Conventional vs cab over..

[tamangel]

Like to have a discussion re: pros/cons of conventional/cab-over truck designs for travel.. Most of my future rig camp interests with be in North America/Canada and Mexico. Maybe just a 22-24' regular cargo box conversion. Probably 2 wheel drive so nothing too off-road for travel.. I realize the cab-over would give more room in the 'box' but otherwise curious. Envision some long distance point A to point B travel so comfort/less driver fatigue also important..

Thanks in advance for your input..

Mike W

 

[M.Bas]

In europe almost every truck is a cab over. So I don't know any argument why a torpedo front would be better.

 

[mhiscox]

The obvious differences are the ones you'd imagine. For any given cabin size, the cabover truck's length will be several feet shorter, your visibilty will be better and your turning circle will be shorter (often dramatically so). In exchange, the engine and tranny affect cabin placement, you have to allow for the cab tilting, there's generally more engine noise in the cab, doing a cab-to-cab passthrough is more difficult and the ride is often worse as you are sitting on top of the front axle.

However, one of the biggest things to take into account is that we don't have a very big selection of cabover trucks in the US. There is only the Fuso FG if you want factory four-wheel drive and only there are only two cabover crewcabs. Also, cabover engines generally are more limited in power and few cruise above 70.

If the cabin is going to be 22-24 feet, this will be a very large and luxurious cabin. Anything over 12 feet is spacious in the overlanding community. However, you'll be somewhat limited by the truck's overall length, which will be thirty feet or better even with a cabover. The truck Darrin Fink built from a Fuso FM had a 17 foot cabin and a bit less than 25 foot overall length:

 

[Christian]

In europe almost every truck is a cab over. So I don't know any argument why a torpedo front would be better.

Exactly! The only reason would be because cab-overs are harder to find than what you call a regular. M.Bas and I both like the cab-over, but not 2wd, we like 6wd, portals and full lockers! :sombrero:

But we (you Tamangel and I) come from totally different automotive cultures, so I'm not sure what you can get in cab-overs where you are.

The cab-overs we get here are just as comfortable as any other truck. So that's not an issue. I know it's very likely that somebody will chip in saying something like "I drove a dump-truck" or "The truck I drove in the army", but there's been a lot of progress the last 20 -30 years.

My advise would be to look at what's availiable to you on the web. But before you fall in love with one model go out an see one and try it if you can.

 

[dzzz]

A cab over camper build ( the camper extending over the truck cab) decreases the advantage of a cab over truck design. Especially if you integrate the truck cab as part of the living space.
The best example of this type of design may be the larger Earthroamer: 23' and a lot of utility.
But it's easier and often less expensive to put a simple box on a Fuso FG.

I suggest driving a Fuso FG. Either you will be excited about the truck or know that it's not for you.

 

[dzzz]

Exactly! The only reason would be because cab-overs are harder to find than what you call a regular. M.Bas and I both like the cab-over, but not 2wd, we like 6wd, portals and full lockers! :sombrero:

But we (you Tamangel and I) come from totally different automotive cultures, so I'm not sure what you can get in cab-overs where you are.

The cab-overs we get here are just as comfortable as any other truck. So that's not an issue. I know it's very likely that somebody will chip in saying something like "I drove a dump-truck" or "The truck I drove in the army", but there's been a lot of progress the last 20 -30 years.

My advise would be to look at what's availiable to you on the web. But before you fall in love with one model go out an see one and try it if you can.

We have many more rugged road opportunities in North America than you have in western Europe. A pickup can be built up to go many places a similarly priced Fuso FG can't go. We have many commercial cab overs here in cities, for the same reason they are used in much of Europe.

 

[ntsqd]

In most Cab-over designs the driver sits slightly to considerably forward of the front tires. That leads to an interesting experience when turning sharply in either direction. A couple of my friends never felt comfortable in my '66 Ford Econoline Van because of the feeling of going sideways when turning sharply. Several others thought it was the coolest thing ever.
Suggest driving one to see if this bothers you or not. I never understood why it made them uncomfortable, to me it just was the way the vehicle worked.

In that driving position there is only so much that good dampers can do for ride quality. After that you need an air ride suspension seat.

 

[Christian]

We have many more rugged road opportunities in North America than you have in western Europe. A pickup can be built up to go many places a similarly priced Fuso FG can't go. We have many commercial cab overs here in cities, for the same reason they are used in much of Europe.

:Wow1:
Eh? What? I made no comment on what you can get in the rugged vehicle department, especially not in pick-ups. What I said was:
"But we (you Tamangel and I) come from totally different automotive cultures, so I'm not sure what you can get in cab-overs where you are."

An re-reading what I wrote I made no comment on what a pickup can be built to do or where a Fuso can or cannot go? I have never seen a Fuso here actually!

As to how many cab overs you have in the city I must refer to: " [...] so I'm not sure what you can get in cab-overs where you are."

