Earthroamer review by experienced travelers

[haven]

Here's a thought-provoking review of the Earthroamer by experienced overland travelers.

Rob and Nina Blackwell are Australian ex-pats who live in the Seattle area. In 2009 and 2010, they drove a Provan Tiger CX diesel down the Pan-American highway and back, a total of about 60,000 miles. In 2011, they decided to purchase a used Earthroamer. The review shares their experiences and observations from 5 months of ER ownership.

http://www.whiteacorn.com/articles/er-review/

Thanks to forum member diplostrat for mentioning the link.

[howell_jd]

Rob and Nina are a wonderful couple - and what a sense of humor too! Nina kept us in stitches for certain! Their insights are very accurate and reflecting their modesty, understated. I feel very fortunate indeed to have had the pleasure of meeting them in person. What great stories and experiences they have to share. Thank you Rob and Nina!

Your American friend (in an Australian's American truck),
Jonathan

[dzzz]

Very interesting. I'm surprised at the ride differences compared to a tiger. I bet they can improve the ride without spending $20K.

[Overland Hadley]

Thanks for posting the link.

Interesting read, especially this part.


The ideal expedition vehicle
From the above discussion you would not be surprised to know that I think a strong camper shell (almost certainly composite construction), mounted using a 3 point mounting system, onto a 1-ton pickup, with an all up weight of 11,000-12,000 lbs would be a nearly ideal expedition vehicle. Unfortunately no body (including Provan, ER or GXV) is making one. Business opportunity anyone?



ER is coming out with some new models, I wonder if one will fill this market.

[Christian P.]

Awesome couple indeed.

[haven]

My take on the review: Earthroamer camper excellent, Ford execrable.

The number of repairs needed is a condemnation of the quality of the Ford F550. This is supposed to be a commercial quality vehicle. And the length of time that Ford needed to make repairs is unacceptable. Does anyone know if this Earthroamer was still under Ford's warranty?

I thought Rob Blackwell was the soul of discretion when describing his vehicle's problems. I would have been shouting my displeasure from the rooftops.

[haven]

"a strong camper shell (almost certainly composite construction), mounted using a 3 point mounting system, onto a 1-ton pickup, with an all up weight of 11,000-12,000 lbs would be a nearly ideal expedition vehicle."

Two Australian companies, EarthCruiser Overland Vehicles http://www.earthcruiser.com.au/ and All Terrain Warriors http://www.allterrainwarriors.com.au/ make this sort of vehicle. The chassis is the Fuso FG with revised suspension, making for a comfortable ride. Since the Blackwells are returning to Australia at some point, I would think either would be a good choice for them. However, neither has the creature comforts of the EarthCruiser, and that seemed to be a big part of the decision to move away from the Tiger CX camper.

EarthCruiser was talking about offering a USA-legal version, but I haven't heard anything lately. I think they may be waiting for Fuso to introduce their new 3.0L Canter model in USA this Fall.

[DiploStrat]

This is a hot topic. You may remember that I posted about this a while back. The feed back that I got was the big reason that I did not buy a used Tiger with a Ford 350 base. Although the miles were low, the previous owner had already blown a radiator.

The chatter I hear is that Ford made some bad choices in the way that they installed the Navistar Diesel; the same engine enjoying a fine reputation in International trucks.

Rumor has it that you need to use a different antifreeze and to install a Navistar coolant filter as well. I would stress that this is hearsay on my part. The conventional chatter is that Ford did a poor job with the emission controls and that they tend to take down the engine. This certainly appears to have been the issue with Jon Howell's Earthroamer and its long sojourn in Mongolia. But I would ask him how he fixed the problems because, as far as I can read, it can be done and these engines can be made reliable. Certainly he has not been complaining.

[charlieaarons]

Two Australian companies, EarthCruiser Overland Vehicles http://www.earthcruiser.com.au/ and All Terrain Warriors http://www.allterrainwarriors.com.au/ make this sort of vehicle. The chassis is the Fuso FG with revised suspension, making for a comfortable ride. Since the Blackwells are returning to Australia at some point, I would think either would be a good choice for them. However, neither has the creature comforts of the EarthCruiser, and that seemed to be a big part of the decision to move away from the Tiger CX camper.

.

Also Amesz Design in the Perth area, which might be the logical choice for someone living in WA:
http://www.amesz.com.au/

Forgive me for missing something, but I didn't see direct criticism of the Ford F550 in the ER critique link, though I'm well aware of Ford's drivetrain problems. Which makes me dubious of Gary Westcott's recent claim that "the American pickup is still the best vehicle choice for worldwide overlanding"
Incidentally, knock on wood and all that, but the only chassis problem I've had in 22000 mi since leaving home to Australia is a balky air pressure sensor which caused no secondary problems and cured itself before replacements arrived. No problems attributable to corrugated dirt roads (which we've been on a lot) like tires, leaky axle seals, brake or U-joint or suspension problems. Engine (sans EGR) has been flawless.

