant length to the front of his truck (Isuzu?) in the form of a custom bumper. I don't recall the above reason being why this was done, but it does make me wonder. Now if only I could recall his user name as there are pictures of the truck posted here.

Was it Bruce, aka Dontpanic42?

From THIS THREAD:

As far as the bumper goes, hey, this is Texas, everything is bigger. Seriously, I have commercial size fog lights inside so that they are protected from rocks, etc. Also have an air horn in there. Thought about using it for some storage like an axe and shovel, but it is hard to get stuff in and out. Did have a cat take a ride in there once, though. It also doubles as a work platform to clean the windshield, replace wiper blades, and work on the solar panel. There is a step built in each side to make it easier to get up on. It is also heavy enough to be used on "bump" gates. It is far enough out to provide clearance when the cab is tilted. Also great for pushing through brush.