Long-term Durability CO vs NCO

V

Vector1

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
29
I know there are several (or more) on the board here who have restored or worked on both of these designs. I visited Alaskan's shop in Chehalis a while back and really liked what I saw, but I still have some reservations given the roads I'll be driving: washboard gravel at speed, potholes, water-bars, etc.

I know it's a subjective question, but the NCO's have such a simple geometry that I've been wondering if there's any evidence that they might be a better choice given those conditions. Thanks for you consideration in these matters.

Robert
 
Robert,

Some time ago, I posted a photo of a CO Alaskan on a flatbed. The truck was about a 2000-1 F350 diesel. The gent who owns it has called it home for what is probably 15 years now. He has taken it on some pretty demanding routes, and has frequently damaged it. Not the camper's fault, but more the extreme conditions where he uses it. When he breaks it, he takes it back to the factory, and they fix it for him. It's still going strong.

So, based on what I have heard from him, and the factory about his use of the camper, my opinion is that washboard, potholes, water-bars should not be a problem. Personally, I would not want to drive at speed under any of those conditions, but I am getting to be a bit of a geezer.

Have another conversation with Bryan Wheat. I think you'll get honest answers about the durability of the camper under the conditions you believe you'll encounter.
 
I have to think the NCO is more structurally sound. I don't know how the cab over on the Alaskan campers are designed and built, but the new one I was able to check out did have some flex in the cabover section. That was with the top raised so top down may be a different story. In contrast the FWC and my Hallmark are very stiff when pushing up on the cabover section. I don't know if the cab over flex would lead to any fatigue failures. Then again I am partial to the NCO so I may be biased. I like the idea of the NCO for the winter ski camping we do most weekends lately.
 
There might be a difference long term in water intrusion, and therefore ultimately damage. Seems like there are many more vulnerable locations/seals/gaps on a CO for penetration.
I wouldn't sweat the difference for primarily using the CO in dry climate, but I would take that factor into consideration if damp/wet/rainy areas were my frequent intended area of use.
I'd mentally weigh it, anyway....
 
I believe the height is the same, just eliminates the cantilever :) The interior would have to be adjusted to make a bed I guess... Have not seen many examples :)
 
Happyjax is correct. I'm pretty sure they can do a lower travel height for the NCO. This reduces the standing room height the same amount. I think the limit is 4" lower due to door and window constraints. That's fine for us short people!
 
Having just purchased an older CO I'm not prepared to compare the two just yet. I've had the NCO for going on 25 years and the interior height is fine for me and I'm 6'3"...no bumps, bruises, scrapes....plenty of clearance. The CO water intrusion is an issue I'm contemplating this season...I know from relatives having CO's that the CO section does have considerable openings for intrusion and will have to be dealt with. I'm considering a full travel cover out of Sunbrella with zipper joints up front...just for rain travel...being a steelhead fisherman that enters the picture all too often...Just a consideration right now....

all the repairs I've seen done involve upper and lower sections of the CO section equally and the retention of water in the carpet buffer is one of the problems...I'll deal with that too...there are lots of nice Pemko products out there now

The NCO's have a shorter bench/bed and less storage for extended trips. Being tall the CO appeals to me...not only that but the bed/bench doesn't have to be put away to use the camper during the daytime...an issue when getting ready to cook a meal or sit down for a snack or lunch.

I found a 10' side dinette which had been well kept and was in pretty much great shape...even though it may not need it...I'm going to peel it apart and strengthen the CO section before I finalize the mountings.......having LVL lumber in the picture now...a nice side extension into the top section will strengthen the CO from flexing as much.

Short trips...the NCO's are great....my grandparents bought the one I have in 1970 and loved it as I do and my sister before me...

keep in mind that the older models are nailed and not glued...which allows them to flex quite a bit...it's just all the screw holes and exposed joints that make them more subject to water intrusion.....even with the best care...they leak a little. I've found the best way to deal with them is as an inverted boat...for sealing.

They do well on old, rough roads...don't be afraid of them for that....even the CO's

If I can figure out the picture deal again I'll post them up and I'll keep a good log of what's done this spring.
 
Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful and informed replies. I tend to over-think choices like this, but you've all given me realistic and valuable feedback to mull over.