Charlie

[westyss]

I dont understand the statement:
"a strong camper shell (almost certainly composite construction), mounted using a 3 point mounting system, onto a 1-ton pickup, with an all up weight of 11,000-12,000 lbs would be a nearly ideal expedition vehicle."

just seems to set up for an overloaded vehicle, 1 ton is not enough! most people are going to overload it, the base vehicle needs to be rated higher than 1 ton, no??

[haven]

These days, the "1 ton" pickup with single rear wheels has a GVWR of 12,000 to 13,000 lbs, and a cargo capacity of 3500 - 4000 lbs. But nobody wants to call them "2 ton pickups!"

The Mitsubishi Fuso Canter FG 4x4 chassis I mentioned above has a GVWR of 14,000 lbs, and a cargo capacity of 8,000 lbs using the stock suspension. Modifying the suspension to give longer wheel travel and a more supple ride reduces the cargo capacity somewhat.

[rblackwell]

I need to add a second, follow up, chapter to my article.

The issues with the truck have been fixed by Ford under warranty - seems to be running fine now.

I finished up leaving the vehicle in Denver with the ER folks so they could take it their local dealer who knows about ERs and 6.4PSD. Bill and his team at ER were very helpful.
We also took out an extended warranty - would recommend that for all 6.0 6.4 PSD owners.

With a few more miles on it the vehicles fuel consumption has improved a little bit 11mpg interstate.

Its taken me a while to get used to the way the Ford works - its a higher revving engine than the Duramax (and the gearing is different). 2000 rpm at 60 mpg Ford 1500 RPM at 60 mph Duramax.

You might get a LOL from the next bit of information and poor planning.
After buying the ER in April (when we thought we would be traveling in North America for the next 2 or 3 years), we decided in June that we wanted to under another extended journey - Russia to Europe, back to South America thence Australia.

We reluctantly decided that the ER camper (which my wife and I both love) on a Ford was not the vehicle for such a trip. I agonized for some time about a Dodge/Cummins as a base vehicle after all Cummins are now being put into Russian Kamaz trucks (see http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Cummins_(CMI)/Manufacturing_Entities) and farm equipment - so engine service might be ok in that part of the world. But I did not really want to deal with both a DPF and DEF.

I was eventually convinced that a Mercedes vehicle was the "best" base vehicle - see Jim Rogers book "the Adventure Capitalist" for an interesting discussion of why Mercedes is the right vehicle for a world trip (http://www.4x4abc.com/JimRogers/ and that I wanted one pre 2006. I looked at a 1017 but they seemed too old and few are available in the US. Then I had an opportunity to buy a US registered 2003 Unimog U500 with VarioPilot which will allow me to import it into Australia permanently as a RHD vehicle. I will post more about the build up of the U500 on my website (and a little bit here) as the story continues to unfolds

[charlieaarons]

Congratulations on the U500.
I am thinking about eventually having VarioPilot retrofitted on my U500 by the only people with the skills to do it: either one of the dedicated (in Germany) Unimog dealers, Hellgeth, or the MB factory. Perhaps you could have EAS retrofitted into yours. It is really nice for city driving or any driving for that matter except on either very bad roads or driving up steep windy roads. That's what the "M/A" switch is there for.
I don't believe yours has EGR but if it does I'd recommend having a 3/8" or 1/2" steel plate built using the gasket as a template and blocking it off. Leave the valve wired in and secured to prevent error messages and limp-home mode, and connect the afferent and efferent coolant lines together with a pipe plug crammed in somewhere to block "short-circuit" coolant flow.
I too would like to register my vehicle in WA sometimes, perhaps.

Charlie

[dzzz]

Ah, took me a minute to realize rblackwell wrote the ER review. Well, the U500 will certainly feel different from a Ford based vehicle. It attracts a lot of attention, but so does an ER. Looking forward to seeing the new camper, which I assume is being built by GVX.

[doug720]

As a Ford owner, I had my vehicle in for a recall service recently. While walking through the shop area to pick-up my vehicle I noticed a Ford F-450 with the cab lifted off the chassis on a special lift. Curious, I asked the tech what was up, he stated..."You must lift the cab to work on the engine!" Wow!

The tech said lifting the cab is the only way to access many components of the engine! Ford dealers have special lifts just for this purpose.

The tech told me that if the truck is out of warranty, the cost to lift and reinstall the cab is around $1500.00 plus the cost of parts and fluids. The electronics, cooling, AC, heating, steering, transmission and other systems must be disconnected to remove the cab. I asked about special bodies, they must be removed prior to lifting the cab!

