Thoughts on the Truckhouse Tacoma expedition camper...

RAM5500 CAMPERTHING

OG Portal Member #183
The rear axle on the 2022 isn't as strong as the old ones, either. They'll need to do similar upgrades on the Tundra except for the engine. They might be thinking they can use the same camper mold for the Tundra, which would save some work for sure. In that case it would have to be a version with the 6.5 ft bed, either double or crew cab, so it would still have a long rear overhang.

In their literature they state that the frame is boxed, and they also have a torsion free system from Durrance Design Group. Seems redundant... aren't boxed frames usually hard mounted? Plus I thought the camper was attached to the cab? Would love to see more details on that. I was looking at their instagram, and noticed this video of them driving on a dirt road. It looks like there is a lot of flexing going on... ? Not sure what would be "normal" for a rig like this...

Looks like the frame is about to snap in half to me
 

RAM5500 CAMPERTHING

OG Portal Member #183
In their literature they state that the frame is boxed, and they also have a torsion free system from Durrance Design Group. Seems redundant... aren't boxed frames usually hard mounted?
The “boxed framed” claim is misleading

My 2014 Tundra had a “boxed frame” they claimed.

It was boxed from the rear bumper to just in front of the leaf mounts then it was C channel
 

rruff

Explorer
The “boxed framed” claim is misleading, My 2014 Tundra had a “boxed frame” they claimed. It was boxed from the rear bumper to just in front of the leaf mounts then it was C channel
I think you might be misremembering... they called it "triple tech". It's boxed only under the engine, then heavy closed C-channel to the front leaf mount, and wimpy C channel after that. I don't know what the Tacoma is exactly but I know there is a lot of open-C flex somewhere.

TruckHouse is stating that they box the frame... weld on plates to accomplish this... I think. There are kits to do this anyway. But if they did this I don't think a pivoting mount would be needed, or desirable. Of course, I don't know what they are really doing. The one prototype they showed last summer looked like it didn't have the finished rear end.

I'm being an optimist that Toyota is actually publishing correct data for payload for a change. I guess you can call me an optimist🤣
It looks like Truckhouse is simply doing their own thing. GVWR is out the window, and that means the buyer is responsible for the end result. Toyota won't help you if something breaks. Truckhouse might if they are still in business.

It's a cool design and I do hope they are successful. IMO they need to demonstrate the offroad prowess and durability though. Maybe race a Nimbl and a GXV on a challenging course... :unsure::p
 

RAM5500 CAMPERTHING

OG Portal Member #183
I think you might be misremembering... they called it "triple tech". It's boxed only under the engine, then heavy closed C-channel to the front leaf mount, and wimpy C channel after that. I don't know what the Tacoma is exactly but I know there is a lot of open-C flex somewhere.
I hit my head a lot racing motos so memory isn’t my strong suit…

Im no mechanical/structural engineer but boxing a frame in a spot where its supposedly going to flex is just moving the weak point.

At least from my uneducated redneck perspective

🤷🏻‍♂️
 

rruff

Explorer
Frankly, the current version I wouldn't drop 350k+ to be overweight out of the gate. For the money, I'd want a solution for that. (maybe the chassis is recertified, IDK, but even so...)
Pretty sure GVWR is set by the manufacturer using any criteria they see fit. It's to limit their liability and warranty. There is no standard set of government test criteria or anything. In the case of TH, the owner buys and registers the truck from Toyota, then TH modifies it. It's like buying any new truck and taking it to an offroad shop for extensive upgrades, and putting a camper on it. The fact that it's over GVWR and has a bunch of mods that Toyota doesn't approve, is the owner's problem. Or it's TH's problem... or the specific aftermarket component manufacturer... if you are able to make it their problem... .

I'd guess that with companies which stay under GVWR, you'd have a much better chance of retaining the manufacturer's warranty and liability.

Im no mechanical/structural engineer but boxing a frame in a spot where its supposedly going to flex is just moving the weak point.
Ya, the most critical spot will be where it transitions from stiff to flexy. On the Tundra this is in the closed C part of the frame that is pretty stout, but it still needs to be transitioned gradually. If done semi-intelligently, I think it would be less of an issue than all the people who solid-mount stiff flatbeds and campers on flexy frames. That puts a lot of stress on the forward mounting point.
 

Zuber

Active member
GVW is not just about the frame and suspension, it also includes brakes and temperature control of everything (trans, rear end, engine). It's very hard to make a 1/4t truck into something bigger. This has been covered.

If they had designed around a 1ton cab/chassis Ford/Ram/GMC their work would be so much easier. Those platforms are now universally the same. Flat frames of the same width. Upfitter ready electrics. De-rated industrial engines and transmissions. Finished weight would be about 10K with 1500 lb headroom. Mileage would probably exceed the TC with 2x the range. When new models of C/C come out, there would be no need to completely re-design the camper.

I keep looking for storage on this TC. I only see the ski box at the rear. Also, the oven and full size wet bath take up so much room for only occasional use.

Compare this TC to the Earth Cruiser Terranova. Compare layout, storage, capability and price. The EC is about $25-50k more. But then, TC would be just another camper company. They definitely are in a unique niche market.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
177,427
Messages
2,771,328
Members
211,977
Latest member
Mojack1995
Top