scamp motorhome?

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hey Everyone,

So would it be sacrilege to show up at an Egg get together with such a rare Scamp motorhome only to find it is not original and has been updated in drivetrain and the interior?

This thread has piqued my interest and have e-mailed Richard from the June ad but I realize that most likely it is sold.

My main goal would still be to get a nice egg travel trailer but this might be a fun long term project. I'd need to see if I could put one or two road bicycles in it while traveling if I were to travel to races.

Can the chassis be upgraded for a slight gain in safety, handling and capacity with updated Ford parts without a huge investment or re-engineering it?

2.8 v6 I wonder what the power to weight ratio is like for that truck. I would imagine it would be underpowered which would limit me to regional use here on the flat prairie but would it possible to upgrade to the 4.0 v6?

Hmmm! This might be a serious Minnesota made vehicle. lol Camper made in Backous and the Ranger made at the historic Highland Park Plant in St. Paul which recently closed. Luckily it probably wasn't driven in Minnesota winters though or there would be nothing left of the ranger due to rust.

It is all well traveled ground. That Ranger chassis could easily be upgraded in drive train and suspension.How about a 4.0L V6, or even a 5.0L V8? That with a 9" differential and a little suspension work would practically turn this thing into a hotrod autocross machine!
The truck is stable and drivable as it is, with enough power to do the job.
My only real objection is the ersatz duelly set-up. Although it has lasted 30 years so far, it's tenure would come to an abrupt end when it rolled into my shop.
I'm thinking 5.0L V8 , T5, and a 9"

[Dakota]

Hey Floyd,

When I was originally looking at truck campers my focus was getting a truck camper that could be handled by a single rear wheeled pickup to better get around in snow and off road. I would definitely be interested in removing the dual rear wheel set up on one of these. With your experience with Ford will this little 2.8 v6 be able to get one of these rare Scamp motorhomes through the Rockies or be better to keep it on the Great plains type of terrain?

Are you serious a 5.0 liter in this? lol I can't imagine the space left for someone to work on it. Isn't the 4.0 liter known as practically a bulletproof engine from Ford? One of their best?

It has a tow hitch on the back but the present owner has never used it. Evidently another Minnesotan went to check it out and said it had more room in it that his 19 ft Scamp but he already has too many projects going.

I'm tempted but who ever gets it I think will have a lot of fun with it being that it's so unique.

[Thomas G.]

While it would be a fun project to re-power it, I think I'd stick with the 2.8L. Unless you can personally do the work, you'd never make it worth the cost to convert it.

Look at it this way, it still has 2/3 of its useful life left. Just maintain it, use it and enjoy it.

[SilverGhost]

The Eurovan (which the Rialta is based) never sold well in the US. Most dealers don't stock any more than filters (which are common to other models), but they can be ordered. Price was the other big issue - VW is proud of its commercial products (which the Eurovan chassis is considered).

We have two here today and both customers love them.

Back to the Scamp, the wife has been talking about what to do when we out grow out current egg. I think if we could find one of those Scamps or a Chinook to tow our egg it would be ideal. A little drive train upgrade would probably happen though.

Jason

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Hey Floyd,

When I was originally looking at truck campers my focus was getting a truck camper that could be handled by a single rear wheeled pickup to better get around in snow and off road. I would definitely be interested in removing the dual rear wheel set up on one of these. With your experience with Ford will this little 2.8 v6 be able to get one of these rare Scamp motorhomes through the Rockies or be better to keep it on the Great plains type of terrain?

Are you serious a 5.0 liter in this? lol I can't imagine the space left for someone to work on it. Isn't the 4.0 liter known as practically a bulletproof engine from Ford? One of their best?

It has a tow hitch on the back but the present owner has never used it. Evidently another Minnesotan went to check it out and said it had more room in it that his 19 ft Scamp but he already has too many projects going.

I'm tempted but who ever gets it I think will have a lot of fun with it being that it's so unique.

While the 2.8L is no powerhouse, in the Scamp it should blow the doors off any 22R equipped motorhome, especially considering that they are generally bigger and heavier.
When I drove the one above, I found it to be easily comparable in performance to a typical V8 full-sized Class "C" motorhome.

There are two different 4.0L V6s, an earlier pushrod and a newer SOHC.
Either would do well. The SOHC would do as well as many V8s.
Lots of these trucks are running around with 5.0L V8s.
A 5.0L V8 will fit in a narrower space than a 2.3L 4CYL. and looks great in the engine bay of my Pinto.
It is also easy to build a Lima 2.3L engine to exceed 150HP and that was the base engine family offered in that Ranger.
One point...
The 2.8 is both antique and obsolete and while there were lots of performance parts for them in days of yore, you would be hard pressed to find much available today.
A little research may reveal that direct swaps to a 2.9L or the pushrod 4.0L may be possible since they are all Cologne derivatives, but I don't know from personal knowledge what may be involved.
I pulled my car trailer all over the place with a Pushrod 4.0L in a 1992 Ranger, even with a 3.08 gear.
I now have a SOHC 4.0L Ranger which has worked hard for more than twelve years without complaint, pulling all sorts of trailers.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Dakota

This thread has piqued my interest and have e-mailed Richard from the June ad but I realize that most likely it is sold.

