Narrow Body — Any Real Demand?

[Chance]

The recent introduction of the Winnebago EKKO, and the Forest River Transit Sunseeker before that, left me wondering about other motorhome and bus-like vehicle designs in USA where the body was significantly narrower than 90 inches (the most common width dimension for Sprinter and Transit Class Cs).

I first saw the term “narrow body” recently on a Blue Bird ad (below) while researching vehicles to see if this is a new trend. Anyway, Blue Bird makes the Micro Bird line of compact school buses that are 86 inches wide outside, and 82 inches inside. They are available on Transit chassis, and also single-rear-wheel Ford E-Series or Chevy Express.

By comparison, new Winnebago EKKO is listed at 86.5 inches wide, and the Sunseeker Transit at 87 inches wide. All three are within an inch of each other in width, so it seems logical to designate them as “narrow body” motorhomes. The inside width is where these are much roomier than vans.

What do you think? Will demand grow for these narrow motorhomes, and will manufacturers like Thor enter this market segment with their own version? Or is it a short lived trend that won’t get traction?

Curious what you guys think. Is there enough “advantage” to motorhomes narrower than the common small Class Cs like Gemini, Compass, Wayfarer, etc. to capture additional new buyers?

[DavidEM]

The EKKO and the Sunseeker Transit have some of the benefits of Class Cs- dry bath (although aft on the Sunseeker) with some of the negatives of Class Bs- limited tank capacities, limited tow capacity, limited basement storage, lack of a sofa on the EKKO, etc.

But it probably ticks a lot of the boxes for someone who doesn't want a Sprinter chassis and likes the additional room over the Bs.

David

[JamieGeek]

Interesting in that neither the Sunseeker or the EKKO pages explicitly call them out as "narrow body" thus I wouldn't expect shoppers to notice that much.

They do look to fill a niche between a small B vancamper and a larger C (like a "mini B+"). Is it big enough of a step for someone who has a B to upgrade? Not sure. If someone didn't have an RV and started looking at B's I bet they would greatly consider these as you do get the advantages of the larger B+ & C's without that much in size (kind of similar to the Axis/Vegas giving you an "A" without it being as big as a real "A").

Amuses me that the EKKO's list is $134k for a similar floorplan as a 24.1 Axis at $117k (yeah Winnebago, even still its on a Ford chassis and not Sprinter LOL).

[Bob Denman]

I don't see the difference as being significant...
And once it becomes significant: You're probably down into a "B" anyway.

[DavidEM]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Amuses me that the EKKO's list is $134k for a similar floorplan as a 24.1 Axis at $117k (yeah Winnebago, even still its on a Ford chassis and not Sprinter LOL).

Lithium batteries, solar panels and AWD make up a big part of that difference. Of course those features have to be important to you to justify them. Since most MH owners do full hookup camping, I doubt they matter much to most.

David

[atreis]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Amuses me that the EKKO's list is $134k for a similar floorplan as a 24.1 Axis at $117k (yeah Winnebago, even still its on a Ford chassis and not Sprinter LOL).

IMO, it's not surprising at all... If anything, it's surprising it's as low as it is for the EKKO. Compare similar floorplans in smaller Class C's (25-30 feet) between Winnebago and Thor. The Winnebago's are 15-20K more for nearly all floorplans. Also, the EKKO has that nice big LiFePO4 and lots of solar.

Class B's (true B's) are pretty expensive, so I think the EKKO competes nicely with them.

If I didn't have three kids, I'd seriously consider an EKKO.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

I don't see the difference as being significant...
And once it becomes significant: You're probably down into a "B" anyway.

The Achilles heel of Class Bs is lack of outside storage. Or lack of space in general depending on who you ask. Take your pick.

If neither of these is important to a buyer, then there may not be significant difference between a van camper and a motorhome like the EKKO.

[Bob Denman]

But if it is important: buy something larger...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Interesting in that neither the Sunseeker or the EKKO pages explicitly call them out as "narrow body" thus I wouldn't expect shoppers to notice that much.

They do look to fill a niche between a small B vancamper and a larger C (like a "mini B+"). Is it big enough of a step for someone who has a B to upgrade? Not sure. If someone didn't have an RV and started looking at B's I bet they would greatly consider these as you do get the advantages of the larger B+ & C's without that much in size (kind of similar to the Axis/Vegas giving you an "A" without it being as big as a real "A").

Amuses me that the EKKO's list is $134k for a similar floorplan as a 24.1 Axis at $117k (yeah Winnebago, even still its on a Ford chassis and not Sprinter LOL).

Yeah, what they are called doesn’t matter at all; and I agree size between a van and a typical Cutaway fills a niche that has been missing for years.

What really impressed me was that at 86 inches wide (only 6 inches wider than vans), the interior is around 82 inches wide, making it around 12 inches wider than some van campers. And because width runs all the way from floor to ceiling, interior storage is much greater than dimensions suggest.

Talking of niche markets, it’s interesting that other manufacturers did not copy Axis/Vegas. I suspect it’s due to tapered walls that narrow at front. I’m not sure if that adds significant costs, or if they think it looks odd, or something else. If you recall, the Axis/Vegas was originally advertised being 87 inches wide at front and 94 inches at rear. An Axis with straight walls like other Class As would be interesting to see.