Ya, you tell me how that works for you with a EarthRoamer on the back or in off the beaten path location?

My LandCruiser is a mechanical diesel, one wire to make it run. These electronic diesels are way too complicated for international use.

IMHO, you must have DEEP pockets to afford to use one of these chassis out of the USA. I'm a Ford guy and drive a diesel every day, but this does not work for me. How about you?

If I was buying a new truck today, remember I've only had Ford diesels for 21 years, I'm not sure it would be a diesel, no matter who made it.

I think the U500 is the way to go.

Doug

[charlieaarons]

As a Ford owner, I had my vehicle in for a recall service recently. While walking through the shop area to pick-up my vehicle I noticed a Ford F-450 with the cab lifted off the chassis on a special lift. Curious, I asked the tech what was up, he stated..."You must lift the cab to work on the engine!" Wow!

The tech said lifting the cab is the only way to access many components of the engine! Ford dealers have special lifts just for this purpose.

The tech told me that if the truck is out of warranty, the cost to lift and reinstall the cab is around $1500.00 plus the cost of parts and fluids. The electronics, cooling, AC, heating, steering, transmission and other systems must be disconnected to remove the cab. I asked about special bodies, they must be removed prior to lifting the cab!

Ya, you tell me how that works for you with a EarthRoamer on the back or in off the beaten path location?

My LandCruiser is a mechanical diesel, one wire to make it run. These electronic diesels are way too complicated for international use.

IMHO, you must have DEEP pockets to afford to use one of these chassis out of the USA. I'm a Ford guy and drive a diesel every day, but this does not work for me. How about you?

If I was buying a new truck today, remember I've only had Ford diesels for 21 years, I'm not sure it would be a diesel, no matter who made it.

I think the U500 is the way to go.

Doug

That's what i figured when I was buying. I cannot imagine why Ford didn't design the front end so the whole thing rotates forwards for better motor access like modern big Class 8 tractors. Or a U500.

Charlie

[Bill@EarthRoamer.com]

As a Ford owner, I had my vehicle in for a recall service recently. While walking through the shop area to pick-up my vehicle I noticed a Ford F-450 with the cab lifted off the chassis on a special lift. Curious, I asked the tech what was up, he stated..."You must lift the cab to work on the engine!" Wow!

The tech said lifting the cab is the only way to access many components of the engine! Ford dealers have special lifts just for this purpose.

The tech told me that if the truck is out of warranty, the cost to lift and reinstall the cab is around $1500.00 plus the cost of parts and fluids. The electronics, cooling, AC, heating, steering, transmission and other systems must be disconnected to remove the cab. I asked about special bodies, they must be removed prior to lifting the cab!

Ya, you tell me how that works for you with a EarthRoamer on the back or in off the beaten path location?

My LandCruiser is a mechanical diesel, one wire to make it run. These electronic diesels are way too complicated for international use.

IMHO, you must have DEEP pockets to afford to use one of these chassis out of the USA. I'm a Ford guy and drive a diesel every day, but this does not work for me. How about you?

If I was buying a new truck today, remember I've only had Ford diesels for 21 years, I'm not sure it would be a diesel, no matter who made it.

I think the U500 is the way to go.

Doug

This is another internet myth that never seems to die. The Ford truck cab DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO PERFORM MAJOR REPAIRS TO THE ENGINE. On 2003 and newer Super Duty trucks, Ford made the cab easy to remove to make the engine more accessible for major repairs, and this caused many people to incorrectly assume that the cab must be removed. All major engine, transmission and drive train repairs can still be made with the cab installed.
I don’t doubt that a Ford service technician told you that the cab had to be removed - but he is wrong.

[doug720]

Hey Bill,

Pacific Ford, Long Beach, CA 562-426-3301

I was there about about 6 weeks ago and saw this with my own eyes! It was a Saturday, and the tech was putting his tools away as we spoke. The truck cab was up on the lift and chassis on the ground!

Ya, Ford might say you can do something...But look under the hood of one of these trucks. At least 1/3 of the engine is under the cowling with no access to work on it. Funny thing was the truck was fairly new and under warranty and FORD was paying the bill and they pulled the cab? I wonder if FORD is in the habit of paying their dealers for warranty labor/Services not required or not the most efficient method to do a repair they are paying for? I think not!

OK, maybe you can do major work without the lifting the cab, but you must disassemble 1/2 the truck to do it... So 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other...Still too much labor and cost which ever way it goes. Bad design is bad design, period!

