Pictures of 'dream' vans

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Len & Jo --

Your van has been my "dream van" since I first saw pictures of it on the Sportsmobile forum several years ago!


GreyDawg  ;D
 
I always thought the old GMC motorhome (basically a stretched Olds Toronado with a custom body) was a "dream van".  I guess it is considered a Class A since it was built to be a motorhome body rather than being a converted van, but it is (to my eye) more like a stretched B van than an A.

http://www.gmcclassics.com/chatter/4sale.html
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
I always thought the old GMC motorhome (basically a stretched Olds Toronado with a custom body) was a "dream van".  I guess it is considered a Class A since it was built to be a motorhome body rather than being a converted van, but it is (to my eye) more like a stretched B van than an A.

http://www.gmcclassics.com/chatter/4sale.html


A 26 footer is much bigger and more confortable then a 21 footer for sure, just like any 35 footer class A compared to a 45 footer pusher!  ;)
 
Yeah, they are longer and thus more roomy, but I was thinking more of the van-like body shell and height plus an interior that is reminiscent of a classy conversion van.
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
Yeah, they are longer and thus more roomy, but I was thinking more of the van-like body shell and height plus an interior that is reminiscent of a classy conversion van.

The GMC was more like an Airstream TT with an engine, front wheel drive and rear air suspension, quite a confortable ride, a pure quality of motorhome that I wish had owned !
 
I do like the layouts.  The double wheels though in the rear have always looked odd to me....not pleasing.
 

Attachments

  • Royale_Layout.jpg
    Royale_Layout.jpg
    150.8 KB · Views: 18
Len and Jo said:
I do like the layouts.  The double wheels though in the rear have always looked odd to me....not pleasing.
Who needs a tub in a mh ?
Those double wheels were for the confort ride, just like today's rear double side by side wheels ! Those rv were not wide !
 
They needed two tires on each side to carry the weight of the rig.  I think they used tandem single wheel axles so that the wheel wells didn't intrude so far into the interior. Similar to the logic of RV trailer design, i.e. more space between the wheels. That's just my guess, though.
 
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/commemorating-100-years-of-the-rv-56915006/?no-ist

RV Hall of Fame

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU6cwz7wkCg
 
Gary RV Roamer said:
They needed two tires on each side to carry the weight of the rig.  I think they used tandem single wheel axles so that the wheel wells didn't intrude so far into the interior. Similar to the logic of RV trailer design, i.e. more space between the wheels. That's just my guess, though.

I am sure Gary is correct, but they still look odd to me (aesthetics vs function).
 
Great selection, to feast our eyes on!
I've saved some bohemian interiors (girly mostly) but some cool looking vans, too.
https://ro.pinterest.com/tabimh/livin-in-a-van-down-by-the-river/
And from CL :D
 

Attachments

  • 00606_j19TwfYwcLd_1200x900.jpg
    00606_j19TwfYwcLd_1200x900.jpg
    99.5 KB · Views: 11
  • 01717_ebFH48tRdHJ_1200x900.jpg
    01717_ebFH48tRdHJ_1200x900.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 13
  • 00101_2ajkNDXS3qy_1200x900.jpg
    00101_2ajkNDXS3qy_1200x900.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 13
Now this I like.  In the floor wine rack!! 

In our van the cabinet I have my eye on for wine only holds two bottles.  Wife has the rest of the space (I could get 4+ more bottles in!) filled with extra TP and paper towel rolls.  We each have our own priorities.
 

Attachments

  • d85b3bd9dd25075fe194756ebc6a46a1.jpg
    d85b3bd9dd25075fe194756ebc6a46a1.jpg
    90.6 KB · Views: 13

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
131,913
Posts
1,387,265
Members
137,665
Latest member
skibumbob
Back
Top Bottom