Winnebago EKKO

gregmchugh

Observer
I have not seen any confirmation of the construction of the cabin on the EKKO. There is only one EKKO at the moment and it is a prototype. Given that the EKKO is designed to be the first 4 season Class C done by Winnebago with all the tanks and plumbing and storage within the heated cabin walls, I wouldn’t assume that they have used the same cabin construction that they are using on their other Class C’s or Trailers. Most of the info on construction that has been posted here is what they are using on other RV’s and it may or may not be the same on the EKKO.
 

Momodolo

Member
I have not seen any confirmation of the construction of the cabin on the EKKO. There is only one EKKO at the moment and it is a prototype. Given that the EKKO is designed to be the first 4 season Class C done by Winnebago with all the tanks and plumbing and storage within the heated cabin walls, I wouldn’t assume that they have used the same cabin construction that they are using on their other Class C’s or Trailers. Most of the info on construction that has been posted here is what they are using on other RV’s and it may or may not be the same on the EKKO.
The company that manufacturers the panels for winnebago directly told me that they are using their panels on the ekko. It is confirmed. It is azdel foam block composite panels on the ekko.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kess

New member
After spending a bunch of time learning on this forum I recently bought a lightly used 2009 Tiger and am really enjoying it (I just wish I could be using it more). I am getting it ready for winter use and am making many modifications to try to make it as comfortable as possible for cold weather. The camper construction is not well suited to very cold weather (uninsulated plywood floor, under camper tanks, sides of fiberglass roof section with no insulation, single pane windows in my 2009, really loud and inefficient Suburban heater (already replaced), poorly run water lines that would be subject to freezing) but it will be more comfortable then tent camping or sleeping in the back of the un-heated mini-van.

While I would not have spent $160K or even $130K I do think the Ekko would have worked well for my planned use right from the factory. Not a huge fan of the dual rear wheels, but the construction and gear garage is many miles ahead of the Tiger. Maybe I can buy a lightly used one in a few years for a reasonable price when they will be more of a known quantity. Here is a review of the Ekko from some "influencers" who are going to make it their next RV. They are coming from a pretty modified Travato they have had for a number of years. https://www.thefitrv.com/rv-reviews/meet-the-winnebago-ekko-our-next-rv/. They are not "overlanders" (me either I guess - working up to it) but like to get to remote places and camp (me as well) and also camp in the winter. I am sure they will make many modifications to make it theirs in the end. I have observed that Winnago seems to take suggestions from them which is good to know they are listening.

The Ekko seems like a more commercial and much less expensive version of the $300K ARV B-Box. . Fun and educational to watch what goes into designing and building a well insulated camper box. Maybe Wineabago would build one on a cutaway pick-up truck? Not likely I suspect. Maybe after I get the Tiger sorted out and I retire I will build my own Total Composites box on a PU truck. Fun to dream and doing that has gotten me a Tiger of my own.
 
Last edited:

gregmchugh

Observer
The company that manufacturers the panels for winnebago directly told me that they are using their panels on the ekko. It is confirmed. It is azdel foam block composite panels on the ekko.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very good, any info on whether these are thicker so get higher insulation value compared to their other RV’s and whether they are changing the internal structure compared to their other RV’s?
 

Momodolo

Member
Very good, any info on whether these are thicker so get higher insulation value compared to their other RV’s and whether they are changing the internal structure compared to their other RV’s?
Ill reach out and update with any information they give me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

garmanyr

New member
Agree it's feature loaded and a great looking camper for the price. My question relates to this and nearly all similar campers: From what I can tell the payload capacity is 1500 pounds, so starting with an empty rig, 50 gallons of water takes up 800 lbs, 4 adults with basic day packs easily adds another 700 lbs before you pack camping gear/food/bikes/skis/beer or any of the other stuff we all love to have in camp. I guess if you camp alone or with one other person you could remain under weight but how could one possible take the family of 4 out for almost any type of adventure without seriously overloading this camper? I agree it's probably not a big deal to exceed payload capacity by a bit or on occasion but I would suspect most campers of this type are being chronically overloaded. It's nowhere near as cool looking but wouldn't the better option in this price range be a one ton extended cab with a slide in camper to seat and sleep 4 with gear?
 

