[Doug Holt]

I've been following the threads for a while now, but can't seem to figure out which would be a better buy for my wife and I - going with the medium roof or the high roof.

Here's what we'll be doing:

Our plan is to travel through both North and South America over the course of several years. We'll be using the van as an RV conversion and as a mobile office. We are AVID outdoors enthusiasts and considered the Sprinter 4x4 until we were told by many owners that they never had use for the 4x4 model.

I'm 5'10... maybe 5'11 on a good day.

I'd like to be able to use this as a mobile office when we aren't traveling - a place to do work (computer) and park at the beach to just chill. The space sounds inviting, but am worried that I'm limiting myself interns of stability with the higher roof.

Thoughts?

 

[EddieZ]

You'll probably put in a finished ceiling and floor. In a medium roof, even with a thin floor of 1/2 inch ply and 1/8 floor covering, your head will be rubbing ceiling. I'm 5'9", and the ceiling doesn't bother me at all... typically not rubbing, since I'm standing in the middle, and usually looking down. Don't know how much the extra inch plus of height may frustrate you. If you go with a high roof, you can put in a raised floor of maybe 1 1/2 inches, with water lines and wiring in there, and still have head room.

Some guys here have rented vans for initial testing. Could be a good idea for you.

 

[Wallygator]

I am worried about stability also with the high roof. That is why i am leaning towards the dually high roof extended. Should be plenty stable in that configuration.

 

[skagitstan]

We have a HR EL. SRW
I was just out yesterday with gusts into the 40's. Certainly feel it, but so far, quite controllable no big problems with stability in wind.

Of course we have a bunch of weight at floor level (the 2" high floor, heaters, batteries and charger/inverter HW, etc.) for our ongoing conversion. Probably helps reduce the sail effect of an empty van.:s

Stan

 

[joefromga]

Medium roof fits under just about every drive thru I've been to. High roofs most likely will not.
That's what matters to me.

 

[vulf]

Think about how you will be using it on a daily basis and think about how often you might run into situations where an extra few inches of roof height might compromise stability a bit. For me it's a no brainer -- I'd go with the high roof. Not only because it would drive me crazy to walk around the van with my head bowed all the time but for the extra space up top. You could raise the height of your bed for more storage underneath, or add additional storage up top. The high roof is perfectly stable under normal conditions, otherwise think of all the lawsuits Ford would be facing...

 

[JP4]

The SRW HR is plenty stable. I regularly drive mine in 30-40mph winds and have been in 60. It gets your attention, but it is easily controllable. Much more stable than either of my old Econolines.

For me, the biggest issue with the HR is low tree branches in neighborhoods or when backing up. It's almost ten feet high with a Maxxair fan mounted on top. It seems like that could be an issue traveling off the beaten path, unless you don't care much about scratching it up. I think a medium roof would also draw a little less attention, if that's a concern.

JP

 

[RandomJoe]

This is pretty much my last point of debate before ordering. I had originally been planning to get the MR, it's "just right" for my height and I actually think the MR looks a bit better than the HR though aesthetics isn't a major selling point for me.

On the other hand when I test-drove a couple vans I stood in a MR and HR. Yes, I can just stand up in the MR, but with just a couple inches to spare. Having read the builds on here I realized I wasn't thinking about insulating - I'm going to lose some of that spare. The little extra height in the HR felt a lot "roomier" too.

The drive-through issue is one thought on my mind, but I will be adding a vent fan, probably the rack bars and/or solar panel, and perhaps even an RV AC unit for camping. All that would probably put me too high for drive throughs again. Besides, i need the exercise anyway...

One thing that surprised me while at the dealership was that, looking at an MR and HR side by side, they really didn't appear all that different in height. Looking at pictures online I got the impression of a very noticeable difference. I'll have to go look at them again, see if there's a reason for the perceived (lack of) difference in person.

Whichever one I go for the van will be quite a change for me. I've driven E-150s in the past at work, otherwise I've always been in very short / low profile vehicles. With the wind we often have around here - it does give me some concern! I'm sure I'll get used to it quickly enough though...

 

[Airedrifter]

I think you're constricted to the high roof. Unless things are different or I've misunderstood, I don't think you can get the extended length with the medium height. For your plan, I think you'd want the long boy.

Just my thought.

 

[orton]

I preferred the looks of a medium roof and tried to make it work but could not. I am 5'-10" and could just clear the roof ribs with the stock floor vinyl mat. I remove the stock mat and build a 2 1/8" thick floor to provide a base for my cabinets and allow for 1" of rigid insulation. I cut slots in the floor insulation to get electrical cables from left side of van to the right side. I could not use this floor construction with the medium roof so bought the high.

No regrets. High roof allows a 30" high bed platform and upper wall cabinets. The extra height allows me to sit up in bed without hitting my head on the bottom of the cabinets. I also use fold down panels hinged at the van wall that sit on top of the table to create the bed platform. The high roof allows the panels to be long enough that they meet on top of the table on the van centerline.