I have a Ford Diesel van, and it has way better engine access than the F series truck. Poor engineering and design by people who never work on them. All modern vehicles, not just diesels are designed for planned obsolescence just like computers.

The whole auto industry business model is sell you a new one every few years. The manufactures don't want you fix them anymore. Sales growth and consumption baby! Do you really think we will see all these cars and trucks with electronic everything still on the road in 20 - 20 years? I don't!

Did you know that manufacturers are only obligated to provide replacement parts .for the warranty period? Yes most sell parts, but they are not required to and in many cases have stopped when it's not profitable for them...Not you or me!

My father in law had a 8 year old small Dodge Colt wagon he used to take his model planes to fly in. One day it stopped. Towed to dealer, bad ECM (or PCM?). OK, fix it! Dealer" Can't, parts no longer available from Dodge!" He tried 2 junk yard boxes and 2 "Rebuilt" boxes over the next 6 months, All bad! Junked the car with 46,000 miles.

Do you really think trucks will be better?

JMHO based on my own observations.

End of rant and hijack... sorry

Doug

[howell_jd]

I can in fact confirm that neither the cab nor camper of the ER need to be removed for the engine to be removed for service:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/IMG00209-20110901-0939.jpg
I recently had the misfortune to experience a catastrophic fuel injector failure. The tip of the #5 fuel injector cracked and within perhaps one hour of engine operation at low demand the tip broke off and bounded between the #5 piston and head:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/IMG00221-20110904-1609.jpg
New #5 piston (shiny):
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/100_2210.jpg
Here is the expert care provided at Diesel Services, Inc. in Grand Juntion, CO - an absolute FANTASTIC service center:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/100_2211.jpg
Yes, the engine comes out without cab removal:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/100_2212.jpg
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/100_2213.jpg

I am happy for Rob and Nina in whatever vehicle they choose to explore - a belief I share for every adventurer on the forum or who hasn't discovered the forum yet.

I happen to believe that there is a bit of a tinkerer in Rob and he is - much like me - compelled to always work on things. I suspect he will always be in search of a "perfect" exploration vehicle...perhaps that too is why I have invested so much time in trying to get a 1972 Russian KMZ "Dnepr" MB650 motorcycle into running condition...:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/1972%20Dnepr%20MB650%20Delivery%209%20Aug%202011/NewDnepr.jpg
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/1972%20Dnepr%20MB650%20Delivery%209%20Aug%202011/IMG00128-20110815-1926.jpg
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/1972%20Dnepr%20MB650%20Delivery%209%20Aug%202011/IMG00127-20110815-1926.jpg

There is another fact - Dick and Pip Smith had their (my) ER serviced overseas in an austere environment without the benefit of cab-off facilities TWICE. This is chronicled at length in their blog (accessible through the link to ER here: http://earthroamer.com/ on the tab labelled "EarthRoamer Around the World"). Once for a transmission leak in Ulaan Baatar, Mongolia (11 March 2008) and initially for the high pressure oil pump (HPOP) at the snap-to-connect (STC) fitting while in Almaty, Kazakhstan in October 2007 (a weak point identified - and corrected - by Ford due to a high rate of failure):
http://www.smithsoverland.com/travel/uploads/earthroamer_18-10-07_to_taldykurgan___19-10-07_to_zhangistobe_032.jpg
In the picture above, Dick Smith is holding the old STC fitting and fuel injection oil supply tube (Ford's 6.0L uses high pressure oil from the HPOP to cycle the fuel injectors unlike common-rail which uses high pressure fuel).

It can be uncomfortable to lie atop the engine bay (I did just this for several of the modifications/upgrades I've performed)...but service is possible. Granted, parts availability was an issue but I hazard that ANY vehicle would have been difficult to obtain parts for in Mongolia; the ability to repair rather than replace would have been a beneficial alternative of course. On the Turtle Expedition across Siberia Gary Westcott said, "Cost was never a factor" in the search for reliability and his objective was "simply to find the best!!" (http://turtleexpedition.com/vehicles/turtle-iv/).

The Land Cruiser's diesel is just not powerful enough for a large GVWR vehicle - this is not a fair comparison. Certainly there are non-electronic diesels available and they are well tested but considerable effort and expense goes into any expedition preparation - that expense may not be measured in currency but in man-hours and physical effort...an investment nevertheless.

Sometimes though, field conditions don't support an individual attempt at repair. In my case, I was concerned that the copper crush washer for the #5 injector would come free from the injector and fall into the engine resulting in the same catastrophic piston and head damage and perhaps putting my engine block at risk of cylinder wall scoring (and total engine destruction). While my dismay at the time was poignant, my decision to recover the vehicle to a capable service center was clearly the appropriate choice.

...and I say this with certainty...

EarthRoamer and fellow ER owners stood with me and helped me in a way that is beyond description and speaks (silently) to the character and values of these wonderful individuals and the organization. I am not implying that Unimog and the Unimog community won't similarly respond but my own experience was humbling and inspirational.

I am proud to be a part of these groups. I am blessed to count Rob and Nina as acquaintances - and I hope as friends - and I look forward to learning of their adventures in ANY vehicle in which they choose to explore. I am certain we all can continue to benefit from the discussion without reverting to a flippant comment such as how overly complex modern engines have become...

...excuse me while I search for my carburetor-voodoo-brew-guide to balance the cylinders on the Russian copy of a WWII BMW boxer engine...how nice it would be to have some modern features like a fuel gauge (...yes, I ran out of gas on a ride...at least there is a 10L "reserve" can...still I had to coast off the road...), or an oil temp gauge, etc...not all that is old is best, not all that is new is bad.

You can really go far in an ER - but avoid engine-out service is good advice if I may offer it (wink).

Jonathan

[Kowboy]

Great response sir ... I find various forums, including this one, to be highly entertaining. :lurk:


Yes, the engine comes out without cab removal:
http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae294/howell_jd/ER%20Piston%20and%20Head%20Replacement%20September %202011/100_2212.jpg

Got a nice morning chuckle with the truck in the background being lifted off the frame. :coffeedrink:

Y'all please carry on. :ylsmoke:

[camperman]

And on the background another Ford cab removed. What this means - if you really want to do everything possible to :wings:
Jonathan, thanks for everything back in place and confirmed the words of Bill. I knew that Ford is not a piece of ... you understand :ylsmoke:

[dzzz]

What needs to be remembered too is that these are the older Navistar powered trucks. Forums like thedieselstop.com can be used to research the current ford built 6.7 engine. I would purchase that new engine without hesitation if I had a use for a pickup. Looks like a real nice truck, but I've had zero problems with Ford vehicles.
Earthroamer customers seem generally very happy with the whole setup. That's what counts.

Edit: I would purchase one for domestic use.

[charlieaarons]

Yes, but it does support Mr Blackwell's decision to change his ER for a U500 to travel and live where there isn't a Ford dealer in every medium sized town.
At least the motor is relatively easy to access in a U500. The only part of the motor that is concealed with the cab tilted is the part behind the enormous frame rails.
The Navistar V8s were probably designed for tilting cab vehicles also.

Charlie

[doug720]

It is funny to see the other truck cab being removed.

Yes, you can pull the engine with out removing the cab, but I was talking about was all types of repairs, IE., repairing, replacing or servicing a head or other parts. To do this without lifting cab, would require removing the engine. Odd and costly undertaking.

I wonder what the cost difference is between removing the cab and pulling the engine through the hood opening?

I own diesel Fords right now and have for over 20 years, but still a dumb design.

Doug

[JRhetts]

This is another internet myth that never seems to die. The Ford truck cab DOES NOT HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO PERFORM MAJOR REPAIRS TO THE ENGINE.


Bill

You are technically correct: According to the most experienced diesel Ford-certified mechanics at O'Meara Ford in Denver, whom I am pretty sure (!) you know well, there are two other ways to accomplish repairs [major and minor, like water pumps etc.] to the engine and drivetrain: i) have had enough (extensive) experience to have devised procedures the shop manual does not even begin to mention much less describe, or ii) remove the engine [as Col. Howell's post above illustrates.]

When sticking close to the No Am Ford service network, option i) is certainly viable.

But in countries outside No Am, this engine is not used; so local mechanics have not even seen one before, reducing the viability of both i) and ii) above. At that point, one has to be prepared to fly in a sophisticated US Ford diesel mechanic to accomplish repairs. If you don't, then like Mr. Smith on his RTW trip in the unit now owned by Col. Howell, you risk being grounded for significant and indeterminate periods of time.

I personally think it is important to NOT gloss over this aspect of the Ford chassis.


EDIT: 9/29/11 I apologize for not according MAJOR Howell his correct rank!

[charlieaarons]

I don't think anyone is GLOSSING over the issue here. Take what you want on an around the world journey. Personally I would rather be in a new Ford Diesel truck than many other vehicles.

If you can afford to ship a truck to a couple of continents, "shipping" a Ford tech to a remote location would be just another expense in an already expensive journey.
.

I wouldn't be my idea of a fun way to spend a few weeks. I'd rather replace my water pump or sensors or ECU or PS pump or air compressor or alternator or starter myself on a vehicle with decent engine access, in one day of work. We think we people that "can afford to ship a truck to a couple of continents" ENJOY wasting money and time? Big mistake to assume people with money are stupid; most of the time it's the other way around.
You Ford fanboys are engaged in the hopeless task of constructing a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Charlie

[charlieaarons]

I am sorry if you think I am going beyond rationality. Just read some of the other posts by past/present Ford owners.
And spend some time going thru the archives for posts about "rich people" etc. It is just plain observational common sense to note that recent Fords have some significant "maintenance issues".

