Box Truck back roads ability

[Bonobo]

Hi everyone,

I am currently in the planning stage for what vehicle to buy for a full time traveling home (it will still be at least a couple of years until I have saved up enough money, though - so plenty of time to plan it right!). A 14ft box truck is looking to be the best option for me because they are relatively cheap, widely available, have great space and headroom, and are easy to build out due to the flat walls. However, if having a box truck will seriously limit the extent of my boondocking adventures then I will need to carefully reconsider. The main reason I want to live in a vehicle is to spend as much time out in nature as I can.

I don't intend to go on any crazy off-road excursion, but would like to ideally be able to get to the same locations that a smaller van would be able to access. Honestly, I have never actually driven outside of a city before, so I don't really know what to expect from BLM and National Forest unpaved roads.

In Bob's e-book he rates a box truck's back-road ability as "poor" (no further details given) in comparison  to a full-sized van being "fairly good". Despite this, from what I can tell, they seem to have as good, if not better, ground clearance as most non-lifted cargo vans. The wheelbase and rear wheel to rear bumper overhang distance do not appear to be that much greater than that of an extended cargo van. Obviously, weight is a big difference. An extended cargo van is typically 5000 to 6000 lbs empty whilst a 14ft box truck weighs 7,860 lbs empty. Presumably the added load for full-time living is roughly similar for each. So does this 2000-3000 lbs disparity really make that much of a difference?

Also, 14ft box trucks have duel rear wheels. Will this help or hinder rough road ability?

I do intend to put on mud tires/ off-road tires, lower the tire pressure when on rough patches, and keep a heavy duty come-along winch with me. I will also take considerations when building to put heavy objects near the floor to keep the center of gravity low as possible.

With all this in mind, how well will a 14ft box truck fare on rough back roads compared to full-size 2WD cargo vans that seem popular here? Would a 10ft box van (with slightly shorter wheelbase and back end overhang and lower weight) be noticeably better? What about a Class B (ie lower ground clearance but lighter)?

Thanks,
Bonobo


 
14ft Uhaul box truck dimensions:

Empty weight: 7,860 lbs



10ft Uhaul box truck dimensions:

Empty weight: 5,790 lbs

 

[29chico]

Hi everyone,

I am currently in the planning stage for what vehicle to buy for a full time traveling home (it will still be at least a couple of years until I have saved up enough money, though - so plenty of time to plan it right!). A 14ft box truck is looking to be the best option for me because they are relatively cheap, widely available, have great space and headroom, and are easy to build out due to the flat walls. However, if having a box truck will seriously limit the extent of my boondocking adventures then I will need to carefully reconsider. The main reason I want to live in a vehicle is to spend as much time out in nature as I can.

I don't intend to go on any crazy off-road excursion, but would like to ideally be able to get to the same locations that a smaller van would be able to access. Honestly, I have never actually driven outside of a city before, so I don't really know what to expect from BLM and National Forest unpaved roads.

In Bob's e-book he rates a box truck's back-road ability as "poor" (no further details given) in comparison  to a full-sized van being "fairly good". Despite this, from what I can tell, they seem to have as good, if not better, ground clearance as most non-lifted cargo vans. The wheelbase and rear wheel to rear bumper overhang distance do not appear to be that much greater than that of an extended cargo van. Obviously, weight is a big difference. An extended cargo van is typically 5000 to 6000 lbs empty whilst a 14ft box truck weighs 7,860 lbs empty. Presumably the added load for full-time living is roughly similar for each. So does this 2000-3000 lbs disparity really make that much of a difference?

Also, 14ft box trucks have duel rear wheels. Will this help or hinder rough road ability?

I do intend to put on mud tires/ off-road tires, lower the tire pressure when on rough patches, and keep a heavy duty come-along winch with me. I will also take considerations when building to put heavy objects near the floor to keep the center of gravity low as possible.

With all this in mind, how well will a 14ft box truck fare on rough back roads compared to full-size 2WD cargo vans that seem popular here? Would a 10ft box van (with slightly shorter wheelbase and back end overhang and lower weight) be noticeably better? What about a Class B (ie lower ground clearance but lighter)?

Thanks,
Bonobo


 
14ft Uhaul box truck dimensions:

Empty weight: 7,860 lbs



10ft Uhaul box truck dimensions:

Empty weight: 5,790 lbs

The "14 foot Uhaul" , with dual rear wheels, is actually a 12 foot box truck as the "Attic" is not counted normally in box trucks.  So it should be somewhat decent as far as getting around on dirt roads compared to a common Penske 16 foot rental box moving truck that is 4 foot longer and a bit wider. 