As I'm planning on month-or-longer trips, the Alaskan Camper interior is pretty inspiring and they appear to be a good option for sub-freezing temps. I'm not opposed to putting the time in maintaining the seals, caulking etc, but fishing along the Oregon Coast throughout the winter is part of the plan, so rain and wind are definitely in the forecast, and I'd hate to spend my time chasing leaks in the middle of the night.


So I'm still wrestling with the maintenance/durability issue (if there is one) comparing them to FWC's. The manufacturers seem so have carved out their individual niche's (?) without a whole lot of overlap, if that makes sense. They all look good to me right now, but with notable and significant differences/strengths/weaknesses.

I like the looks of the NCO's more and more (simple, old-school construction, considering how I'll use it), but I can sure understand why the CO's make sense, especially for two or more campers, in-use storage, etc.

PS WS, I live 150 miles from the Ak. shop in Winnlock, so a reasonable distance for repairs when necessary, a sensible consideration.

Thanks to all.
 
Rusty, Great reply, thanks. From what you've posted, it does sound like the CO's might require a bit more maintenance or at least more potential for leak-related repairs. My intention is to buy new from the manufacturer and my understanding was that the 8' CO and the 8' NCO have the same height, floor plan, and storage--the only difference being the bed in the CO itself??? I'm headed for the Sportsmen's Show in Portland next week and can get some of these questions answered and will report back.

What I've found unique about the Alaskans is the long-term, inter-generational loyalty to the brand, like you've described. Wow. Says lots.

A full travel cover for the worst weather makes lots of sense, definitely something I'll do no matter what I decide on.

Any further thoughts that you can pass on will be greatly appreciated, and not just by me, I'm certain.
 
If you're buying new.......you're starting fresh with all the new sealant upgrades and improvements on frame styles and finishes....

If I were in that market...10' CO...no question....go for it

you don't worry about the leaks while you're camping ;) ....it's when you're home and it's sitting. :oops: ...wet...after a steelhead trip

as soon as my CO is finished...my son has dibs on the NCO....the one his great grandma bought new :D ....15 years before he was born
 
Rusty said:
If you're buying new.......you're starting fresh with all the new sealant upgrades and improvements on frame styles and finishes....

If I were in that market...10' CO...no question....go for it

you don't worry about the leaks while you're camping ;) ....it's when you're home and it's sitting. :oops: ...wet...after a steelhead trip

as soon as my CO is finished...my son has dibs on the NCO....the one his great grandma bought new :D ....15 years before he was born
Click to expand...
Pretty neat heirloom! That's a great tradition!
 
I REALLY like the custom flat bed version like Carlyle on EP had Alaskan camper build.
The CO portion is over a large storage compartment, eleminating the "flip-down" front and sides on the CO part.
The sealing issues are very straightforward on this camper. I will edit adding links....


Found this one first:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/46740-Alaskan

Carlyle's build. Warning. Long! (but well worth the read)

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/9502-Alaskan-Camper-Build-Up
 
I have a cabover and love it. Only 3 year old. It require less maintenance then most. The cabover is designed with the top overlapping the sides. No problem with water.
During cold weather the cabover is a little cooler. I installed the foil insulation under the mattres
 
Sounds like a lot of the old durability issues have been addressed by Alaskan. Freebird, thanks for the links. dc, seems like all the cabover beds on the popups are a little "cool". Stuff under the mattress seems to work for most.

I'm headed to the Portland Expo next week and am preparing for sticker shock as we speak. But, to quote a famous fishing guide, "There's no limit to what people will spend on their hobbies." Makes sense to me.
 
So far no leaks with my 2015 CO, and I've been in plenty of rain. I think it is the older models that had issues.


Sent from my iPad using Wander The West
 
Don't they all, if they live long enough, eventually become "older models"....?
Why does that sound familiars? Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads - WTW

S
Newbie questions
thisoldcamper
T
C
New or newish truck for my Eagle: mileage, power, fit questions
2
smlobx
S
Vic Harder
I need more power Scotty!
14 15 16
JWL
JWL
J
2500 stright axle vs independant axle
2
ntsqd
N
RC Pilot Jim
((Eagle/Fleet)) - Shell Amateur Build
11 12 13
ski3pin
ski3pin

New posts - WTW

Back
Top Bottom