Originally Posted by Cricket

It is for sale again in MN....that's why I was asking....my intent is to purchase it.

I already corresponded with Richard by e-mail: it's not for sale again, it is still for sale. There was some interest, but Richard has not yet found a buyer.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by floyd

My only real objection is the ersatz duelly set-up. Although it has lasted 30 years so far, it's tenure would come to an abrupt end when it rolled into my shop.

Richard confirmed -by e-mail - that the dual wheels on adapters were added by Scamp to the original Ford Ranger axle. I wouldn't want this, either, although it seems to have worked without incident.

Finding more suitable (single) tires to fit the Scamp wheel wells might be a challenge, but it might be an interesting upgrade which wouldn't conflict with the spirit of the Scamp design. We often debate motorhomes versus travel trailers; I think if I were to go with the motorhome I would want to emphasize some advantage of that format, which might be improved mobility on trails... and that might lead to a 4x4 version. I would be concerned about stability then...

Floyd, does that look like the chassis of the short-box (6' box, 108" wheelbase) or the longbox (7' box, 114" wheelbase) Ranger to you?

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Richard confirmed -by e-mail - that the dual wheels on adapters were added by Scamp to the original Ford Ranger axle. I wouldn't want this, either, although it seems to have worked without incident.

Finding more suitable (single) tires to fit the Scamp wheel wells might be a challenge, but it might be an interesting upgrade which wouldn't conflict with the spirit of the Scamp design. We often debate motorhomes versus travel trailers; I think if I were to go with the motorhome I would want to emphasize some advantage of that format, which might be improved mobility on trails... and that might lead to a 4x4 version. I would be concerned about stability then...

Floyd, does that look like the chassis of the short-box (6' box, 108" wheelbase) or the longbox (7' box, 114" wheelbase) Ranger to you?

It certainly was not the 108". I did not take notes, but it was likely 114", although with the back of the cab cut out, it could have been the 125" supercab chassis.
It looks short,but I simply don't remember.
Hey Cricket!...Got a tape measure?

[Ed Harris]

Floyd,I thought we agreed that you needed to buy this one?

Whats the deal,you have really let the ball drop this time!

Morph it with that Pinto and stand back.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by floyd

It certainly was not the 108". I did not take notes, but it was likely 114", although with the back of the cab cut out, it could have been the 125" supercab chassis.
It looks short,but I simply don't remember.

Thanks Floyd. I'll assume 114". To put that in current perspective, you can't buy any pickup that short in North America now.

I don't think Ford offered the regular cab on the longest wheelbase - or at least it wasn't available to Scamp, as that would be the only sane choice were it available.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

Thanks Floyd. I'll assume 114". To put that in current perspective, you can't buy any pickup that short in North America now.

I don't think Ford offered the regular cab on the longest wheelbase - or at least it wasn't available to Scamp, as that would be the only sane choice were it available.

True, but could you be looking at a supercab with the back cut out of it??

[Dakota]

I close on a lot for a new very modest house(base camp) and a future garage for a fgrv (egg nest) to be built in a few days and the contractors will start work next month so I can't do anything right now. It would just be too much right now. So! I'll have to resist the temptation of a rare and unique Scamp motorhome.

Good luck for those of you that are interested in this motorhome and please let us know how your doing with it! I'm excited for you!

Back to the original focus of, moving to a town 4 hours away, getting house built, recover, buy egg and then begin the adventure. lol

[Cricket]

The more you guys talk about it, the less interested I am getting....sounds like there is potential for lots of stuff to go wrong. BUT I do have a tape measure for those that are interested.

[Thomas G.]

Originally Posted by Cricket

The more you guys talk about it, the less interested I am getting....sounds like there is potential for lots of stuff to go wrong. BUT I do have a tape measure for those that are interested.

I don't see it that way. It is a great little motor home, but it is nearly 30 years old, so you can expect to do some maintenance, both on the truck part and the camper part. All this talk of doing a re-power is just "wouldn't it be cool" chatter.

[carlkeigley]

Originally Posted by Thomas G.

I don't see it that way. It is a great little motor home, but it is nearly 30 years old, so you can expect to do some maintenance, both on the truck part and the camper part. All this talk of doing a re-power is just "wouldn't it be cool" chatter.

ROFL..........yeah, "man" talk.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Cricket

The more you guys talk about it, the less interested I am getting....sounds like there is potential for lots of stuff to go wrong. BUT I do have a tape measure for those that are interested.

