Newer cargo van or older camperized van?

[sting]

I’m looking to travel the country on several trips lasting a month or two each either by myself or with only one extra person. I’m used to tenting in the past, but want to avoid the continual setup/teardown and be able to pull over and sleep wherever.
 
I’m trying to decide between getting a used cargo van which I will build a simple bed/storage into vs. A fully camperized van. I can get an early 2000 model cargo van with about 125K miles or a 80’s camper van, surprisingly with much less mileage.
 
I want to keep it simple and have the least amount of hassle. The 125K on the cargo van engine worries me as does that it was a “work” vehicle (like it seems are all cargo vans), but the much older age of the camper van seems troublesome despite the less mileage.
 
Which would be a more solid choice?
 
PS>> I’m leaning towards the cargo van because I want to keep it simple and have control over how the inside is laid out and the finished van just seems like “too overdone” - I don’t care about toilet and shower/microwave. I am aware that with the cargo van I’ll have to insulate for road noise and build a bed and some storage, have a bucket for when a bathroom is not handy and use a portable white gas camping stove for cooking.

Parry

 

[SoulRaven]

Don't forget the 3rd and best choice of an older window or conversion van.

Move seats out, move furniture in, no screwing with adding insulation and all of the other BS that comes with trying to convert a cargo van.

 

[ilovemyvan]

Hi Parry,

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure I would go with either options. The cargo has no window, that would make me feel claustrophobic on rainy days. Also I think working cargo van have a greater chance to have been neglected, does it have invoices to show how well it was maintain?

As for the older class B, all the belts and whistles you don't want take precious space and they are old. If you were to buy a passenger or conversion van you could start simple. Since you did a lot of camping in the past you already have all you want and need.

Off Grid 24/7 wrote: "no screwing with adding insulation". We have a conversion van and we regret not adding insulation to the cheap, thin stuff that it came with. If we had a do-over we would add a lot of insulation. It would increase our comfort level a lot.

Good luck.

-Nicole

 

[Almost There]

My choice, and lots here disagree with me - go for the newest you can afford that hasn't been beat to death and has fairly low mileage.

It's true that most of the cargo vans have been used commercially and aren't put on the market until they are about to run into expensive repairs but there are ones out there that haven't been.

Don't discard cargo vans - windows can always be added. If the rear and side doors have windows that don't open they CAN be swapped out for bottom opening windows if you find you need to.

I like cargo vans because they offer a clean slate for you to do with what you will. I got to choose what and how much insulation to add. I don't like Class B's because as someone else said, the manufacturers have crammed into them all the parts normally found in a full size Class A and by the time they come down to a reasonable price, all the RV parts are ready for replacement.

I spent at least 6 months diligently looking for a van and was searching in a 350 mile radius. I was ready to widen my search distance when I stumbled on my van. Interestingly enough, I found it the day after it was listed but it was already on Page 7 of the listings - apparently all the dealers list their vehicles Friday afternoon and the previous owner had put mine up on her lunch hour so it got buried.

If having standing height is one of the 'must haves', keep in mind that high tops can be gotten from wreckers and moved to your new van.

While setting your parameters for what you have to have is a good thing, keeping an open mind is also important. I was raised a Ford baby and now own a GMC...

 

[Theadyn]

I, too, wanted to keep it simple. I went with the conversion van with the short top for added headroom. Like Offgrid mentioned, it has some insulation already, which was okay by me as I am not the handy type. Kept the carpet in there for the same reason. Removed the seats and bench, built out a simple wood platform for the bed at the back, found a used cheap desk for kitchen/work duties, added some plastic cubes for storage and called it good. All in all, fairly simple, the older conversion van was fairly cheap, simple conversion done fairly cheap, as well. Mine is only being used as a traveling vehicle for now, so it works for me. Should I be living in it full time I would have went about it differently. Ymmv.

Oh, and Welcome to the forum!!

 

[LeeRevell]

125k miles on a sixteen year old van isn't a bad thing, if it was maintained.  Look at it's over all condition.  Does it look okay or abused?  
On the otherhand, check all appliances in the camper.  Do they work okay?  Is the bed comfy?  I am tall so I look for a longish bed.    Does it have a raised top?  Extra height is nice on a longrr trip.
drive both and see how they run.  Any odd sounds or smells?  If possible have a good mechanic check it over.  Good luck!

 

[wagoneer]

My experience has me avoiding older conversion vans because the appliances are usually inefficient. packed in old package keep it simple I like windows and light and by all means get a high top.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Consider the idea of buying an ex-government vehicle at auction.  I've owned several and had uniformly good luck with them.  They were always well maintained, and unlike dealers or private sellers, they were always straightforward about revealing any problems they knew about.  The auctions are open to the general public.  You will be bidding against small dealers and garages that are looking to flip them, and these bidders drop out as soon as the price goes too high for them to make a good profit, so you almost always end up getting them for less than you'd pay a dealer or private seller.

Regards
John

 

[rvwandering]

Welcome to the CRVL forums Sting! Windows and good ventilation are a must for me so I lean more towards a van with windows rather than a work van but, as has been suggested, you can always add windows!

To help you learn the ins and outs of these forums, this "Tips & Tricks" post lists some helpful information to get you started. We look forward to hearing more from you.

 

[concretebox]

As someone who bought an 89 Ford CamperVan, I'd recommend the newer cargo van. I'm very proud of my RV but it's my first and since I've spent about two years in it, I know better what I want. The CamperVan needed a lot of work, and not all at once. I replaced the radiator, spark plugs, fuel filter, belts, hoses, and more. I've been stranded a few times before I worked the kinks out.

The 3-way fridge didn't work and had to be replaced (~$800), the furnace didn't work and had to be removed, dismantled (wasps or something built a nest in it!), and repaired ($150, plus time). Moreover I upgraded the water heater, added solar and a few other things. In the end I have a very nice RV, but it still gets 8mpg and is a terror to drive and park. Also, no cruise control and no ipod/bluetooth stereo, and the AC doesn't work and is so old it can't be recharged.

At $3.50 a gallon, it costs me about $0.45 a mile to drive the RV. A cargo van would do better and a minivan would do a lot better.

 

[Canine]

Very accurate post there above. Any pre 97 van with the older tech engines gets worse mileage, and the heavily laden camper vans get even worse. When you are paying .45 to .50 a driven mile, you have to seriously question your lifestyle.

Example. I often drive to my moms nursing home, an 800 mile one way trip, stay there a couple nights then drive back. That's over 1600 miles and would cost close to $800 in fuel plus an oil change about every two trips... An econmcal minivan or something else would allow hotel stays... The camper could stay where it was parked. I mean, no one wants two motors and drive trains to take care of but the more miles you drive, the worse it is for any rv cost-wise. The less you drive the better a class A, B, C or camper van looks on paper or a spreadsheet.

Of course there are always special considerations, yet for a while, till she passes, I am spending lots of fuel dollars on my old tech 1994 350 c.i. plus wearing it out. I even rented a little fuel squeezer from Emterprise once, spent so little in gas it was scary and the car cost me $18 a day...

Just ideas.

 

[SoulRaven]

Off Grid 24/7 wrote: "no screwing with adding insulation". We have a conversion van and we regret not adding insulation to the cheap, thin stuff that it came with. If we had a do-over we would add a lot of insulation. It would increase our comfort level a lot.

Good luck.

-Nicole

Having plenty  of heating and cooling power is far more effective than any amount of insulation.  Simply parking in the shade in the summer, and the sun in the winter, is also far more efficient.

Unless and until somebody comes up with an insulation plan that will keep my van cool all day long and into the night when parked in the sunshine, it is nothing but a waste of money.  Simply parking  in the shade will keep it equal to outdoor temps, and the insulation won't be radiating heat until just before sunrise.

In the winter, insulation fights to keep the warmth of the sun out, so you need at least twice as much heat to stay comfortable.

Too many people that stay in moderate temperatures think that insulation is keeping the comfortable when it has nothing to do with it.  I worked for over 10 years in Alaska, in -40 temps in the winter.  Two of those years were in a heavily insulated cargo van that I just couldn't keep warm.  Only about the top 1/2 to 1/3 of the van would feel warm, the floor was always freezing cold.  I ran the heat full blast the whole time I was in that van.  When I switched to a stock window van, I only needed to run the heat on high for about 5 minutes, then on very low to heat the whole van, floors included.  At the same time, I switched from propane to heat with to using kerosene to heat with.  Not only was it a lot cheaper, it also totally solved my problem of having ice built up on the INSIDE of my van.

