Montana VS Everest - Page 2 - Montana Owners Club

dsprik · 11-07-2005, 06:21 AM

Rich, Cheryl claims that's her goal, too. Never see another snowflake. HOWEVER... we have 5 grandchildren in N. Mich. I seriously doubt that we will just be visiting from June thru Aug in that area. Sure, most of the time we want to be in warm weather, but just don't see that becoming a strict policy. We will need the Arctic Package plus additional modifications that this forum has provided info on in the past. Plus... doesn't extra insulation help keep you cooler in the heat?

sreigle · 11-07-2005, 11:05 AM

High gloss gelcoat front and rear caps is standard on all Montanas. Also, per Keystone, Montana and Everest have the same budget. This was as of about a year and a half ago. They said the Everest is built with nicer interior appointments since more of its budget goes to eye candy. The Montana spends a larger percentage on construction detail. For example, as of last year (Haven't looked at this year's model) you won't find an attic vent to vent moisture on an Everest like you do on the Montana.

I don't know how to conclude which is better. I guess it depends on your intended use and how long you plan to keep it.
For weekending and normal vacations the Everest shows better. For extended living, though, I'd want the higher budget in construction detail and things like attic vents to vent moisture. Just my opinion, though. The Everest sure shows nicely. And I don't know if these comparisons are still valid on the newest models.

richfaa · 11-07-2005, 11:27 AM

Exactly David..I see the extra insulation as doing a better job of keeping the heat out rather than the cold that is why we will get the arctic package.Steve. nothing has changed since 05..You do not have the choice of options with the Everest,In general the going to Montana package and the value package are standard on the Everest. The interior eye candy was there but did not impress us that much.I think if you were going to be in colder weather you might consider the Everest..all things considered the Everest is a fine unit but will stay with the 3670 Montana.

richfaa · 11-07-2005, 12:15 PM

Dave..you are colder that we are..we also have 5 grandkids and 1 greatgrand kid here in Northern Ohio, Not to mention 5 kids.Figure this will be our home base from May through Nov, Dec//plenty of time to be around family..other than that they can come to visit us.

dsprik · 11-07-2005, 12:15 PM

I will be spending some time in colder weather, but not sure if it would be worth moving to the Everest to get the extra R value vs staying with the Montana and adding all the cold weather protection that Steve and others have suggested. Especially, as you mentioned, Rich, if we will be FTing. The extra contruction would definitely be a plus for FTers.

rickfox · 11-07-2005, 01:31 PM

Hello All,

As with others who are in the market for a new 5er, we have also looked at the Everest. We also have a good friend who owns a 2005 model. In talking with him and from our own observations we decided not to purchase the Everest. Some of the reasons are:

1) The rear living area where the recliners often sit, is about a foot shorter than the Monties. As a result, the recliners are made narrow so they can be set sideways and not interfere when the slides are closed. Since I and my wife are on the larger - thou still good looking and/or beautiful - size, the chairs were somewhat uncomfortable. No chance here to move the couch to the back if you had a mind to.
2) The bullet lights in the ceiling seemed to be an afterthought - not very well installed.
3) The hi-gloss sides does not include the doors
4) At first I thought the mounting materials around the windows being white was a good idea. But when you take a good look at the tinted windows, the white alumimum materials that support the movable portions of the windows really stick out. The black treatment used in the Montana fade into the tinted windows for a better appearance.
5) The front of the Everest is not as aerodynamically designed as the Montana - may allow better MPG for the Montana.
6) The Montana has more tail gate clearance than the Everest.
7) The Everest uses sculptured carpet - which my wife liked - but the tacks/staples that were used to hold it down where the flooring transitioned to the tile was very noticable. In all, I thought the workmanship was better on the Montana.
8) In the models we were looking at, the W/D being located in the bedroom closet seemed like nothing more than an afterthought.
9) There are many things to like about the Everest, including the wood-looking tile floor that my wife really liked, and the browner color of the inside walls. But, interestingly, my buddy mentioned to me that after being in their Everest for about 30 days, the woody look of the inside - although classy looking - started to wear on them.

Just some thoughts from our search. Have fun deciding what's right for you.

dsprik · 11-07-2005, 02:15 PM

Thanks, Rick for the insight. Sorry, Rich, I was posting over you. I agree that us being around the country would give the kids a good excuse to do some traveling with the grandchildren. Good Point!

richfaa · 11-07-2005, 02:31 PM

Rick..great observations on the Everest VS Montana..You know when we stood in the Everest we thought that it seemed smaller and you pointed out why.I like most of you will do the necessary cold weather mods on the Montana if needed and can probably do a better job than the factory.

FredG · 11-08-2005, 03:56 AM

I remember the same coversation at the rally that sriegle described. Basically, Montana and Everest are in the same price range, have comparable budgets per unit, and technically are competitors. The difference between them is where they spend the budgeted price per unit. The Everest team seems to spend more money on eye candy whereas the Montana team seems to spend more money on construction and comfort.

From my understanding, the same goes for all of the other keystone lines. Each line has its own distinct design teams and focus.