[atreis]

Any notion of how well the Axis/Vegas sells? There are a lot here, but I haven't seen many at parks relative to other smaller Class A's...

[Wandering Woods]

We chose the Axis because of its width (we can park it beside our garage and save $3,000 in storage fees) and 41 gal gray tank (36% larger than Ekko). We do understand we are in a niche market. If our retaining wall was 12 further away from the house we'd be in a Class C or small A.

[paulwadley]

I had a 2016 Winnebago ERA back in 2015 which had no slides and was narrow inside as well as outside. It was a good start but after having it for 1 1/2 years we needed something with more interior room and exterior storage since the Winnebago had no exterior storage. In 2018 we moved up to the Thor Siesta 24SS that had more interior room and had exterior storage. They are both built on the Mercedes Benz Sprinter 3500 Chassis but what a difference. As time went along our needs changed and so did the motor home.

Paul

[Bob Denman]

Do any of the Class B RVs have slide-outs?
(Realizing of course; that it won't add any outside storage...)

[atreis]

As far as I've seen, no true B has a slide. That would be quite a challenge to design and build affordably to fit up against the curved van sidewall, and one would likely have to reinforce the inside of the wall to support the slide, so it's not all that surprising.

Lots of "B+" units have slides, but they're really C's.

[Bob Denman]

I didn't think so; but figured it might be worth asking.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by atreis

As far as I've seen, no true B has a slide. That would be quite a challenge to design and build affordably to fit up against the curved van sidewall, and one would likely have to reinforce the inside of the wall to support the slide, so it's not all that surprising.

Lots of "B+" units have slides, but they're really C's.

Yes, it’s been done but there is very little interest in adding a slide to a van. I think most buyers that like small RVs don’t like slides in general, plus it didn’t add much to the van’s overall function (at least to most buyers).

People who spend more money for a smaller motorhome in order to gain the “advantages” of a small rig apparently don’t prioritize space as much as the average Class A or Class C buyer.

Winnebago built the ERA 70M but it didn’t do particularly very well. It has huge bathroom for a van, but otherwise floor plan is horrible in my opinion.

All van slides I’ve seen involve using the optional driver-side door as the outer wall of the slide. A few homemade vans build a standard slide that requires door to open first, then slide extends out through door opening. A few European vans have slides that extend back through open rear doors. Slides provide more space inside van when camping, but ruin the floor plan in more ways than it’s worth during travel and touring, which is a common reason to get a van in the first place.

Again, I think vans and small campers attract buyers with minimalist tastes that will reject slides for the most part. KISS mentality

[Chance]

P.S. — A slide can add a little space to a van, but to me it seems extremely minor compared to what a squared-off box like the EKKO or Sunseeker provides.

Ford Transit van is narrowest, followed by Mercedes Sprinter. You can barely get 70 inches wide inside a Sprinter, and that’s at hip level. Near the top it’s much narrower, which requires upper cabinets to be tiny, otherwise van feels claustrophobic.

By comparison, the RAM ProMaster is 74 inches wide, and tapers inward less near the top. It allows some floor plans with sleeping East-West for average-height adults, and upper storage cabinets can be much larger. That extra 4~6 inches in width makes the ProMaster the most popular camper van (lower price doesn’t hurt either).

The Winnebago EKKO is listed at 81 inches wide inside, and the Micro Bird 82 inches (using for dimensional reference). The difference between these and a regular van, approximately 12 inches versus Sprinter, is much larger than a slide because it runs the full length, not just ~ 4-feet or so. And more importantly, the extra width is floor to ceiling, unlike vans that narrow significantly at top. I have no doubt these narrow motorhomes feel much roomier than a van, and provide much more storage space inside and out compared to Class Bs (true van campers).

Parking any RV at home other than a van may be a problem for me regardless of how small it is, but what I like about these very narrow vehicles is that the +/- 86-inch-wide box doesn’t stick out much beyond the van’s cab body. See pictures below.

Given a choice, an EKKO-like Class B+ on Ford SRW E-Series would be my personal preference.

[Bob Denman]

But as soon as you start "squaring them off": the aerodynamics really take a hit...
(NOT that they were ever all that great to begin with... )

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

But as soon as you start "squaring them off": the aerodynamics really take a hit...
(NOT that they were ever all that great to begin with... )

Yes Bob, obviously a squared off body won’t be as aero as a van, but a small cube should be more aerodynamic than a large cube.

Reducing width should not only reduce drag and improve fuel economy under similar conditions, but should also reduce noise (a little) and improve handling, etc.

There is also an opportunity to reduce height compared to Winnebago EKKO, which isn’t particularly low because of built-in heated basement. Class B built on ProMaster and Sprinter often have around 6’-2” of headroom which can accommodate most males and vast majority of females. If person is taller, just get a larger rig. Anyway, there isn’t a need to provide nearly 7-feet of headroom if creating a new segment class that competes closer with van campers.

For these small and narrow Class C/B+, I would think 6’-4” to 6’-6” of headroom is plenty, which would limit overall height to around 10 feet.

[Bob Denman]

that leaves plenty of legroom, for that Winegard dish setup...