Charlie

[dzzz]

It is interesting that neither Earthroamer or GXV have an ideal domestic platform to build on. The logically cleanest new North American truck is probably the Fuso FG, which neither company uses.

The large majority of F550 Earthroamers are never going to leave North America. The new model F550 is a nice truck to build on. The cab is a lot nicer than the FG too.

[howell_jd]

Since the topic is an ER review by experienced owners and that review includes observations about the Ford chassis and powerplant this is obviously an on-target discussion but some of the remarks continue to be inaccurate. I hope to correct some of this here.

dzzz helpfully points to thedieselstop.com as a reference and there are several other forums such as powerstroke.org and ford-trucks.com with a wealth of information from Ford service technicians and other diesel enthusiasts - in the same fashion as outdoor/adventure enthusiasts found on this forum - who are capable of providing not only the technical service bulletin (TSB) documentation of the procedures for procedures including cab-off, engine-out, as well as engine-in repairs and/or replacements to the engine, transmission, transfer case, suspension, etc. A shop guide is only one reference - much like military regulations and field manuals, these are updated frequently with changes that the TSB provides. Despite a lack of familiarity with a Ford or Unimog or Chevy platform let alone a particular engine, there are enough similarities that a capable mechanic can figure out the challenges...time is a factor if that technician/mechanic has an hourly rate to be sure. Cab-off service provides easy access for speedy repairs in most cases but this is not universally true. I have made a point of studying the requirements/skills necessary for ownership of a 6.0L engine a priority...I'm always on the lookout for alternative methods and insightful procedures (I am far from the skill level of a technician though to be honest).

Heads may be removed from the 6.0L in sequence without engine removal. I pointed out in one of my earlier posts that working across the top of the engine bay is uncomfortable. The engine is a tight fit in the engine bay and there are points that are not weight bearing - none of the points are designed with comfort for resting the upper body in mind. Many service centers and do-it-yourself types with Ford F-series trucks have topside creepers and others simply use a sofa cushion over a plank. Plenty of dealers/diesel shops have replaced torque-to-yield (TTY) bolts used on 6.0L heads with aftermarket studs - such as offered by ARP - (one-at-a-time) without even changing the head gaskets (not necessarily the preferred method to be certain but it is a procedure that has been performed with sufficient frequency to be documented as sufficient).

The water pump and starter for the 6.0L are serviceable without engine removal as well. Certainly there is a procedure - as any shop manual will document for any vehicle (not every component is immediately accessible for all vehicles) - where special tools provide greater ease or removal of other components are necessary. As is easily seen, the removal of the engine hood provides MUCH greater access and this is both simple and quick whether in a fully equipped service bay or in the field. I do agree that the Navistar VT365 (the "good-twin" to the 6.0L "evil twin" if I may be permitted an analogy) was employed/fitted in vehicles with a fully accessible engine bay...and the VT365 did not suffer many of the faults the 6.0L has been subjected to by virtue of the VT365's coolant filter, coolant selection, and fleet operation rather than non-commercial applications by the TREMENDOUSLY greater number of 6.0L's produced (most casual diesel enthusiasts - such as myself - will never achieve the degree of sophistication in maintenance skill that a fleet technician possesses).

Absolutely the design of access and service is a consideration but one way rather than another is not universally "dumb." It is an aspect of consideration in platform selection without a doubt. The interior of a Ford F-series vehicle is QUITE different from that of a Unimog U500 but I would hesitate to describe the layout of a Unimog as "dumb" - utilitarian, efficient, spartan, and sparse perhaps - but these aspects are subject to owner modification and upgrade in addition to many other vehicle attributes (to be fair it would be hard to modify the Ford engine bay to be larger but plenty of folks knock out the fender panels for access through the wheel bay...creative thinking!). When I added a thermocouple to the exhaust manifold so that I could measure the exhaust gas temperature (pre-turbo), I removed this panel quickly. Further sequential options for additional access include pulling the wheel - obviously requiring blocking of other wheels and employing a properly-sized jack stand (I am sure there will be comments about trying this in the mud or in other such stuck-vehicle conditions...work on one thing at a time would be my advice and always keep a proper eye on safety).