Fred

kdeiss · 11-08-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by richfaa

The Everest IS rated for cooler weather but that's not a selling point for us,Did not know the Montana's front and rear cap were hi gloss.Does not look like they are and I don't see it in the spec's, again would make no difference to us as we are not going for the high gloss finish.It was interesting to me to compare the units...The Everest is a real nice unit but not for us..they also had the Pilgrim open road another unit in line with the Everest and Montana but when we walked in and looked around something just did not feel right, although it was a 35 footer it felt cramped.kediss you are right sirpilla Rv Akron, Ohio has handled Everest for a long time. This branch is at Camper World in Brunswick, Ohio and did not carry them before this.Sirpilla Akron is to far away for us..By the way I am a North Side pittsburgh guy..Bottom of Perrysville Hill..don't think the neighborhood exist any more.

richfaa, Good to here from a Pittsburgh native I grew up in Dormont.I visit C W Brunswick often and remember when Sirpilla started to sell at that location

Montana_4397 · 11-08-2005, 10:35 AM

Rick's observations on the differences are right on. One other, is that dual pane windows are not available on the Everest, but are on the Montana. As for the high gloss gelcoat, I've only seen one Montana with it, and they did not do the doors either. Seems that is a Keystone way. The carpet is about the only thing that I find better inside the Everest. The W/D compartment and no dual panes is a deal killer for us.

Best Regards, Ted

sreigle · 11-11-2005, 07:03 AM

Ted, we have the high gloss on our Montana (2003 model) and it includes the entry door and all locker doors. Just an fyi. The only non-high gloss areas are the sides of the slides, the part that is inside the rig when slides are retracted.

Montana_4397 · 11-11-2005, 01:13 PM

Thanks, Steve. Our dealer had a special order come in about a month ago and called me to look at it since he knew we wanted gelcoat. That is the only one that I have seen. If we go Montana, I will find out how they are doing it for sure. The 3295 is most likely where we will land. Possibly the 3400.

Best Regards, Ted

sreigle · 11-12-2005, 10:12 AM

Ted, ours is an '03 model so it is possible high gloss is done differently now. Was that a Montana you saw? If so, I have to wonder if they no longer do the doors or if that one was an anomaly. I would not be very happy if I paid for high gloss and it did not include the doors.

Both those models are good choices. Good luck and enjoy.

Wrenchtraveller · 11-30-2005, 02:04 AM

I am curious why there are numerous posts stating that the Everest is a better choice over the Montana for cold weather use. In my opinion the Montana with the double pane glass and the Arctic insulation pkg is the clear winner in the cold weather category.
Even with the double insulation the Everest only give 1 more R value in the ceiling and the same in the walls. The higher floor value in the floor will not effect the comfort level much. Both units have heated holding tanks with the Arctic pkg.

I have lived in Rvs at below freezing temperatures, both with single pane units and double pane units and there is no comparison in the comfort level between these two window types at freezing temperatures.

In an RV you are usually sitting closer to the windows than you are in a stick house. Single pane glass gives off cool air and that is why you won't find homes built in colder climates with single pane glass.

Anyway, I make my living doing construction work in Northern Locations in Western Canada, and I am glad I went with an 06 Montana with the Arctic pkg and double pane glass. If Everest was serious about being a cold weather unit , they would offer double pane windows and the vented attic like Montana does.

dsprik · 11-30-2005, 03:45 AM

WrenchTraveler, have you, or anyone else heard about the Dometic "Dunk Tank" experiment on a Montana with single pane windows? I really got told by an excited salesman (in GAYLORD, MI, no less) that it showed that dual panes were not necesary to retain heat in a unit. I was given a flyer that showed this experiment. Has anyone else run into this???

I did not comment on this to the dealer, but I haven't been back yet, either. I agree with all others here that there is NO WAY single pane and dual pane windows perform the same, or even close. No one else's dealer showed this to anyone? The reason moisture forms on the inside of any widow is because the air right next to the window drops in temp so much that the natural moisture in the air cannot be held anymore, so it condenses out. Condensation on windows (or any material) = HEAT LOSS in that area.

Unless Montana comes up with a patent for a single pane window manufacturing process with nitrogen bubbles inserted into the glass, that are invisible to the human eye, I am not even thinking of going with single panes for my Montana.

richfaa · 11-30-2005, 04:03 AM

Dave..we were told about the "dunk tank"experiment on our factory tour Oct 4th. I would like to see the actual report and the circumstances under which the test were performed.Again it is what you use the camper for.We expect to be in a warm climate during ther winter months so would not be so concerned with retaining heat but rather with keeping heat out??? We did not have dual pane windows in our TT and had no problems. I am one of those folks that will buy something if the need is justified.We have dual pane windows in our home here in Northern. Ohio..it is 22 degrees as we speak. Would I need dual pane windows in the RGV, South Florida, or around Tuson, AZ??????? Don't know...

Wrenchtraveller · 11-30-2005, 12:22 PM

If my RV use were only in warm climates I would not bother with double pane windows but I have been in 15 F degree weather in a camper with single pane windows and you had to have a sweater on to be near the windows, the following year I did the same trip with my 02 Okanagan Camper with double pane windows, had the same weather and I could wear a T shirt sitting beside the window.

Anybody who has ever lived in a cold country knows single pane glass is horrible to live with.

This "dunk" test should be renamed the "bunk " test and it is probably more geared to A/C performance in warm climates which is not as critical. When the weather outside your windows is below freezing, you need double pane glass to stay comfortable. Trust me.

adelmoll · 11-30-2005, 01:18 PM

When we ordered our Montana someone really "in the know" told us if we were planning to full time in it we should save the money and extra weight of duel panes and use the day-night shades for what they were intended to do. We took his advise. So far we are happy with that dicision.

richfaa · 11-30-2005, 01:50 PM

The way the "dunk test" was explained to us was that Dometic put a entire Montana in a cooler to test it for heat retention.We lost our notes but it was like they got the inside to a certain temp then left the camper in the cooler at what I remember was a very low temp for some time then took temp readings . I don't remember what the exact figures were but I do remember that I did not beleive a word of it..I remember saying that if the numbers were correct the Montana was better insulated than our home here in Northern , Ohio.. Dual pane windows are a must for cold climates..however..the whole idea behind wheels on the camper is that you can move it from a cold place to a warm place...

You may also like: