Compare Alaskan to ATC/FWC

[Taku]

I am curious to see if there are any folks out there who have had an Alaskan and an ATC or FWC and what they see as the advantages/disadvantages - or just general thoughts. Currently have and ATC Ocelot but looking at switching to Alaskan when we go to more full time traveling. Thanks!

 

[wagoneer]

Important to me is the hard side aspect. My 76 is in need of some TLC and now retired can move it along.

 

[popRoid]

Over the years we've owned a Jayco Popup, Adventure Trailer Horizon (www.adventuretrailers.com) with roof top tent and now a new Alaskan 10ft cabover. The soft side fabric of the popups is a pain in the winter....it gets stiff from the cold and is subject to mildew in the summer in storage. All in all the hard side popup Alaskan is a vast improvement over soft side popups BUT it is a beast to take on/off your truck.

 

[Wandering Sagebrush]

Taku, we looked at Alaskan when thinking about retiring our old hardside camper. I like them (a lot), but ended up with a Northern Lite for space and ease of maintenance reasons. That said, the Alaskan is the MOST comfortable camper I’ve ever been in. In my opinion, it is far superior to the Grandby I had, but it’s also more expensive.. If you haven’t talked to Bryan Wheat the President, I recommend you do, and visit the factory if you can.

For a fabric sided pop up, I don’t believe you can beat ATC’s line of campers.

 

[rando]

I have a FWC Fleet Flatbed, and one of my regular adventure buddies has an Alaskan 8' cab over, so I have a fairly good idea about both. The big advantage of the Alaskan is that it is hard sided, which is nice in the wind or cold (although quieter, it is also draftier than the FWC in the wind). It is also roomier and 'plusher' than the FWC, but more 'traditional RV' feeling than the FWC. The windows in the hard popup on the alaskan are better than the soft windows on the FWC. While the slide in Alaskan has much more space than the FWC, the 'galley' layout of the slide in is less efficient than the side entry of the FWC flatbed - but a new Alaskan Flatbed would solve that issue.

On the down side the Alaskan is a lot heavier than a FWC, so you are looking at a bigger, more heavily loaded truck. We just did the white rim trail in Canyonlands with both, and while both made it with no problems, the trail was more challenging for the Alaskan. It also seems that the Alaskan needs more adjustment and maintenance than the FWC, particularly when used on rougher roads.

If you are considering long term travel and don't mind giving up some nimbleness, then the side entry Alaskan seems like it would be just the ticket.

 

[CougarCouple]

Hello taku
Although we have not owned an Alaskan camper have looked at them and do like them out of our price range currently. I would think for full time would be a benefit over a canvas camper. Currently own the Cougar by ATC, pretty much loaded, we are at about 9,140 lbs on our F250. So going with the Alaskan from everything I've read, and comparing the weight to ours a one ton would be better. I like shopping and have seen some nice used Alaskans at less than new prices but look showroom.
My thoughts on full time is weather and I would make that my number one consideration as to what we would be living in.

Russ

ps ther was a nice custom one recently posted here hopefully they will comment for you.

http://alaskancampers.com/classified-ads-page/

 

[Taku]

Wow! thanks for all the thoughtful comments. I was wondering if I would get one. Many good thoughts about both types. I tend not to go on too rough of roads, but some 4x4 is fine, so not sure that would limit us much more. The weight is a big thing which is why I like the ATC setup. Having the comfort of the Alaskan for 3 to 4 month trips is appealing. We would definitely look for a used camper and I have no problem spending time remodeling if need be. When we bought our ATC I did most of the cabinets and "finish" work. Might have to keep both campers for a year or two and see what wins out! thanks again for all the comments.

 

[klahanie]

Taku, we're in a similar situation so I'll offer few of my thoughts.

Like others we've looked hard at the Alaskan and come away impressed. The big takeaway was the famously comfortable dinette seating and the large windows that are at just the right height for us. We don't have a dinette in our FWC but having limited vacation time to camp we don't really miss it. But in future, with more time available, we'd want a comfortable place to lounge - and the AK fits the bill beautifully in this regard.

Also with longer trip time, we'd like to stop and smell the roses more. So more stationary camping with activities. That means a way of carrying things like a BBQ, bike, boat or what have you. Storage is always important but the point here is looking ahead to what you will want to carry, or not, in future and how your camper might fit it all. AK does have an advantage with it's power roof lift allowing storage up top, if you can get to it conveniently.

One thing missing tho is a shower. If renovating or refreshing an older AK unit for longer term use I'd think about incorporating a shower.

Your right, weight is a big thing. One reason we've kept our Granby so long is that most any other camper will be heavier and we are already heavier than most on this forum. What's important though, is how the truck handles the weight and at what speed. A heavier camper would slow us down, esp off highway on FSRs. This is not desirable for us on our on limited vacation time but would be much less an issue with "more time" .

btw Bryan offered the rule of thumb of 19-20lbs per inch, wet. If you are thinking used, would you be looking for an 8' ? Are you considering putting this on your current vehicle ?

