|
09-17-2006, 04:46 AM
|
#1
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Green Valley
Posts: 1,618
M.O.C. #6022
|
Good info from Montana on GVWR & NCC !!
Summary--The dry/shipping weight figure posted in each Montana (e.g., 11,900# for 3400) includes virtually all optional equipment except dual pane windows, generator and washer/dryer. The GVWR figure is artificially low because government regulations require that it not exceed the sum of the axle load rating and the dry pin weight.
At the RV show in Hershey PA on Sept 15, I had a very long talk with Charles Wade, District Sales Manager for Montana's Western District. While Charles is in the sales department, he indicated that he is part of a group of seven people who do most of the design work on the Montanas, and he seemed very, very knowledgeable on a whole range of topics regarding engineering-type issues. One of them was the issue of the GVWR and net cargo carrying capacities of the Montanas.
Charles accepted authorship of the dry/shipping weight numbers posted inside the Montanas. He explained that the dry weight number (11,900# for the 3400) is 250# higher than the number in the brochure (11,650# for the 3400) because Charles wanted a "fudge factor" to make sure that a Montana's actual shipping weight would not exceed the number posted inside the RV. He chose the 250# figure to be sure he covered the weight of the Hi Gloss gel coat for those who select that option. The only options/equipment he identified that he did not include in the posted figure were, as noted above, the weight of dual pane windows, generator and washer/dryer.
For those who have weighed their rigs before they started adding their own gear, does this match up with your actual weights? FYI, Charles noted that the weight of the Hi Gloss option will vary among the various models of Montanas, but that the highest weight increase they saw when adding Hi Gloss to any model was 180#. He pegged the weight of the dual pane windows at about 150#. Speaking of dual panes, he had lots to say on them--maybe I'll put that in another post. But he did say that the R value of single pane was 0.8, for dual pane was 1.01.
Charles and I had a long talk about GVWRs and pin weights--I'd be glad to share more at the Rally with any who are interested--my fingers would wear out trying to type up a summary a 40 minute talk. Bottom line--federal regulations require that the GVWR be limited to the sum of axle load rating and dry pin weight, which means a GVWR for the 3400 of only 13,975#. Charles certainly thinks that the existing frame and axle could support a significantly higher weight rating, but he just can't put a higher number on the label because he can't justify moving the axle location rearward in order to increase the dry pin weight.
I was impressed with how Charles backed up his views on this, and I now feel much more comfortable about the actual cargo carrying capacity of models like the 3400. While I will try to avoid exceeding the GVWR (no need to carry extra weight), I'm not going to let it dominate my decisionmaking in selecting options, and I'm confident I could exceed the GVWR by 400#-600# from time to time (e.g., if I fill my fresh water tank for a brief period of dry camping) without putting any undue stress on the structure of the 3400.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 05:06 AM
|
#2
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,568
M.O.C. #4890
|
Good article and it does agree with what I found out when I loaded up my 2955RL. The cupboard sticker weight was very close and I do have dual pane, and the washer dryer combo.
We loaded up ours real good as Donna is a fantastic packer and tends to bring everything along and I had a generator and tools in the storage area and even with a full fresh water tank we were only about 160 pounds over our Montana's GVWR. Finally the RV industry is giving us the real weights of these units and the RVs I bought new 20 years ago were way heavier than the brochure weights, I am talking 1500 pounds heavier and this is on slide in Campers.
I've said it before and I will say it again, any of the Montana models have ample carrying capacity for part time RVers. The full timers have to be careful but if they know how to manage weight, they are probably fine too.
I very nearly went to a Forest River product because of the payload issue with Montanas.
Thank heavans it turned out to be a non issue for me.
Thanks for a great post David.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 05:43 AM
|
#3
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brownsburg
Posts: 1,186
M.O.C. #5634
|
Thanks David, I think we should all be more thorough when discussing issues with those "in-the-know". I would really love to see Keystone have a Q&A forum somehow tied to this one. As many supporters we have on this forum you would think they would provide us with information to assist us. I wonder how many Montana's are sold as a result of previous or current Montana owners.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 08:41 AM
|
#4
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
|
So David..How does all that very interesting and informative information relate to why Keystone will not put a bike rack on the Montana and will threaten us with all sorts of dire consequences if we do??? I believe Mr Wade was the person I spoke to some time ago about the HIGH Gloss gel coat and dual pane window weights and he did have the proper information.There are a lot of folks at keystone who have information unfortunately a lot of it is contradictory.Example is the weight of the Hi Gloss. You could talk to Keystone "informed Sources" and the weight ranged from 600 to 200, to 250 and Mr Wade's 180?? None of this inspires confidence..and so it goes...
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 09:04 AM
|
#5
|
Montana Master
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,700
M.O.C. #5751
|
Good information, David.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 09:42 AM
|
#6
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Down the Road
Posts: 5,627
M.O.C. #889
|
David,
Thank you for posting that summary. I have said it time and time again, Charles Wade is a great asset to Keystone and I have alot of trust and respect for him.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 04:12 PM
|
#7
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
|
Placing a 1.5 or 2" receiver on the back of the Montana is like placing a 120 VAC recepticle on the trailer. You never know what someone might plug into it. Montana can protect the recepticle by placing a fuse on the line.
But how to you do that with a towing receiver? I believe this is their main concern. I have decided to move forward and have been using a 2" receiver-type bike rack for some time on the back of my Monty.
Next comes my Hog trailer.
|
|
|
09-17-2006, 05:02 PM
|
#8
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 5,316
M.O.C. #15
|
David,
Great information. Sure helps put some authoritative details to some much discussed topics here on the MOC.
Thank you for taking your time to post them.
Dennis
|
|
|
09-27-2006, 03:37 AM
|
#9
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 578
M.O.C. #718
|
great post I was looking to see what window U and R factors were and fond Peninsuls glass co with U factor 0.55 and R factor of 1.82 looks like montana needs to find a better window.
Bob
|
|
|
09-27-2006, 01:46 PM
|
#10
|
Seasoned Camper
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: McKinleyville
Posts: 62
M.O.C. #5263
|
One of the reason that I bought the Mountaineer was the slide out rack in the back. It's supposed to hold 250lbs and I put bikes and a generator on it.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|