Which pop up camper/truck combination for global off-road expeditions

MikeSkril

New member
Hi!

I’m at the very beginning of the journey…figuring out what gear I need to do what I want.

I was living in South America for a few years and I always told myself that I want to get back with a proper camping vehicle.

I hope that someone can give me some advise to choose the right camper and truck. For the moment a have an eye on the FWC flatbed models and I love the durability of Toyota vehicles. Is someone traveling the globe with a FWC model?

Tacoma would be my first choice, but I’m concerned about the weight limit. We will be 2 adults and one child, traveling as long as 2 months at once.
I want to be comfortable, but still travel light. I don’t want to be restricted by the size, or off-road capabilities of the vehicle.

There will be a lot of paved roads, but also some heavy off-road.
I’m no millionaire, so price is also critical.

Any advise would be much appreciated.

Thanks!
 

Christian P.

Expedition Leader
Staff member
I met an overland from Washington last summer in Argentina with a Tacoma and a FWV - very well sorted. He felt like the payload was too much for the Tacoma and wished he had brought a full size truck.

I would take a look at the F-150 with 3.5 Ecoboost with Heavy Duty payload/tow package. You can have it with factory 36 long range tank and rear diff locker. And 20+mpg when not loaded apparently. And this is coming from a "Toyota Guy"...

:)
 

Regcabguy

Oil eater.
If you can find one,consider a 12v Cummins with a manual trans. Suspension upgrades are out there and a competent mechanic can inspect it for defects.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
20+ mph on a 3.5 Ecoboost f150??? Hahahahahaha... Perhaps if you are really light footed and go 45-55 on the highway, with a breeze at your back, downhill...


2.7 Ecoboost, crew cab, 2wd. Life time average is 20.4 MPG, zero problems getting 25+ with the cruise set at 70mph.

My work truck has the 3.5 Ecoboost and is a loaded down 4x4. Still averages 20+ on the HW.
 

Attachments

  • 20180425_084655.jpg
    20180425_084655.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 37

sg1

Adventurer
A few weeks ago I have arrived in Ushuaia coming from the US. The only US truck I have seen in literally every country was the F 150. I saw both Ecoboost and 5 l. The locals drive mid size trucks with diesel engines. They are very different from the trucks sold in the US.
 

Norush

New member
Hi!

I’m at the very beginning of the journey…figuring out what gear I need to do what I want.

I was living in South America for a few years and I always told myself that I want to get back with a proper camping vehicle.

I hope that someone can give me some advise to choose the right camper and truck. For the moment a have an eye on the FWC flatbed models and I love the durability of Toyota vehicles. Is someone traveling the globe with a FWC model?

Tacoma would be my first choice, but I’m concerned about the weight limit. We will be 2 adults and one child, traveling as long as 2 months at once.
I want to be comfortable, but still travel light. I don’t want to be restricted by the size, or off-road capabilities of the vehicle.

There will be a lot of paved roads, but also some heavy off-road.
I’m no millionaire, so price is also critical.

Any advise would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

I am currently preparing myself for a similar journey. I have done some extensive research and talked to owners about the FWC. It looks nice and build quality is oke, however most dont advice to live in it for months on end. After extensive usage it does seem to lack overland/expedition quality, rust, moist problems are most common complains. However please note that these are not my personal experiences with the FWC.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
2.7 is irrelevant. 3.5 eco..
Had one for years.. 15mpg in the real world avg unloaded.. with E rated (heavier) all terrain tires... which is what he must have for the vehicle he is describing... 36 gallon tank.. decent range.. just don't think for a minute real world avg is 20+... That is bovine secretions...

Do explain how the 2.7 is irrelevant.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
There shouldn't be drastic HP loss unless Ford used an inefficient turbo. One key to good mpg in a boosted motor - keep out of boost :)


This is exactly the key, on the 2.7 the turbo start to spool at ~71mph. I also not trying to be the first guy to the next light.

Now, if I set the cruise at 80 I drop to 18.5- 19mpg, which isn'tbad for a full size truck.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
I live at 5000'.. if you are at sea level.. that may be the difference.. then again I have less hp at 5000'.. what is your average on the 3.5 4x4?

I don't think it cares about altitude, forced induction makes it irrelevant.

My work truck sits at ~21-22 on the HW at 70. The lowest I have gotten is 16 pulling a trailer.

I went with the 2.7 in my personal truck because it's a better built, more efficient motor that has zero problem moving the truck. I pulled my buddies camper (Mallard 32)back from Alabama and it did it with out breaking a sweat.
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
To the OP: I would get a 4x4 XL F150 with the STX package.
 

DetroitDarin

Scratching a 10 year Itch
I suppose one way it's not completely irrelevant is - the pressurized atmosphere may have less over-all O2 than the same volume of atmosphere pressurized...I think. but I never went to college so I cant be sure. But yeah - FI makes altitude changes much much less detrimental to an engine's performance.
 

DetroitDarin

Scratching a 10 year Itch
I theory, you are correct, in reality.. not so sure..
On my supercharged motor...there is a huge difference at sea level..but a supercharger is a fixed boost and a turbo theoretically... won’t act the same..

The boost is fixed - but the atmosphere is not. It will simply take longer to build the same amount of pressure if the atmosphere is less dense. I bet one could measure the difference but probably not feel too much of a difference. But yeah, I'm sure Turbos could have a benefit.

My car's engines are a NA 1.3 and a Turbo 1.6; Which makes less power than the 1.3, actually... :D
 
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
Because the claim was on 3.5... so irrelevant for this conversation...as well, for an overland vehicle,with living quarters back... 2.7 is too small..

What is the avg mpg for your 3.5 work Truck?...not best hwy... avg...

Mine was 15mpg.. year after year... unloaded at 5000’... unless you are trying to milk mpg by not pressing on the gas pedal... I expect 12-15 loaded..


As of 20 min ago... 18.3. The overwhelming majority of its time is spent in traffic.

As for the 2.7 being to small... that is the most ignorant thing In have read all day. But hey... who am I to argue with you ...I'm just the guy thst drives both the 2.7 and 3.5 every day. :-\
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 9101

Guest
2.7 is better built than 3.5?

How do you arrive at that claim?

Average mpg matters.. not a moment on the hwy...

Pulling weight? All things being equal... Cubic inches wins...


Well, for starters I drive both every day, I have seen both torn apart, and I did months of research before buying mine. The basic design of the 3.5 is over a decade old, the 2.7 is based on lessons learned from it's big brother.

The problem is all things are not equal. Compare the Tq curve of the 2.7 to the 3.5. The 2.7 destroys the 3.5 at low RPM's. The 2.7 has zero lag and the turbo spool faster due to a more efficient design.

As for the rest, I'm done. You have your opinion and I have mine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forum statistics

Threads
185,533
Messages
2,875,610
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top