During part of my truck driving career I was delivering temperature controlled trailers.  These trucks had about 18" of the best insulation money could buy.  I learned a LOT about insulation and how worthless it is in vehicles without a constant heating or cooling source for the inside.  That 18" of insulation would only hold the temps for a little over 2 hours if the system went down.

 

[SoulRaven]

Sorry Dusty, you've got it wrong...

You want to go even older, not newer.  The less smog control garbage on it, the better the gas mileage, and the less maintenance it needs and the fewer the breakdown problems.

I just put 1800 miles on my 1986 1 ton extended body dodge van with a 318/automatic for $350, including an oil change at a quickie lube.  That comes out to $0.194 per mile @ 18mpg average.

A friend who also made the trip in an Astro only averaged 16.8 mpg.

It's the smog stuff and the lack of ability on newer vehicles to properly adjust them for the best performance that kills the gas mileage.  Those computers are designed with smog control in mind, not gas mileage.

Give me a good old fashioned carburetor and a fuel pressure regulator any old day.

 

[Canine]

Well maybe. My 74 ford f100 with a 302 and a 4 speed got 14, it didn't have any computer.
My 78 Ford F-250, 390 4 speed with 4.10 got 8.
My 69 Ford camper special f250 with a 390 got 10-11 all day.

I can't afford 8-10 at today's prices. My current trip has been 4500 miles since May 28, with another 1200 to go. That's almost 6000 miles in 2 months. I get maybe 15 highway, that's 375 gallons x avg $3 = $1,125. Plus 2 oil changes.

If I could squeeze into a 2005 Dodge caravan with stow n go getting 25 mpg, I'd have spent $720 on gas. That's $400 difference. Eventually that will pay for a few repairs.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck with this van and the need to visit family while I'm laid off. I still would chance newer technology vs a rebuild every 150K on old motors. We all have our preferences...right or wrong isn't the issue.

Now if I said the new dodge 8 speed automatic was cheap to rebuild, that would be "wrong" compared to my old turbo hydramatic 400 that cost me $850 a few years ago... That I agree with.

 

[Canine]

From "how.stuffworks.com":

"There's a little-known rift in American culture, a division drawn between people who find the cars built in yesteryear more reliable and those who find today's modern cars less problematic to drive.
One can understand why classic car enthusiasts believe that older cars are more reliable than more modern models. Compared to newer cars, classic machines were much more simplistic in the design of their engines. The Volkswagen Beetle of the 1960s, widely considered a very reliable car, used the air that passed around the car during driving to cool the engine instead of liquid coolant. Without this addition, the car was easier -- and less problematic -- to drive. What's more, the car was extremely easy for the average person to repair, which isn't something that many can say about modern cars [source: Holzman]. Of course, not every car in the 1960s was as easy to fix as a Beetle.
However, the general consensus seems to be that modern cars don't break down as often as older ones. When the U.S. government offered the "Cash for Clunkers" program in 2009, it was intended to stimulate the economy and improve the fuel efficiency of the American cars on the road. It also served as a tacit confirmation that newer cars are better. That might be a controversial claim, but the numbers don't lie: The car with the record for the most miles driven was a 1989 Saab 900SPG, owned by a Wisconsin traveling salesman who logged 1,001,385 miles in 17 years before retiring it [source: AP].
The decline of car maintenance costs also shows that modern cars are becoming increasingly less problematic. In the United Kingdom, for example, the average cost of maintaining a car declined by 13 percent between 1997 and 2009 [source: Savage]. As a result of this improved reliability, people are hanging onto their modern cars longer than before. In 2009, J.D. Power and Associates reported that the average trade-in age of a car in the U.S. is 73 months. Just three years earlier, the average trade-in age was 65 months [source: Butcher].
One reason for the decrease in car maintenance among modern cars is the advent of the on-board computer. While it provides a distinct advantage in diagnosing car troubles, it can also lead to some problems. Learn more on the next page."