There are "requirements" that drive how a vehicle or component is serviced. Access to a shop or facility with lift equipment certainly makes work faster, safer, and more certain to produce the desired end-state; a functional vehicle. Field service may require time and the constraints of limited access may have a considerable weight in selection for some potential large GVWR owners. In my particular case, I could have opted for in-bay replacement of the piston and this would have required a considerably greater amount of service time and a greater uncertainty in the quality of the replacement. It bears noting that fuel injector tip failure such as I experienced is not common for the 6.0L - ordinarily a fuel injector tip might crack and cause excessive fueling but to crack completely off...this could be an aspect of the hard driving conditions it was subjected to in its journey or the results of a delaminated fuel tank that I had corrected (quickly after discovery). The driving cost for me was the time available to get my truck repaired before my leave (vacation) expired or I would have needed to fly home and coordinate for storage or shipment of my truck to an appropriate location. Alternatives included total engine replacement and field-expedient repair of the damaged parts (perhaps best for a short-term solution only).

As to the Ford F-series in the background with its cab off...it was brought in with "trouble" and not much more description of its problems so complete access was definitely helpful in complete diagnosis (this speaks to the quality and professional service of Diesel Services, Inc. in Grand Junction, CO more than any determination of what is preferred/cheaper/faster in powertrain services.

Ultimately, despite seeming like a Ford fan-boy perhaps, I am confident that many will understand that there are several negative vehicle attributes with selection of a Ford platform. I take these attributes in-stride because the alternatives available (for my true fan-boy status as an EarthRoamer enthusiast) are more undesirable. I drive my ER every single day. The truck has 83,000 miles on it now and I bought it upon my return from Iraq in 2008 with 41,000 miles at the time. I am not sure that I can legitimately refer to this vehicle as practical but other options with comparable capability would be less practical in my case (I'm truthfully hoping at best for a silk-lined sow's ear purse anyway - ha ha).

I hope no one has to pull heads, water pumps, starters from their own large GVWR vehicles in the field but there is a way to do it and while it may be difficult and time consuming it is merely a matter of education or - as has been observed - access to the means (provided in great measure by deep pockets perhaps).

Happy trails.

Jonathan

[kjp1969]

So only slightly off-topic, and seeing that Bill is on the board: Has ER ever considered building on a Triton V-10 truck? It would involve reworking the diesel appliances to gasoline or introduction of propane (and I recall aversion to propane with Bill and ER) but it would eliminate perhaps the greatest criticism of the ER systems, the Ford diesel engine.

Near as I can tell, the gasser has no reliability issues, unless you consider the very early spark plug thread issue that was fairly quickly resolved. It has been extensively used in mass-produced motorhomes, so its been well tested. It doesn't provide the torque or gas mileage of the diesel, but it isn't too far off, and a heck of a lot cheaper.

[Ozrockrat]

My LandCruiser is a mechanical diesel, one wire to make it run. These electronic diesels are way too complicated for international use.


I think the U500 is the way to go.

Doug

Ironically I am considering swapping a 7.3 power stroke into my land cruiser 6 wheeler. My experience is that with the right analysis gear for the power stroke I can have an engine that is easy to diagnose which is much more efficient (fuel and power wise) than the Toyota. The Toyota 2H diesel is dangerously slow when carrying a couple of tons.

But I do agree that heading for Asia, Africa or Europe the Unimog will be a more practical vehicle for any repairs/parts.

[doug720]

[QUOTE=Ozrockrat;963810]Ironically I am considering swapping a 7.3 power stroke into my land cruiser 6 wheeler. My experience is that with the right analysis gear for the power stroke I can have an engine that is easy to diagnose which is much more efficient (fuel and power wise) than the Toyota. The Toyota 2H diesel is dangerously slow when carrying a couple of tons.

What LandCruiser are you using for a 6 wheeler? Sounds interesting. I have two 7.3 Power Strokes now and they are good engines. I swapped a diesel into my 60 and its a tight fit, a 7.3 is huge in every way and incredibly heavy. Was this considered?

Doug

[Ozrockrat]

HJ75 with 60/40 tag axle and 2.5 ton payload 13' x 7' tray. The weight does concern me but I heed the grunt so it is either the 7.3 or the GM 6.5 turbo. Either way it will probably have a Dana 60 front axle eventually. I wish I had a photo with me but they are all on my laptop at home.

Sorry for the hijack. Probably you should PM me with any more questions so we don't clutter up this thread. :)

[Ford Prefect]

ROB

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on the ER. Very good info for those interested in the product.

I personally think that the VarioPilot is a fantastic bit of engineering, and I am glad that they do it. I agree that it makes it a lot easier to be able to move a vehicle into different countries.

I would like to ask, why do you wish to stay to a fairly small vehicle like a pickup? Obviously the U500 is not that small, but what are your thoughts on the Freightliner or International chassis? Do you think that ER would be wise to consider one of these vehicles for their base trucks?