There is really not anymore potential for problems than any other used Item.
I drive my 1966 unrestored Falcon several times a week.After an initial maintenance curve, it is fun and reliable. The parts are cheap and readily available.
As for the tape measure....
Sorry, I was thinking you had access to the RV to measure the wheelbase.Nevermind.

[Dakota]

Hey Cricket,

I still think that little motorhome is a great opportunity. I exchanged a few e-mails with Richard yesterday as I'm sure others have recently. It has extremely low miles for it's age, only a little surface rust since rust was a main concern for me with the vehicle being from Minnesota. It has a 5 speed transmission which is a plus IMHO for that type of vehicle to have a better use power when needed and less to go wrong. The clutch should be in decent condition. It has been stored inside every winter and has been outside during the summer in the past few years.

Presently there are no leaks in the camper and the wood floor is strong. It runs, drives well and A/C is working. Even the Ranger interior from the photos don't look to be faded from the sun. It has all the advantages of a fiberglass egg camper and being a Ranger you have numerous options on the mechanical side.

My main concern about the 2.8 v6 is if there would be any issues of being underpowered matched to that chassis. If it works as is I would have just cleaned it up, have it completely checked out when I got home and fixed a few things if need be for the short term and enjoy for price I purchased it for. My thoughts on the 4.0 SOHC were as a replacement engine when the 2.8 eventually died or whatever. Otherwise I'd basically leave it alone except just improve it over time like others do with their fgrv's and maybe get rid of the dual wheel set up but it's not like something I have to do. I don't need a speed machine. It should have a lot of great memory filled miles ahead of it.

I'm just going off of my past experience with years being in the car business and having some friends who were techs. It's just poor timing for me right now. If it is somehow still available once things settle down for me once this house is done I'll gladly go to Cottage Grove, Mn about 6 hours away to check it out and maybe just purchase it and see some old friends in the Twin Cities while I'm there. I'd end up with one self propelled egg and one that is towed.

Have you physically seen and driven it yet?

[Cricket]

Planning to look at it this weekend...

[Raz]

For those interested, here's an '87 on a Dodge chassis listed for sale last year.1987 Scamp Motorhome 18 for sale in Dallas, Texas United States

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by floyd

True, but could you be looking at a supercab with the back cut out of it??

Yes, a cutaway SuperCab would have the longest Ranger wheelbase, and it could be a SuperCab, but I am thinking it is a standard cab for a few reasons:

• I had the impression that these mini motorhomes typically had just an access opening, rather than a cutaway cab integrated with the fiberglass body... but that's not factual information, just my impression from previous discussions and photos.
• In the interior photos, the access way from coach to cab appears to be quite narrow - the cab is not opened up wide into the interior, like a typical Class C. It looks more like an access way in the cab rear wall (and continuing into the roof) than a cab without a rear wall.
• If a Supercab cab is cutaway to fit the Scamp, it would not just have the back opened, it would be shortened about a foot and a half. That would likely remove the rear cab mounts, so unless it also has mid-cab mounts (in the normal rear mount positions for the regular cab), there would be nothing holding up the back of the cab. That sounds like a lot more work on the cab (and perhaps mounting points on the frame) than Scamp would likely have done.

Unfortunately, none of the photos that I have seen show the back edge of the cab, or the connection between cab and coach. Someone looking at one in person could probably quickly determine which it is (completely cutaway cab integrated with moulded coach, or normal cab with access hole bridged to coach). If it is not completely cutaway, and still has its original rear corners, it must be a regular cab.

The Dakota-based version apparently had more distance from cab to axle, and would presumably have been the 124" wheelbase (the longer of the two available for the regular cab; the 131" Club Cab didn't exist yet in 1987); the extra room from coach to cab with the Dakota seems consistent with being 10" longer in wheelbase but having a slightly longer cab, compared to the Ranger.

Originally Posted by P. Raz

For those interested, here's an '87 on a Dodge chassis listed for sale last year.1987 Scamp Motorhome 18 for sale in Dallas, Texas United States

Thanks Raz, that's interesting to compare.

I see this one is based on the Dodge Dakota, not the little Ram 50. This seems like a better size of base vehicle, both for cab roominess and for chassis stability (wheelbase and track) and likely capacity (especially rear axle rating). It has more space from cab to axle, so there is a visible transition piece to bridge the gap - too bad the body couldn't be redesigned to more effectively use the extra space.

Like the Ranger, this one features dual rear wheels... but it appears to use the same wheels at the front as the rear, so this is a more thoroughly done conversion with front hub adapters and so all positions can be covered by one spare. The rear axle presumably still has the wheel pair's centre well outboard of where it should be, which is hard on bearings... and who know what the GAWR of that rear axle was even before making it worse this way.

A note about the ad: it says that the truck has a 3.19 L engine; I believe this is just a typo, as a 1987 Dakota V6 would be a 3.9L engine.