Since the 14 foot Uhaul is ten feet tall you would have to watch for low limbs.  However the box is much tougher than a standard RV so it is more likely to shrug off minor encounters with the lower tree brush without serious damage.

The "14 foot Uhaul" truck would be better as far as rear clearance goes if you removed the step bumper and relied on the ramp and some fold down steps instead.


The dual rear wheels shoud not be a big problem as long as you do not install wider tires as the space between the rear tires will narrow down with wide tires and be prone to picking up rocks between them and sidewall damage can occur.  Of course airing down the rears will make them have a wider cross section and the above issue of picking up rocks might rear it's head if you air down too much.

I'd suggest that you make sure to get the Chevy chassis over the Ford if you do end up going down this path.

 

[MrNoodly]

A 12 foot box van wouldn't be very different from a short Class C RV. You would have similar width and overhead clearance limitations in wooded areas. Also, the suspensions are very stiff, which is great when you have them loaded top to bottom, end to end. But fitted out like a typical RV or do-it-yourself van conversion, the ride would be very jarring on rough surfaces, with the whole truck moving up and down instead of just the wheels and axles. But the mechanically inclined could remove a leaf or two from the springs to soften things up a bit.

I had hunted around the various U-Haul places for used 10 foot box vans. The box is only a little wider than the cab, so clearance that way wouldn't be a problem. And there's more overhead clearance. I think they're built on a 1-ton chassis, so they might still be a little stiff, depending on your load. (I have a 3/4 ton van and, with my rather light load, it's too stiff for me.)

U-Haul box trucks don't have passages from the cabs to the cargo area, which makes going from one to the other a little inconvenient. But you could cut a passage. Also, roll-up doors take some of your headroom and are tricky to insulate. So some people remove the roll-up door and build a wall across the back with an ordinary door for access.

I've seen some 12 foot box vans with step up side doors and aero noses on the box. One of those would be nice.

Since rental vehicles tend to get abused, I'd have any former U-Haul/Ryder/Pensky completely gone over by a trusted mechanic.

 

[rvwandering]

I think that Bob is referring to the width and height of a box truck compared to the smaller dimensions of a van. You'll won't be able to go all of the places that he can go in his van but he really likes to get back where other people rarely go. Forest roads and BLM roads are usually in pretty good condition for at least a few miles off of the main highway, sometimes they're good for many miles. If you're not sure of the road conditions check on Google satellite view which will give you a good idea of what you'll be facing. Likewise don't pull off the road into a camping spot unless you're sure it has a solid surface. Sometimes sandy or muddy areas look fine at first.

 We have a small class C which is similar in structure to a box truck and we boondock a lot. We don't go far off the road but we do find beautiful places to camp.  You can see some on our blog -  http://rollinginarv-wheelchairtraveling.blogspot.com/search/label/FREE CAMPING / BOONDOCKING  When you get to the bottom of the page hit "older posts" to see more. Some of the sites are not true boondocking, they're just free places to stay. I also made a map of free places to stay - MAP
 Click on the green trees for the boondocking spots.

  We've never had a problem with rocks getting stuck between our tires and consider them an advantage.

 

[Bonobo]

Thanks for the helpful replies so far!

The "14 foot Uhaul" , with dual rear wheels, is actually a 12 foot box truck as the "Attic" is not counted normally in box trucks.  So it should be somewhat decent as far as getting around on dirt roads compared to a common Penske 16 foot rental box moving truck that is 4 foot longer and a bit wider. 

I am aware that the Uhaul's  "14 foot" box is actually only 12 feet. I was just going by Uhaul's terminology, and assumed that boxes with over-cabs are always measured  including the attic rather than solely  floor area. Luckily, I am confident I wouldn't need anything more than a 12ft main compartment.

The "14 foot Uhaul" truck would be better as far as rear clearance goes if you removed the step bumper and relied on the ramp and some fold down steps instead.

Yeah, I was thinking it may be a good idea to get rid of that step bumper.

I'd suggest that you make sure to get the Chevy chassis over the Ford if you do end up going down this path.

Unfortunately, the UHaul 14ft is Ford, but the 10ft is GMC. I haven't checked other box truck suppliers yet though. Is there a specific reason Chevy is superior to Ford in this case?

A 12 foot box van wouldn't be very different from a short Class C RV.