Another benefit is the shower height is better after you install the shower pan. Would not have been able to stand up straight in the shower. The high roof also allows for storage above the sliding door and the van roof. The high roof and medium roof have the same height sliding door.

Have not had a problem yet with winds. It does move around which is to be expected when driving a flat sided billboard.

Drive thru's are not a problem because I have never used them.

 

[Longboard]

Medium roof fits under just about every drive thru I've been to. High roofs most likely will not.
That's what matters to me.

I go to drive throughs all the time in my high roof just as I did in my high roof Sprinter. I just go AROUND the warning sign, cut back in at the speaker kiosk, and fit easily under the narrow awning over the window. Sometimes the sign hanging down with the window # is lower, but if you stay far away enough for your mirror not to hit the concrete post you will also be far away enough from the sign.

 

[Longboard]

I think you're constricted to the high roof................ I don't think you can get the extended length with the medium height.

Correct. I'm only 5'5" and am taller than my wife. No plans to insulate or finish the ceiling or floor. We would have been fine with the medium, but needed the length of the EL so we had to go with the high roof.
I now have a chin-up bar INSIDE the van and can do pull-ups and chin-ups on a rainy day directly under the Fantastic Fan's knob without even coming close. And my fans are the low profile units, which intrude lower inside than the normal ones.
Seems like at Interstate speed limits I still get the same MPG as shorter high roof and medium roof 3.5's, but at $1.69/gallon not too many are talking about that stuff any more.

 

[USMC Vet]

Medium roof fits under just about every drive thru I've been to. High roofs most likely will not.
That's what matters to me.

joefromga,

Had my mobility up fitters give me a maximum height of my HR Wagon, so I wouldn't have any problems. On a flat surface, height is 8'11".

Was wondering if they had mis-measured and not taken into account the curve in the roof. So I had neighbor put a laser level on the middle of the roof. Just as I suspected, they were wrong > , or it's just that my garage floor isn't completely level. We came out at an even 9'

So I'm going to feel safe going under anything higher than 9' 2".

Semper Fi

 

[Doug Holt]

Thanks

Thanks for all the input. We're going to go with the high roof based on the great advice.

Now to decide on options...

 

[Doug Holt]

Actually, I do have some more questions.

It seems to me that the Ford 3.5L EcoBoost engine would be the way to go since I'll be doing a lot of driving, but frankly, I'm not sure. Thoughts?

 

[RandomJoe]

I'm going with the 3.5 EB, I've spent a lot of time on various EB-related forums the past few weeks and they seem to be reliable engines. There are certainly a lot of them out there. I'll also admit my test drive was quite enjoyable! The 3.7 test drive was okay - "adequate" - but that was with an empty van.

I was tempted to go with the 3.7 NA because I'm a low-miles driver and keep my vehicles a long time (my '98 S-10 only has 91k miles) and figured no-turbos would be more reliable over time. I just don't like the high RPMs for max torque and HP though - the thing is a screamer.

I'm also kind of puzzled by the fact it has only slightly better torque / HP ratings than my S-10's engine. I've never considered my S-10 a "powerhouse", so using a similar capability engine for a vehicle so much bigger seems wrong! (Well okay - it's 260 vs 245 lb-ft torque, the HP is a fair bit higher at 275 vs 180 but that's at a (to me) ridiculous 6000 RPM that i'd probably never willingly let it reach.)

I'd probably be a good candidate for diesel, except I would like to be able to idle the engine and I'm put off by the horror stories I've read about DPF and DEF system issues.

 

[Budsky]

I'm also kind of puzzled by the fact it has only slightly better torque / HP ratings than my S-10's engine. I've never considered my S-10 a "powerhouse", so using a similar capability engine for a vehicle so much bigger seems wrong! (Well okay - it's 260 vs 245 lb-ft torque, the HP is a fair bit higher at 275 vs 180 but that's at a (to me) ridiculous 6000 RPM that i'd probably never willingly let it reach.)

Your EcoBoost specs are way off- I think you were looking at the 3.7 NA engine.
The EB is 320HP 400ftlb torque.


Me? I chose the diesel- very happy with it especially towing

 

[RandomJoe]

Your EcoBoost specs are way off- I think you were looking at the 3.7 NA engine.
The EB is 320HP 400ftlb torque.

I was, in fact, referring to the 3.7 there. That's the second reason I decided against it.

 

[lepelch]

I WENT WITH EL HR IN THE ECOBOOST...
I am very satisfied with my decision and the build is working out well....
the EB engine is amazing when I have to accelerate onto the highway....
it purrs at highway speeds and finds the right gear when it's needed....
the HR drives like a truck half it's size...
I'm 6 ft and once everything is built-out I;ll have 4" to spare....that will be a sweet deal

 

[joefromga]

The ecoboost is one of the top 5 engines made in I'd say 40 years. It's absolutely amazing.