rtt vs slide in camper

[IdaSHO]

There is literailly nothing that a old 7.3 does bettter than a newer 6.2.

Except MPG.

But it is more than a wash when you factor in maintenance costs, fuel costs, and repairs...

FYI, our setup with the 7.3 typically saw 12-14MPG

Same setup with the 6.2, we are seeing 8-10MPG

And mind you, those are north idaho figures, where NOTHING is flat

 

[jgallo1]

Thanks for the input.
I go between MT and CA, so I know the passes, and cold weather well.
Hitting ice at HWY speed in any truck is terrifying, my wife has rolled 2 4runners. I have driven lots of older vehicles all over the country. I know the annoyance it can be. I know the tundra is the more logical choice, especially with that 46-gallon transferflow tanks. That being said, the 7.3 just something special about it.
This is coming from guy who sold a 3rd gen taco to go back to driving a 1987 22re. ha ha

 

[phsycle]

I actually called a local toyota dealer to ask about a tundra. They told me payload on a 2020 is just about 1700

They’re probably just repeating what they read on the brochure. Tell them to send you a picture of the door jamb sticker.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Except MPG.

But it is more than a wash when you factor in maintenance costs, fuel costs, and repairs...

FYI, our setup with the 7.3 typically saw 12-14MPG

Same setup with the 6.2, we are seeing 8-10MPG

And mind you, those are north idaho figures, where NOTHING is flat

Yeah...when you factor in the total cost of ownership, rarely is a diesel cheaper than an gasser.

I love that they now offer the 6.2 with the 10 speed. Should be a pretty economical set up, for what it is.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

That being said, the 7.3 just something special about it.

By special do you mean:
- Having to constantly tinker with it
- Leaving oil stains everywhere you park
- Having to shut it off at a drive through so you can place an order
- Getting to know the parts guy at your local Napa
- Expensive oil changes
- Paying exorbitant prices for parts
- Having trouble holding a conversation while going down the HW

I had brand new 7.3 "back in the day." It was a great motor for back then... By modern standards they are archaic....lol.

 

[beef tits]

By special do you mean:
- Having to constantly tinker with it
- Leaving oil stains everywhere you park
- Having to shut it off at a drive through so you can place an order
- Getting to know the parts guy at your local Napa
- Expensive oil changes
- Paying exorbitant prices for parts
- Having trouble holding a conversation while going down the HW

I had brand new 7.3 "back in the day." It was a great motor for back then... By modern standards they are archaic....lol.

Don’t forget;
- Buying two batteries every time one fails (gotta replace them simultaneously, regardless)
- Changing your clutch every time you get a topside oil leak (manuals anyway)
- Changing your transmission tail housing every time you have the slightest driveshaft issue
- I often had to wear ear plugs driving
- Not only expensive oil changes but MESSY

Being an Ohio boy, the OBS trucks will always have a special place in my heart but will never have a place in my driveway.

 

[4x4tripping]

Except MPG.

But it is more than a wash when you factor in maintenance costs, fuel costs, and repairs...

FYI, our setup with the 7.3 typically saw 12-14MPG

Same setup with the 6.2, we are seeing 8-10MPG

And mind you, those are north idaho figures, where NOTHING is flat

that are pretty low values for roads and the low US speedlimit?

During my transafrica my 4.5l V8 D4D did use near 14 Mpg. Overloaded with 4to, MT Tyres 33“ and a lot of offroad.

Guess to see a lot more on a gasoline truck- under that conditions...

Formel

235,215/(14 mpg (US)) = 16.801 l/100 km

 

[jgallo1]

Yeah...when you factor in the total cost of ownership, rarely is a diesel cheaper than an gasser.

I love that they now offer the 6.2 with the 10 speed. Should be a pretty economical set up, for what it is.

I know that the diesel will be more expensive. I have owned one before.

 

[Boatbuilder79]

I was not really sure where to post this, I am posting here in my favorite section haha.

All the years camping, I have always either slept inside my pick up bed with a shell or just used a ground tent. I have stayed with friends in RTT's before. I think they are great.

The wife and I were talking about upgrading the setup to either an RTT or a Slide in Camper like an FWC hawk. I love the idea of the Slide in with all its creature comforts. They are relatively easy to get on and off. I am concerned it will hinder travel or maybe just be kind of annoying. I have always enjoyed my minimalist approach. I am not talking about rock crawling in moab, general off-grid tracks all over the west, so snow, mud, elevation etc..

I am wanting to hear about any one's experience and general opinion.
Thanks

I have been lusting for a 4 wheel camper for years but...

You can get a roof top tent for about $600 and have it delivered within a week. I have a cheap smittybilt and it is a LOT better than camping in a ground tent in my opinion.

A 4 wheel camper shell model is north of $15000 and had a 6 month lead time when I attempted to order one last year.
I did not want to wait that long.

the price difference alone will pay for a LOT of motel rooms.