 

[Taku]

Klahanie: Thanks for the post. We are looking for an 8' CO and will be putting it on a 3/4 ton 4x4 - I have modified two different trucks for carrying payload and am comfortable with those mods. The shower is not a big deal for us, we use an outside shower and if it's cold, find hostels or hot springs for getting clean. I agree with your weight vs. speed issue, but I am a slow driver anyhow so that is normal and I drive forest roads in my regular job so am very comfortable with those type of roads and conditions. We do want to carry a couple of kayaks and there are some lift systems, both electric and manual that look good to aid in getting boats on and off the top of the camper (which in another reason the Alaskan with the hydraulic is appealing). We have towed trailers and while that works, is not the preferred way we like to travel. That and the comfort are the real drivers for getting something different than what we have (ATC Ocelot) which has been a great camper. We do have some friends that when they retired went through a similar issue, suddenly the smaller camper was feeling pretty cramped when using it for a few months on the road. BTW - I had not heard the rule of thumb for wet weight so appreciate the information!

 

[klahanie]

^ Very good, I think we are on the same page. That type of truck will be ideal for FSR travel - as you'll already know - and highway cruising. Any brand will do.

fwiw, We were looking at the 8.5' which has a front dinette big enough for socializing or sleeping for two, top down and maybe a little bit more storage. This model has been around long enough you'll prob come across it on the used market.

Finally, I forgot to mention the con of no screen door. Might not be a prob in the desert or elsewhere but springtime up north, oh boy.

Here's one solution from an interesting (and long) thread, if you haven't seen it ...
https://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/alaskan-camper-build-up.9502/post-327883

 

[Nailhead]

We are looking for an 8' CO...

Here's what I found in my search for the same thing: 1.There is one FS on Reno CL, with or without '90's Dodge pickup. A member here said the same camper has been on CL for years, making him suspicious of it. 2. There is one FS on Albuquerque CL, refurbished, lots of mods, (high) priced accordingly.

That's about it. Good luck in your search.

 

[PackRat]

Rus.... while I haven't weighed my 88 F-250 4x4 Lariat extended cab with an 8' bed on it and with my Alaskan mounted, here is what it weighed with two full tanks, me and a shell weighing about 200 lbs. still on the truck bed. I also listed the VIN tag maximums.

Front VIN = 3920...…...my truck = 3520....so I have 400 to play with.
Rear VIN = 6084...…....my truck = 2860....so I have 3224 to play with.
GVWR VIN = 8800...….my truck = 6400....so I have 2400 to play with.

When I mounted the 8' C/O Alaskan in the truck bed, it did NOT sit down much at all...in fact, I can't see that it sat down on the rear any more than the front .

Your results may vary....but luckily I already had the truck because this second Alaskan was exactly the configuration I wanted. Sure, it lacks a heater/oven/refrigerator (has the icebox), but I have enough weight capacity and tongue weight to tow my Bantam trailer along with much of the stuff that usually ends up in the aisle in the camper, making a quick stop for lunch easy even if you don't jack up the top! I'm not a long-term trip taker.....for us its a couple days away and our rig can handle that with nothing more than the ice chest and some block ice plus some cubes for drinks.

 

[CougarCouple]

Hello PackRat
To have all the information you need to weigh the truck loaded with the camper and everything to take with you.
When you say front vin are you speaking of the front axle weight rating?
I think the manufacturer puts those figures so that you understand that when placing a payload in the truck neither axle weight should exceed the weight rating on the data plate. The total weight combination of front and rear axel should not exceed 8800.
Say you loaded everything and were 100lbs over on the front axle rating and the total weight of front and rear axle was 8600lbs. You would need to shift the payload away from the front axle or reduce the load to get at or under the front axle rating.
I’m not trying to say you can’t load up go camping, your truck won’t handle your gear.
If you were a commercial enterprise your license fees and rig are subject to inspection. All the information from the manufacturer is what DOT uses during inspection.
We try to travel with as much of the isle clear for those vary reasons, I'll pop just the rear and we work it like that..

Russ

 

[PackRat]

Russ...that is correct....each VIN tag is representative of what the build tag for that specific vehicle says....depending on what was ordered, the VIN tag would reflect anything that was pertinent to that. Also, you have it right about the GVWR....8800 is what she can SAFELY carry but overloading the rear axle (or the front) and going light on the other axle and being at say, 8750 is not what Ford has rated my truck for as you described.

You understand it perfectly!

 

[Nailhead]

Taku, I discovered a CL search tool that cuts countrywide CL searching from hours to minutes, thought it might be handy for you in your 8' CO search. www.searchtempest.com

Apologies if you already knew about that.

 

[Taku]

I do use Searchtempest but thanks for the note!