gregmchugh

Observer
Agree it's feature loaded and a great looking camper for the price. My question relates to this and nearly all similar campers: From what I can tell the payload capacity is 1500 pounds, so starting with an empty rig, 50 gallons of water takes up 800 lbs, 4 adults with basic day packs easily adds another 700 lbs before you pack camping gear/food/bikes/skis/beer or any of the other stuff we all love to have in camp. I guess if you camp alone or with one other person you could remain under weight but how could one possible take the family of 4 out for almost any type of adventure without seriously overloading this camper? I agree it's probably not a big deal to exceed payload capacity by a bit or on occasion but I would suspect most campers of this type are being chronically overloaded. It's nowhere near as cool looking but wouldn't the better option in this price range be a one ton extended cab with a slide in camper to seat and sleep 4 with gear?
50 gal water = 400 lb approximately
 
So this is very similar to what I had been thinking about (and trying to convince my wife) to build. Reminds me alot of the Total Composites transit, and the uro-camper Rhino. The problem I had is that I want to sleep 4 on the inside. So if they would have just put the rear bed east/west, it would have made enough room for a full dinette, then id just need a bunk over the top of that. Which is probably similar to what I will end up with, if I can keep my wife away from a 27ft class C...
They have a pop top option with the entrance by the dinette area. Would that work for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Big Rudy

Member
Agree it's feature loaded and a great looking camper for the price. My question relates to this and nearly all similar campers: From what I can tell the payload capacity is 1500 pounds, so starting with an empty rig, 50 gallons of water takes up 800 lbs, 4 adults with basic day packs easily adds another 700 lbs before you pack camping gear/food/bikes/skis/beer or any of the other stuff we all love to have in camp. I guess if you camp alone or with one other person you could remain under weight but how could one possible take the family of 4 out for almost any type of adventure without seriously overloading this camper? I agree it's probably not a big deal to exceed payload capacity by a bit or on occasion but I would suspect most campers of this type are being chronically overloaded. It's nowhere near as cool looking but wouldn't the better option in this price range be a one ton extended cab with a slide in camper to seat and sleep 4 with gear?

Even with a one ton extended cab, and slide in, you are not going to have much more than 1500lb capacity, if even that. An off the lot slide in equipped similar could easily weigh 3000lbs, probably more. Lots of variables I know.

My question is what is a reasonable amount of weight to go over or under vehicle ratings, if you do use it light duty offroad some?
 

rruff

Explorer
My question is what is a reasonable amount of weight to go over or under vehicle ratings, if you do use it light duty offroad some?
Vehicle weight ratings aren't based on anything concrete, so there is no way to tell. Most standard RVs don't hold up to modest offroading even if unloaded.
 

gregmchugh

Observer
Vehicle weight ratings aren't based on anything concrete, so there is no way to tell. Most standard RVs don't hold up to modest offroading even if unloaded.
Yes, the GVWR is not some magic limit where something drastic happens if it is exceeded.

But it is based on engineering analysis and sets a limit that provides reasonable chassis performance and reliability in normal use. What is considered normal use probably does not mean off road use. On the RV side, the EKKO does seem to have better construction than the typical US made RVs that cannot handle any rough use without having things come loose at some point or worse yet stuff breaking.
 

Big Rudy

Member
My weight comparison was not fair on the one ton, if comparing apples, the DRW one ton would have considerable more capacity.
Agreed EKKO appears better built.
I might be wrong, but didn't WB start out using 48v lithium, wonder why they went to 12v?
 

Todd n Natalie

Observer
the typical US made RVs that cannot handle any rough use without having things come loose at some point or worse yet stuff breaking.
Rough use? After driving down a gravel road a Pontiac Sunfire could handle, we usually find a random screw rolling around the floor in our trailer, lol
 

rruff

Explorer
But it is based on engineering analysis and sets a limit that provides reasonable chassis performance and reliability in normal use.
The failure rate of the chassis is the primary factor (that is set by Ford, not WB), and since these vans are not designed to be offroad vehicles, I would not expect them to hold up very well to severe use even if empty. The part that WB adds is another story...
 
Top