Ford Transit USA Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone else watch the Winnebago announcement on their new small class C AWD RV built on the Transit chassis. Winnebago EKKO | Class C | Gas Motorhome



Seems like this could be decent solution for many custom builders. List price is $164k, which is less than the Sprinter based Revel at $186k, but we know these sell at high discounts.

There are quite a few things I like, but also a bunch of things I don't especially DRW for off-road use. Also, still has propane for heating and cooking and old technology AC. Supposed to be 4 season capable, but who knows for sure.

Anyone else interested in this type of unit, i.e. an insulated box on an AWD chassis instead of a metal van?

 

·
Registered
E450 Wagon
Joined
·
67 Posts
The Ekko is REALLY close to what I want to build. I do agree they kinda botched the departure angle. They could have raised the rear-frame rather than dropping it. Wheel wells are fortunately oversized, so it it'll accommodate taller tires. I'd definitely do QuadVan 4x4. Something this heavy needs a true T-case, and the lift will help with the clearance.

I like the water capacity, and optional battery capacity. Dislike that the garage area isn't bigger. I'd much rather deal with a raised transverse bed, if I could have a much larger garage. And tha garage area needs to be waterproof.

My current van is a dually, and my next one will be too. In 400,000 miles (probably at least 50,000 miles off-pavement), I've only lodged a rock between the rear tires once. Could feel the shake immediately once I got above 15 MPH, and yanked it out with a ratchet strap. Besides having more carrying capacity, I've been saved numerous by having a dually, in that I could keep driving to a convenient spot to change a punctured or gashed tire. And the extra footprint when aired-down is really nice too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I watched the video as well. Love the AWD, Ecoboost, water capacity, pseudo-dry bath, battery storage, seat belts for 4, solar capacity, dual pane windows, and inside bike storage.

Needs a lot more ground clearance and particularly better departure angle. It won't go a lot of places we take our Quigley.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I'd definitely do QuadVan 4x4. Something this heavy needs a true T-case, and the lift will help with the clearance.

Dislike that the garage area isn't bigger. I'd much rather deal with a raised transverse bed, if I could have a much larger garage. And tha garage area needs to be waterproof.
Can do you a 4x4 conversion to a Ford factory AWD?

Would you want the garage taller or wider or both? Looks to be 42" interior height, 29" width. Water tank is being stored under the bed so probably tough to get more than 36" of width.
 

·
Registered
E450 Wagon
Joined
·
67 Posts
I know QuadVan was working on the AWD to 4WD package, but I know know if it's actually in production yet. I'm sure they still have a decent backlog of 2019s to work through.

I'd want a more height in the garage, and more depth. The Ekko garage already the full width across the coach, but I'd like to put mountain bikes in it without pulling wheels. Or be able to easily get a couple rolled up rafts in it. Even if the extra garage length wasn't full height all the way in, I think there'd be plenty of space for a far more useful garage if they just did bed that's higher off the floor. They tried too hard IMO to make the bedroom like a conventional motorhome, and I don't think that's all that important for the outdoor adverting crowd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The interior height is 80". Assuming 6-8" for mattress and frame with the existing 42" height that leaves about 30-32" overhead. Not sure how much more you'd want to cut in to that before feeling cramped and hitting heads of tall folks. I'm 6' and just measure that I need 34" when sitting up straight in a chair to top of my head so I think I would want at least 32" over bed, ideally 36". Would have to measure distance from top of mattress to ceiling height to be sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
The interior height is 80". Assuming 6-8" for mattress and frame with the existing 42" height that leaves about 30-32" overhead. Not sure how much more you'd want to cut in to that before feeling cramped and hitting heads of tall folks. I'm 6' and just measure that I need 34" when sitting up straight in a chair to top of my head so I think I would want at least 32" over bed, ideally 36". Would have to measure distance from top of mattress to ceiling height to be sure.
The garage floor is at considerably lower elevation than the floor inside the coach, so I would guess they provided your ideal 36 inches of headroom or more. From pictures of the dropped frame under garage and also picture of motorhome showing entry door versus garage door, I would guess garage is about 6 inches lower, more or less.

I think Winnebago knows the vast majority of buyers will not do serious off road driving, so a comfortable bedroom is more important than providing over 42 inches in garage. For my bicycle needs, it is more than enough.

The height issue I don’t like at all is that the front seats in cab are so much lower than dinette that they require sitting on thick cushions to be at same elevation. European floor plans that use cab seats as part of living or dining area are very space efficient, but having to sit on cushions I’m not crazy about. Would be nice to have seat bases with height adjustment, or lower floor to match cab area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The garage floor is at considerably lower elevation than the floor inside the coach, so I would guess they provided your ideal 36 inches of headroom or more. From pictures of the dropped frame under garage and also picture of motorhome showing entry door versus garage door, I would guess garage is about 6 inches lower, more or less.
Yes, I think you are correct and makes sense after looking more closely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
The departure angle doesn’t look as bad to me compared to other motorhomes of similar size. While the rear isn’t that high, the rear overhang is about a foot shorter than the common 24-foot-long motorhome on 156” wheelbase chassis. Also, there is nothing hanging under the bike garage which helps a lot compared to motorhomes with rear baths which have holding tanks and drain lines very low. That is one problem I see with the Coachmen Cross Trek. Departure angle on Winnebago Ekko is much better compared to the Coachmen.


If Winnebago offered a similar motorhome on SRW E-Series, a 4WD conversión would provide off-road capability. I’m surprised RV manufacturers don’t build small Class Cs this size on SRW E-350.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top