Now that you are going with a U500 did you ever consider either of those other trucks for a platform? Obviously there would not be that RHD aspect, but otherwise...?

Thanks a lot! Again GREAT write up! (And best of luck selling the ER when the time comes to move into the U500)

Regards,
Brian

[rblackwell]

Brian, Thanks - hope these comments answer your questions

Vehicle size is an issue I still struggle with. Our Tiger was a great vehicle from many perspectives but particularly regarding fuel consumption and maneuverability. The smaller size was very helpful in a lot of South American towns.

Both the ER and the U500 are/will be much bigger vehicles. I am not sure how much of a problem that is going to be. Hope I don't live to regret it.

I did not seriously consider Freightliner and International - for us the VarioPilot was a clincher. Also they are bigger vehicles and the U500 already felt Over-The-Top, and still does.

Should ER consider other base vehicles? At the end of the day ER is a business and should only consider building things they see a demand for.

Bill at ER was prepared to build a custom camper for me to complement the U500. Based on my experience with the ER this was an option I would have been entirely comfortable with. However GXV sourced the U500 for me with the (not unreasonable) expectation I would contract them for the build. That is what is happening.

Regards Rob



ROB

Thanks a lot for your thoughts on the ER. Very good info for those interested in the product.

I personally think that the VarioPilot is a fantastic bit of engineering, and I am glad that they do it. I agree that it makes it a lot easier to be able to move a vehicle into different countries.

I would like to ask, why do you wish to stay to a fairly small vehicle like a pickup? Obviously the U500 is not that small, but what are your thoughts on the Freightliner or International chassis? Do you think that ER would be wise to consider one of these vehicles for their base trucks?

Now that you are going with a U500 did you ever consider either of those other trucks for a platform? Obviously there would not be that RHD aspect, but otherwise...?

Thanks a lot! Again GREAT write up! (And best of luck selling the ER when the time comes to move into the U500)

Regards,
Brian

[Ford Prefect]

Thank you,

I have not had the pleasure of meeting Bill, but I have met many of the folks at GXV during the last Overland Expo, and they certainly seem to build a nice vehicle as well as being very kind and interested though the knew I would be in no position to buy for several years.

I can understand the concern about the size of the vehicle. One nice thing about the cab over style trucks like the U500 is that they turn very nice tight corners, so they are fairly maneuverable by comparison to the International etc.

Have you considered putting a small motorcycle on the back of the truck for being able to go into the smaller towns? I think a nice little 225cc bike would be very light (around 100lbs) and make for a nice run about when you needed it.

Well thank you again, I do enjoy what you have said, and best of travels to you!

Regards,
Brian

[dzzz]

..............

Vehicle size is an issue I still struggle with. Our Tiger was a great vehicle from many perspectives but particularly regarding fuel consumption and maneuverability. The smaller size was very helpful in a lot of South American towns.

Both the ER and the U500 are/will be much bigger vehicles. I am not sure how much of a problem that is going to be. Hope I don't live to regret it.

..........

I don't think you'll regret it. I think you will automatically make different choices in potentially tight situations. Personally I don't find some extra thinking and planning while driving the U500 troublesome. Or at least it became easy after some initial tension driving the bigger vehicle.

There's some skill to driving the gears well in urban situations. But that's true of any medium duty diesel. You will also find that tire pressure influences ride a lot more than on lighter vehicles.

Both the ER and GXV are more comfortable than the tiger. That's a reasonable tradeoff IMO. The U500 certainly is a better choice for taking outside the U.S. It becomes easy and fun to drive after a little experience. Even at highway speeds it's a very predictable and precise vehicle. That can't be said about similar weight conventional RVs.

This summer I drove my U500 through local San Fransisco streets without hesitation or concern. When I first had the truck and was building the camper I would have said I would never do that. Thses vehicles are no bigger than the delivery and service trucks that are everywhere in the world.

[TomH]

ER and Provan are both days to weeks away from introducing vehicles in this class. ER will have a 1 ton and a 3/4 ton vehicle. Provan's Siberian Tiger will be built on a diesel F-450 (perhaps also on a gas F-350), will be the same height as but 2' longer than their Bengal Tiger. Unicat has also announced a dozen different models built on pickups.


Thanks for posting the link.

Interesting read, especially this part.

"The ideal expedition vehicle...From the above discussion you would not be surprised to know that I think a strong camper shell (almost certainly composite construction), mounted using a 3 point mounting system, onto a 1-ton pickup, with an all up weight of 11,000-12,000 lbs would be a nearly ideal expedition vehicle. Unfortunately no body (including Provan, ER or GXV) is making one. Business opportunity anyone?"

ER is coming out with some new models, I wonder if one will fill this market.