If I could find a small Class C in good shape I would consider it, but 20ft and shorter Class C's are rare I believe. Also, as far as I am aware, Class C's are notorious for being poorly built and prone to leaks. A newer, better-built one would likely be out of my budget (I am planning 10,000 for the truck and 5,000 for out-fitting it with all items I would need for full-timing), so that is why I am leaning more towards a box truck. Plus, I like the idea of customizing my interior and I enjoy DIY projects.

Also, the suspensions are very stiff, which is great when you have them loaded top to bottom, end to end. But fitted out like a typical RV or do-it-yourself van conversion, the ride would be very jarring on rough surfaces, with the whole truck moving up and down instead of just the wheels and axles. But the mechanically inclined could remove a leaf or two from the springs to soften things up a bit.

I hadn't considered suspension; thanks for point that out! Any idea roughly how much getting a mechanic to put in a softer suspension would be for this type of vehicle?

U-Haul box trucks don't have passages from the cabs to the cargo area, which makes going from one to the other a little inconvenient. But you could cut a passage. Also, roll-up doors take some of your headroom and are tricky to insulate. So some people remove the roll-up door and build a wall across the back with an ordinary door for access.

Yep, I do plan on replacing the slide-up door with barn doors as well as cutting through a hole to the cab.

I think that Bob is referring to the width and height of a box truck compared to the smaller dimensions of a van. You'll won't be able to go all of the places that he can go in his van but he really likes to get back where other people rarely go.

I am surprised to hear that vehicle width is an important factor [logically, in the case of trees, vehicle width is related to vehicle height -- if you are far enough from the tree, the branches won't hit the top]. Are forest access roads really that narrow?

I also made a map of free places to stay - MAP
 Click on the green trees for the boondocking spots.

That map with pointers looks very useful; I will be sure to bookmark it, thanks!

 

[rvwandering]

As you travel father back into forests the roads do narrow and you will find low hanging branches too. Even forest roads that are close to the main road are often a single lane. If you met another vehicle you have to find a spot to pull over to the side which might involve backing up.

 

[highdesertranger]

here's my thoughts. this just came to me last week, my buddy in AZ just acquired the box off of a U-Haul that goes on a 1 ton truck. as we were standing there looking at it, I said this would make a great camper. get a 1 ton 4x4 long bed pull the bed and sell it and bolt this box on, then you could build out the interior. presto a 4x4 expedition rig for a fraction of the price of a store bought unit. you would have none of the custom built parts of a converted 4x4 van. if it was me that's what I would do. btw my buddy might sell or trade his box, if he decides to I will post up pics here.

as far as dual wheels, I find they get excellent traction. duals and a locker makes for an excellent traction combo.

only air down your tires in soft sand. when you air down your tires your sidewall comes in contact with the terrain. this is not good when sharp rocks are in the mix. highdesertranger

 

[bcbullet]

I have beaten mine up some pretty serious "roads"....the issue is clearance side to side and top to bottom. If you don't mind scuffing it up, you are only limited by your physical size. You can't really tell, but other than departure angle, this beast rivals most rigs in ground clearance.

 

[jimindenver]

Don't worry about it, pin stripes buff out honest.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Unfortunately, the UHaul 14ft is Ford, but the 10ft is GMC. I haven't checked other box truck suppliers yet though. Is there a specific reason Chevy is superior to Ford in this case?

From around 1999 to 2009, Ford developed some of the WORST engines their engineers had ever designed.

The gas engines had aluminum heads which had a tendency to throw plugs as you were driving down the road, as well as being problematical when you tried to change them.

Ford also stopped buying diesel engines from International and started building their own designs.  They had MASSIVE reliability problems, were extremely sensitive to bad fuel, and were super expensive to fix.  They also had problems with the automatic transmissions not lasting when mated to the diesels, with their much higher engine torque.

We have numerous threads here discussing this, plus you can find more info on the internet

Meanwhile, Chevy/GMC just kept cranking out reliable, relatively trouble free vehicles.

PS:  depending on which state you try to register your box truck/camper in, you may find it easy to insure, or you may find it impossible.  I would research this thoroughly before I spent any money on this project.