 

[HINO SG]

In europe almost every truck is a cab over. So I don't know any argument why a torpedo front would be better.

It's more difficult to get a COE truck to ride as comfortably as a similar conventional-cabbed truck.

Cab-overs are said to be significantly more expensive to build and today there are only three companies that sell or manufacture Class 8 (semitruck) cab-overs in US/Canada, and then only by special order. Only Mitusbishi, UD, and GMC/ISUZU sell cab-overs in the 18-33,000 lb range. When I priced a GMC T-class compared to a mostly identical C-class a few years ago, the COE was around $5000 (10%) more expensive.

Japanese manufacturer HINO even went to the trouble to set up a separate production line in the US to build a conventional-cabbed truck which uses most of the same mechanical components as the cab-over model sold in most of the rest of the world.

I like the cab-over configuration and I love my '98 HINO SG, but for some reason, it's not something the American market has been willing to pay for. Even Australia, with it's wide-open spaces- has far more medium and heavy duty cab-over trucks than North America,

 

[dzzz]

In most Cab-over designs the driver sits slightly to considerably forward of the front tires. That leads to an interesting experience when turning sharply in either direction. A couple of my friends never felt comfortable in my '66 Ford Econoline Van because of the feeling of going sideways when turning sharply. Several others thought it was the coolest thing ever.
Suggest driving one to see if this bothers you or not. I never understood why it made them uncomfortable, to me it just was the way the vehicle worked.

In that driving position there is only so much that good dampers can do for ride quality. After that you need an air ride suspension seat.

The almost cabovers, where the engine is transversely mounted in front of the driver, is a good compromise. Only as few feet of length is lost, and the driver has the mass of the engine in front on him.

Realistically the choices are limited. The Fuso/Canter FG is on the lightweight side once extra fuel and water is added. Stepping out of the delivery trucks and up to a Man or Unimog is the way to go if cost is not an issue.

In another thread I said that I thought for market road travel people should be looking at heavier rear wheel drive trucks. For some people that may be a better choice than a Fuso FG.

 

[haven]

"...just a 22-24' regular cargo box conversion. Probably 2 wheel drive..."

A 22 foot box would make a very large camper. The Mitsubishi Fuso web site recommends an FE180 (18,000 lb GVWR) with 176.0" or 189.4" wheelbase for that size box. I think to mount a 22 foot box on a conventional truck you'd need a 230" wheelbase or longer. It looks to me like a 215" wheelbase leaves too long a rear overhang. That difference in wheelbase would be felt every time you need to turn a sharp corner. That's why city delivery trucks tend to be cab-over-engine (COE).

There are plenty of COE chassis to chose from, as long as you don't need a front drive axle. Hino, UD, Isuzu, GM, Fuso, Ford and International all offer COE models with 2WD and GVWR of 18,000 lbs. or more.

The vehicle you describe sounds similar to a "toterhome" RV, a large RV camper body mounted on a medium duty Freightliner or International truck chassis. You can choose Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Mercedes, Volvo or Cummins engine. Toterhomes started as an expanded version of a truck sleeper cab, and just got longer and longer!

Chip Haven

 

[HINO SG]

" (COE).
Hino, UD, Isuzu, GM, Fuso, Ford and International all offer COE models with 2WD and GVWR of 18,000 lbs. or more.

HINO replaced the it's entire range of COE trucks with conventional cabs in 2005.

The GMC/ISUZU twins might be worth looking at; the International and Ford models in this range are also virtually identical and just barely reach into the 18k GVW mentioned; although comperable to the FUSO FE/FG personally I wouldn't find the International/Ford cab particularly appealing for extended use. The International/Ford model is only available with an automatic transmission, too.

http://www.internationaltrucks.com/InternationalTrucks/V2Global/Brochures/city_brochure.pdf

 

[ntsqd]

snip......
You can choose Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel, Mercedes, Volvo or Cummins engine.

Not long ago I read somewhere that Cat's share of the on-road engine market was small enough that they opted out of trying to meet the 2010 large diesel engine emissions requirements and were pulling out of this market to concentrate on their off highway markets.
Then more recently I read that Cat and Navistar signed an agreement that has Cat selling on-highway Navistar engines, possibly under their own label. Presumably these engines will meet the 2010 rules.

Right now I'd call the medium to large diesel engine market rather volatile and suggest thought and care be put into such a long term purchase.

 

[Christian]

This is a cool thread. I don't have much to add other than....



Yeah, and I want a 19 year old nympho girlfriend thats loose with both her body & her trustfund!:victory:

Well.. She's not 19, but 35 and she hasn't got a trustfund but only 8,800 km's on the clock... But she has got portals, true 6x6 and locker all around!

:victory:​

 

[Esmi]

YI think that we all take this "expedition truck" stuff a little to seriously sometimes.

Heresy!!!