67 replies to this topic

[craig333]

My camper is not ugly, how dare you say such a thing. Now I'll have to go and make sure its feelings weren't hurt.

I'm a single guy but I wouldn't be interested in a nco. Maybe on a Jeep though but it'd have to a lot cheaper.

[Overland Hadley]

So this discussion has brought up some talk of the price. Here is my take on it.

Yes, FWC are expensive! More or less $7,000 for a shell and $12,000 for a regular model.

But lets looks some of the other options.


Alaskan: $25,000 ($14,000 for the mini NCO that fits the Tacoma)
Twice the money and at least twice the weight.

FlipPac: Over $5,000 with the rain shell and paint match. Add a window and you are getting close to 6k.
I like the idea of a flippac, but for me it is not what I want to invest in. It is still a shell over a truck bed, so water and dust ingestion are a problem. Also it can not be loaded and unloaded at will, being a carpenter I would like to have my truck bed back. Needing a rain fly is a joke. (Although there is rumor the AT will update the fabric so the rain shell is not needed.) They are vehicle specific, so resale or change of vehicle is a problem. I want to build a 1,000,000 mile camper, so a change of vehicles will be made a few times.

Leer topper: What I am using now. $2,400 with zero resale value.


So a Four Wheel Camper is expensive, but I am not sure if it is way overpriced, especially considering the resale value these things are commanding. Do I wish they were more affordable, you bet, then I could talk about "my" camper instead of my "future" camper.

[Overland Hadley]

My camper is not ugly, how dare you say such a thing. Now I'll have to go and make sure its feelings weren't hurt.

Tell your camper I apologize, it is very good looking, for a camper.

[Snider]

I think it's kinda cool.Not ugly to me. way better than just a regular snug-top like shell..
Also I can see the advantage of saving space if you store your FWC inside the garage for your "off season". Less chance of a leaky roof as well.
There, there's two positives..

[clikrf8]

A week ago, Truck Camper Magazine (on line) notified me of a new cabover less camper from FWC. I think, cool, maybe this is what we can use: less cost, less weight, less wind resistance. I talked to Steve at FWC, looked at measurements of sleeping area, and cost vs space. Over the weekend, hubby and I discussed the pros and cons and decided to order the Eagle for our 1999 Tacoma 4x4. The reason? The sleeping area is too small for the two of us, especially me as I tend to run like an eggbeater all night. Also, getting up in the middle of the night for Nature's call would mean that one of us would have to crawl over the other to get out of bed.

I voted yes, however, as this would be a great setup for single hunters, photographers, canyoneers, other explorers, maybe with a dog or 2 or a kid. But, not 2 adults unless you are both very small or sleep soundly all night. This is a niche market approach which you have to do in today's economy. Also, that you can garage it on the truck if your neighborhood/community has laws against RVs outside (stupid) is a good selling point.

[BSS]

I think it's cool for exactly the type of person the article describes. Maximum amenities with the lightest weight and space.

That bed sure looks small though. I don't think I'd be comfortable giving up the large bed size of the eagle.

[DirtyDog]

A week ago, Truck Camper Magazine (on line) notified me of a new cabover less camper from FWC. I think, cool, maybe this is what we can use: less cost, less weight, less wind resistance. I talked to Steve at FWC, looked at measurements of sleeping area, and cost vs space. Over the weekend, hubby and I discussed the pros and cons and decided to order the Eagle for our 1999 Tacoma 4x4. The reason? The sleeping area is too small for the two of us, especially me as I tend to run like an eggbeater all night. Also, getting up in the middle of the night for Nature's call would mean that one of us would have to crawl over the other to get out of bed.

I voted yes, however, as this would be a great setup for single hunters, photographers, canyoneers, other explorers, maybe with a dog or 2 or a kid. But, not 2 adults unless you are both very small or sleep soundly all night. This is a niche market approach which you have to do in today's economy. Also, that you can garage it on the truck if your neighborhood/community has laws against RVs outside (stupid) is a good selling point.

I don't think I buy the single guy argument for this thing. I do 99% of my travel alone or with the world's best dog so my equipment choice is for me, not for me and the occasional guest. I would still want the cabover bed. I can't think of any reason not to get it in my situation. Other than the reason stated below I really can't conceive of why a CO is a feature people wouldn't want.

IMO the only value of this design is for people that live in the city and have to garage the vehicle. And I do see this as a legitimate niche for the product so I'm not completely discounting the relevance of the model here.

In contrast, the Alaskan (although I wouldn't want this either) has the advantage that it's NCO is a true hard-sided popup. That is actually a differentiation from the CO design that offers some different functionality and hence is a more interesting product.

[Overland Hadley]

In contrast, the Alaskan (although I wouldn't want this either) has the advantage that it's NCO is a true hard-sided popup. That is actually a differentiation from the CO design that offers some different functionality and hence is a more interesting product.

Ah, that is the reason for an Alaskan NCO.

[vantexan]

I had been thinking of buying a teardrop trailer with a FWC shell model to carry supplies. Don't need a cabover for that. But truth is I'd rather not deal with towing, easy as it is, or maintaining tires, tags, etc. But I still would prefer a Cajita version of the Keystone. Plan to spend summers in Real de Catorce, Mexico, which is accessed by a low, narrow tunnel. Rigs too tall or wide are denied entry into the tunnel. A cabover FWC would probably be ok but cutting it close. I'd be pretty disappointed if not allowed through. As far as space goes, the small door will work well with an Oztent so plenty of extra space. I'm glad FWC came up with this.

[vantexan]

I don't think I buy the single guy argument for this thing. I do 99% of my travel alone or with the world's best dog so my equipment choice is for me, not for me and the occasional guest. I would still want the cabover bed. I can't think of any reason not to get it in my situation. Other than the reason stated below I really can't conceive of why a CO is a feature people wouldn't want.

IMO the only value of this design is for people that live in the city and have to garage the vehicle. And I do see this as a legitimate niche for the product so I'm not completely discounting the relevance of the model here.

In contrast, the Alaskan (although I wouldn't want this either) has the advantage that it's NCO is a true hard-sided popup. That is actually a differentiation from the CO design that offers some different functionality and hence is a more interesting product.

Nice as it is the Alaskan is expensive and heavy. Can't carry it on my F-150. Due to budget concerns will have to stick with the F-150 so the Cajita is best bet on the market for me.