 

[akrvbob]

It's hard to generalize on box vans because they come in all sizes and shapes, some will be better on backroads than others--some will be decent, some will be terrible:

1) First, they come with wheel wells and without. Without will be much taller and you will probably be running into limbs up top. You can live with scratches but how will you feel when it pokes a hole through the aluminum or rips off your solar panels or vents. That has been a problem for my low top cargo van, I don't want to imagine what I would do to a tall box van.
2) Without wheel wells the roof will be lower, but so will its departure angle. They design them to be as low as possible to the ground behind the rear axle and that's a guarantee of a problem with departure angle.
3) A standard 8 foot wide box can go to most places I want to go, but NOT all. I would have to back out and miss some of my best campsites with one.

I don't go anywhere that requires 4x4, but I go a LOT of places you can't take a box van because of height, width, and length. It would be much too limiting for me.

 

[Bonobo]

Thanks for all the help everyone.

here's my thoughts.  this just came to me last week,  my buddy in AZ just acquired the box off of a U-Haul that goes on a 1 ton truck.  as we were standing there looking at it,  I said this would make a great camper.  get a 1 ton 4x4 long bed pull the bed and sell it and bolt this box on,  then you could build out the interior.  presto a 4x4 expedition rig for a fraction of the price of a store bought unit.  you would have none of the custom built parts of a converted 4x4 van.  if it was me that's what I would do.  btw my buddy might sell or trade his box,  if he decides to I will post up pics here.

That's a cool idea, but won't be possible for me with my budget and limited skills.

From around 1999 to 2009, Ford developed some of the WORST engines their engineers had ever designed.

Thanks for the heads up; I will look more into it. From my initial research, I am seeing some conflicting information regarding model years that have the problems. If you don't mind: are the problems resolved in post-2009 engines? Or should I simply avoid any Ford truck newer than 1996 if at all possible?

You can live with scratches but how will you feel when it pokes a hole through the aluminum or rips off your solar panels or vents. That has been a problem for my low top cargo van, I don't want to imagine what I would do to a tall box van.
...
A standard 8 foot wide box can go to most places I want to go, but NOT all. I would have to back out and miss some of my best campsites with one.  I don't go anywhere that requires 4x4, but I go a LOT of places you can't take a box van because of height, width, and length. It would be much too limiting for me.

I don't mind about a scratching up the box, but good call on protecting the solar panels. Perhaps I can  devise some removable shielding to slide over the solar panels when in forested areas.


I have been playing around with the interior configuration of the 10ft box but it's looking like I won't be able to fit all the things I had hoped. With a smaller truck I would be able to reach more scenic places but at the cost of not being able to carry cargo to enjoy at those places like a mountain bike, inflatable kayak and skis. The joys of compromises...

However, if I could find a truck like this it would be absolutely perfect:
The chassis is GMC and the box is a full 12ft long but has a lower and narrower (6'4") profile than the UHaul 14ft(12ft main), not to mention a streamlined front. Unfortunately, this seems quite rare.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Thanks for the heads up; I will look more into it. From my initial research, I am seeing some conflicting information regarding model years that have the problems. If you don't mind: are the problems resolved in post-2009 engines? Or should I simply avoid any Ford truck newer than 1996 if at all possible?

In 2010 Ford came out with a 6.2 liter gas engine.  I have heard of no known problems with it.  We used to have a retired Ford tech here, and I asked him about it.  He reached out to some of his old co-workers and reported back that the guys in the field weren't seeing any problems. On that basis, I bought a 2012 F250 with that engine in it.  So far, so good.

The E series (vans) continued to use the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 engines, but reports are that Ford finally solved their spark plug problems.  If it was me, I would ignore Ford's recommendation to change the plugs every 100,000 miles and do it sooner - say every 50,000.  This is based on the theory that you don't let the plugs just sit in the head year after year.  I think this is what causes problems with removing them.  I would also only let Ford dealerships do it.  They've mastered the issues in a way that your average independent shop probably hasn't.  Just MHO.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I have been playing around with the interior configuration of the 10ft box but it's looking like I won't be able to fit all the things I had hoped. With a smaller truck I would be able to reach more scenic places but at the cost of not being able to carry cargo to enjoy at those places like a mountain bike, inflatable kayak and skis. The joys of compromises...

Could you pull a small trailer?

Alternatively, could you mount exterior cargo boxes on the side of your truck, like you see on big rigs?