Of course, they used a 1989 Saab in their example.  My mileage champ was that 1997 Econoline van with the 5.4 that had something like 1.2 plus million...

I had a beetle once.  A 68'.  Oil pump went at 105,000 and motor seized.  I wasn't too pleased.  

I'd still buy newer if I had the money.   Metal fatigue, dried up rubber components, lots of things that dry up (seals) or no longer work as well.  I do appreciate replacing shocks instead of struts, and having room to work on an engine, though any V8 van is a real PITA to work on, period.   So there's room for both views.   I wouldn't expect an older driver who grew up with points and carbs to be as used to fuel injection and computers.   I do like not having to rejet my carb when I go from sea level to the Rockies though.  

Parts availability varies.  Pick and pull is great but the government's cash for clunkers program crushed up a lot of our parts source donor vehicles.  My local yards have very little n the way of 70s or earlier.  Slowly but surely they are scrapping things.  I'm sure my G van is good for another 10 years for parts.  If I was 30 instead of 60, I'd want an Express body style though.  YMMV...

 

[highdesertranger]

lots of holes in that story dusty. first off a saab really has anybody here tried to work on a saab. also a vw air cooled engine does not do well in the summer in the desert, not much cooling going on when the air temp is 110 plus. works good under 40 though. to say a modern vehicle is more reliable is like saying my chicken I cooked tonight is better than it is 2 weeks from now if left unrefrigerated. well duh. modern vehicles have hundreds off doodads to make them more fuel efficient and comfy. the one thing you can bet your last dollar on is sooner or later these doodads will fail. an older vehicle has almost no doodads, so they will never fail. I find this whole topic of newer being more reliable almost comical. anybody who believes that a modern vehicle is more reliable doesn't keep their vehicle more than 10-15 years and is naïve at best. if anybody wants my opinion on cash for clunkers the only people it helped where fat cats in the auto industry. it hurt poor people that don't have the recourses to buy a new vehicle. it took thousands of vehicles out of the market and drove up prices for all vehicles new and used. how did that help the average joe. my 2cents. highdesertranger

 

[Canine]

I actually agree that the modern computers may be really sketchy at the 15 plus year mark... I mean a basic 50's to late 60's vehicle can still be fixed cheaply, right?

You are right, a Saab is expensive parts wise. Still doesn't explain the 5.4 ford motor though. I know a few owner operator freight expediters who drive one ton vans with the Ford 5.4 or GM 6.0, they mostly get hundreds of thousands of miles out of them, normally. But then they wear theirs out long before they age out, as their carriers require vehicles 10 years old or newer..

My old 94 is still chugging along yet I'd still take a 2004 Express if I could find one cheap enough... I like the underpinnings better.

 

[SoulRaven]

For the most part, I agree with highdesertranger, with the exception that the computers are designed for better gas mileage...

I think they are designed with smog control in mind which actually hurts gas mileage.

Smog control and gas mileage seem to be opposing forces.

 

[Milk Hauler]

For the most part, I agree with highdesertranger, with the exception that the computers are designed for better gas mileage...

I think they are designed with smog control in mind which actually hurts gas mileage.

Smog control and gas mileage seem to be opposing forces.

Yup. A computer controlled vehicle is a good gamble if you under stand the systems. I have a 94 S10 blazer that's pre-obd2. Its computer controlled cpi poppet style injection system can and will gum up over time. Not as simple as tbi or a carb, but I understand in thereory how the system works. I have two 02 sensors vs 4 on newer cars. My hvac system electronic, but I know how to override it incase a blender door sticks. In the frigid winters of SE Idaho its a a God send to have an instant start in subzero weather. I hit the switch 1 time and the computer does the rest. I have basic values stored on notes for the few computer controlled items on my vehicle. My digital multimeter is my scan tool. [emoji41]

 

[Canine]

So it is sounding like for older "gear heads", old iron, or at least pre 2000 works fine. For less mechanically capable, it's an event bet which way to go. I don't go for style, but certain things like a full ladder frame and robust brakes and axles I prefer. Never did like the unbody half tons... Even though I currently drive one... And a G20 is not a true 3/4 ton...