 

[AggroCrag]

I too, have lusted after a FWC, but as it has been said, they are pretty damned expensive for what they are, and especially with the COVID boom that the outdoor industry is seeing, you'd be lucky to have one by next summer. Finding a good used one is incredibly difficult, unless you live in California, or Colorado and have $15k cash, and are willing to buy sight unseen. I'd personally split the difference and by something like a Vagabond Nomad, or one of the AT options... lighter, cheaper and still out of the weather without breaking the bank quite so much... while being able to retain some of the truck's cargo hauling ability.

 

[beef tits]

I too, have lusted after a FWC, but as it has been said, they are pretty damned expensive for what they are, and especially with the COVID boom that the outdoor industry is seeing, you'd be lucky to have one by next summer. Finding a good used one is incredibly difficult, unless you live in California, or Colorado and have $15k cash, and are willing to buy sight unseen. I'd personally split the difference and by something like a Vagabond Nomad, or one of the AT options... lighter, cheaper and still out of the weather without breaking the bank quite so much... while being able to retain some of the truck's cargo hauling ability.

Not to brag but I nabbed my 2009 Grandby shell for $6k. Denny up at 4WC Jackson was awesome and even installed it for me. It's a very clean one owner camper, I just happened to see it at the right time, but they are out there.

I was looking at an AT Atlas but Jesus.. those are well over $15k by the time you pay tax, delivery, etc. and wait 6 months for it. It's just a topper!

I would prefer the full on Grandby with all the options over the shell, but I couldn't pass this one up at the price.

I can say just from loading this thing up and pushing it around - it is much sturdier than my Lance was. The welded aluminum frame is what keeps their resale high.

 

[AggroCrag]

Not to brag but I nabbed my 2009 Grandby shell for $6k. Denny up at 4WC Jackson was awesome and even installed it for me. It's a very clean one owner camper, I just happened to see it at the right time, but they are out there.

I was looking at an AT Atlas but Jesus.. those are well over $15k by the time you pay tax, delivery, etc. and wait 6 months for it. It's just a topper!

I would prefer the full on Grandby with all the options over the shell, but I couldn't pass this one up at the price.

I can say just from loading this thing up and pushing it around - it is much sturdier than my Lance was. The welded aluminum frame is what keeps their resale high.

Wow. Good on ya for finding that deal on your FWC. I couldn't agree more, for what they are, pretty much every option out there is over-priced. I think if you have the patience, and the cash, a used FWC is the way to go. You just have to be lucky, I guess.

 

[jgallo1]

I have been lusting for a 4 wheel camper for years but...

You can get a roof top tent for about $600 and have it delivered within a week. I have a cheap smittybilt and it is a LOT better than camping in a ground tent in my opinion.

A 4 wheel camper shell model is north of $15000 and had a 6 month lead time when I attempted to order one last year.
I did not want to wait that long.

the price difference alone will pay for a LOT of motel rooms.

I have been perfectly happy in an RTT, but the wife wants a camper or van. I thought about the van for a minute but just not a van guy so camper it is. I have to say last winter during a very cold late season elk hunt (-10), I was sleeping in my rtt and freezing. While my buddy was sitting pretty in his FWC. I am not at the idea at all.

 

[tacollie]

I have been perfectly happy in an RTT, but the wife wants a camper or van. I thought about the van for a minute but just not a van guy so camper it is. I have to say last winter during a very cold late season elk hunt (-10), I was sleeping in my rtt and freezing. While my buddy was sitting pretty in his FWC. I am not at the idea at all.

I was hoping for a AT Summit but she wanted a door. I'm glad we got the FWC. It's nice having a stove hard mounted. It's also nice having furnace in single digits weather!

It'll fit a Ford or a Tundra ?

 

[beef tits]

I just checked my payload capacity on the Tundra and it is 1,820 lbs. A tad less than the 2,000 I quoted previously, but still not bad. I could see it easily being over 2,000. lbs from the factory on a 2WD 5.7 model.

I'm running heavier tires, heavier suspension, way heavier bumper, big winch and the FWC. Apparently ~1,800 lbs worth. The 2.5 stall mats in the bed used to lift the FWC probably also do not help much, those have to weigh 200+ lbs combined.

I'll be a few hundred pounds over with the Expedition One rear swing out, full tank, and loaded up with water and more gear, however, AS IT SITS right now at or slightly over GVWR, the Tundra's handling, braking and acceleration are considerably more confidence inspiring than my 2000 F250 Ford ever was completely empty and unloaded.

The Ford bested in MPG (13.5-14.5) vs (12-13) as well as range/tank capacity (38 vs 26). It's solid front axle was advantageous 0.5% of the time, but not worth the terrible ride quality. The seats were more comfortable. Freeway bumps were TERRIFYING. You couldn't pay me to go back.