 

[Nemo]

It's hard to generalize on box vans because they come in all sizes and shapes, some will be better on backroads than others--some will be decent, some will be terrible:

1) First, they come with wheel wells and without. Without will be much taller and you will probably be running into limbs up top. You can live with scratches but how will you feel when it pokes a hole through the aluminum or rips off your solar panels or vents. That has been a problem for my low top cargo van, I don't want to imagine what I would do to a tall box van.
2) Without wheel wells the roof will be lower, but so will its departure angle. They design them to be as low as possible to the ground behind the rear axle and that's a guarantee of a problem with departure angle.
3) A standard 8 foot wide box can go to most places I want to go, but NOT all. I would have to back out and miss some of my best campsites with one.

I don't go anywhere that requires 4x4, but I go a LOT of places you can't take a box van because of height, width, and length. It would be much too limiting for me.

Have to agree fully with Bob on this one..  more times than I can count I would be pulling limbs off the roof that I had snapped getting back into a spot, my truck sits near 12' in height.  and the departure angle has come so very close to hanging me up a few times.. I could remove the back bumper, but I like that I have a class 5 hitch back there if I ever need it

with the duallies, I have gone down so muddy, rutted roads that were a nightmare that I didnt dare stop or I knew I would never move again... so backwoods travel is doable, but not pleasant )  and I'm looking for a good  4 X 4 van now to replace it. 

 

[Bonobo]

Could you pull a small trailer?

Alternatively, could you mount exterior cargo boxes on the side of your truck, like you see on big rigs?

Thank you for the engine info. I will try to get a GMC if I can.

I want to avoid a trailer if possible because I imagine it's a hassle both in towns and out in the backwoods. But I may reconsider, depending on how much I can cut down on cargo.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Something like this, under the box between front and rear wheels? I was planning to use those areas for water tanks.

Have to agree fully with Bob on this one..  more times than I can count I would be pulling limbs off the roof that I had snapped getting back into a spot, my truck sits near 12' in height.  and the departure angle has come so very close to hanging me up a few times.. I could remove the back bumper, but I like that I have a class 5 hitch back there if I ever need it

with the duallies, I have gone down so muddy, rutted roads that were a nightmare that I didnt dare stop or I knew I would never move again... so backwoods travel is doable, but not pleasant )  and I'm looking for a good  4 X 4 van now to replace it. 

Your blog says it's a 15' x 7'8" x 7' box and overall length of 24’6”, which is a bit bigger than I am aiming for.  Do you think you would have encountered similar problems even if your truck was a bit smaller? If it was, for example, like this: (width of a regular van, box length of 10 or 12ft, and ground to roof height of 8'8")

By the way, I thought I recognized you and your truck from somewhere 

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Something like this, under the box between front and rear wheels? I was planning to use those areas for water tanks.

Yes.  Exactly.  Depending on how much water you were thinking of carrying, you might find space BETWEEN the frame rails for your water tanks, instead of on the outside of the rails

 

[Not That Bob]

Stick to roads with dual wheels.

Keep in mind they were designed for load carrying and highway stability.

The rear wheels have 1/2 the traction per wheel of single since they carry 1/2 the weight.

In low traction situations you want the rear tires to follow the same path as the front. Each rear wheel will hunt to follow the path the front leaves in mud, snow or rut.

Look at the Turtle Expedition folks, bought a dually and converted it to single rear wheel.

 

[Bonobo]

Yes.  Exactly.  Depending on how much water you were thinking of carrying, you might find space BETWEEN the frame rails for your water tanks, instead of on the outside of the rails

I will keep that in mind, thanks.

Stick to roads with dual wheels.

Keep in mind they were designed for load carrying and highway stability.

The rear wheels have 1/2 the traction per wheel of single since they carry 1/2 the weight.

In low traction situations you want the rear tires to follow the same path as the front. Each rear wheel will hunt to follow the path the front leaves in mud, snow or rut.

Great points, thank you.

So it looks like for multiple reasons I should go for the thinner and shorter SRW box truck.

 

[highdesertranger]

as a person that drives off road a lot with a dually. I disagree about dual wheels. I find they have excellent traction off road. my tires do not spin. I find the 1/2 the traction thing posted humorous. even if that were true 1/2+1/2=1 x2 =2 so it would have the same traction. however this is not the case. most of your grip comes from the outer inch of the tread next to the sidewall so with a dually you have twice the traction. I hardly ever have to put my truck into 4wd because of the traction I get from the rear. even in soft sand I get excellent traction. I would like to point out I have a narrow dually, so narrow dirt roads are not a problem. with a regular wide dually you end up being to wide for many dirt roads. perhaps that is why the turtle people got rid of the duals, not to mention I don't care what the turtle expedition did. my 2 cents. highdesertranger