Was the extra rear clearance gained by the subframe what made you decide for the squared rear end, versus the Total Composites option of the angled rear end?
This is already an awesome start, I can't wait for the interior conversion.
thanks,
Herb
An angled rear end is meant to improve the departure angle, although I think that it has also become a bit of an 'overlanding' fashion thing.
It is cool to say that your camper has a 'departure angle' built into it. Well, all vehicles have a departure angle and the rear of the camper can be trimmed to help maintain this angle, but when someone says that their camper shell comes with departure angle, that is just hype. Sorry, small rant.
In my case, the departure angle is limited by the stock fuel tank mounted behind the rear axle. Extend a line from the rear wheels, up past the edge of the fuel tank, and that is the best departure angle this vehicle can have. The rear edge of the subframe also intersects this departure angle line: a longer subframe would impact the departure angle, a shorter subframe wouldn't provide any gains.
The rear underbody toolboxes are not as tall as the other underbody boxes; this was done so that they don't impact the departure angle.
The spare tire and the rear storage boxes were also mounted at a height that doesn't impact the departure angle.
I could have had the rear of the camper angle up from the rear of the subframe and this would have given me an extra 12 to 18 inched more interior length, but:
1. I don't need the extra length for my interior layout
2. Would increase overall length of the vehicle and add a bit to the weight
3. The rear storage boxes and the spare tire would have to be mounted quite a bit higher, above the top of the angled section.
4. Slightly more involved camper assembly and cost.
So, for my situation, angling the rear of the camper would have given me a bit more interior length, that I don't need, and would have come with a few compromises that I didn't want.
