Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 

Go Back   Montana Owners Club - Keystone Montana 5th Wheel Forum > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS > General Discussions about our Montanas
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2005, 06:21 PM   #21
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Dave,

That being the case, you certainly are within Keystone's specifications, and, as I understand it, rv.net should agree that the trailer is safe.

My concern is for those of us that have more things they want to carry and thus would be "over" the GVWR if they did. My concern is also is that Keystone specs the GVWR of their trailers based upon the UVW hitch pin weight plus 12,000#. For example, the 3400RL GVWR is the hitch pin weight of 1770 + 12,000, or 13770#. This places those trailers with the lower initial hitch pin weights at a disadvantage with repect to GVWR even thou all the structural components may be the same as the heavier hitch pin models.

Don't get me wrong, I like the 3400RL design. It's just a shame that this design is rated at a lower GVWR (and thus can "legally" carry only a smaller load)than other Montana models. But, I guess it only matters if something unexpected goes wrong and people try to blame the 3400RL owner for being over the "advertised" GVWR.
 
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 01:23 AM   #22
steves
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Belvidere
Posts: 1,834
M.O.C. #185
I had a 2003 3670RL and a now a 3400RL and have the same (loaded) equipment/supplies.I towed to Texas and back this past year and feel the 3400 towed and handled better. I traveled across Route 10 through New Orleans (probably the worse road in the USA) and had no problems with my unit. Our friend traveling with us in a Mobile Sweet had their desk top crack, broke a shock and lost a foot off the rear stabilizer. I also checked my axel ratings and have 8,000 pound rated axles. So the point is no matter what the stats say the unit tows and handles well in actual use and has held up to some very rough conditions.

Steve
steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2005, 03:20 PM   #23
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Guys,

I sure wish that Keystone would "weigh in" on this topic. Why put a pair of 8,000# axles on the unit with 7,000# tires (3500#/tire) and only spec. the unit for 13,770# GVWR while assuming that 1770# of this weight would be supported by the TV??

Perhaps the unit really can easily carry capacity over and above the that which Keystone has speced. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Perhaps there is some other component that limits the carrying capacity of the 3400RL. Maybe since it has 4 slides rather that 2 or 3, the frame has a weak spot - I'm just wildly guessing.

But my point is - In a world where often "more is better", why has the 3400RL been speced with a such a low GVWR?

I may be older than the rest of you, but I can remember the old Chevy Corvair. It was thought to be a great car, until performance testing showed the design to be considerably lacking, with the car later being dubbed by Ralph Nader as "unsafe at any speed". This model Chey later bit the dirt.

My wife really wants a 3400RL. I just want to make sure that some day down the road I won't be sorry I bought her one!!
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 12:55 AM   #24
foggyb
Montana Fan
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: farmingdale
Posts: 298
M.O.C. #1351
Hi All We went 13,000 plus miles with our 3400 last winter with no problems what so ever. We just put what we thought we would need in it ( a lot of it we didn't) and went from Maine to California and dinged around all the places in between. Our advise is buy it and go. If there were and built in problems, they would have shown up long ago for all us happy 3400 owners. Enjoy!!! Dan
foggyb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 02:13 AM   #25
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
I am not a structural engineer but there is something that "does not add up" with the 3400" And I can not go along with the ..Don't worry about it, just buy it, hook it up and go, attitude. The 3400 is a great unit, we looked at one a couple of days ago and were impressed with the unit in all respects. rickfox has valid concerns that should not be ignored. Tne 3400 is a new design that has only been on the road for about a year.IF there are structural or design flaws they will show up with use and wear. There have been design / structural flaws that have killed airliners after 100's of hours of use.The British Comet, design flaw in the window that caused it to crack, depressurize and disintegrate.The Lockheed Electra, design flaw in the wing structure that caused it to oscillate and , seperate from the aircraft.One dug a crater 30 feet deep near Tell City, Indiana. I have read NSTB report after NSTB report of incidents that were caused by design flaws that only showed up after a long time in use. Mr Rickfox concerns would NOT stop me from using my 3400(if I had one) or buy one (if I was so inclined) But I would be asking some questions of Keystone.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2005, 05:00 PM   #26
DavesDmax
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Fremont
Posts: 27
M.O.C. #3865
I apologize if I'm answering out of turn, but I'll throw my $0.02 in on the subject.

To Rick Fox and Richfaa,

I just guessing here but I can probably spectulate as to why the 3400RL has a GVRW the way it does.

My TT came with 3500lb Dexter axles, and Marathon Load range B tires. The TT is rated for 6135lbs GVRW, the axles are rated for 7000lbs, and the tires are only rated for 5740lbs total. As you can see, the tires by them selves will not carry the total weight of the trailer. The manufacturer relys on the rest of the weight being carried by the tow vehicle by the hitch weight when the trailer is being towed. Not much margin for error there...

Again, I'm just guessing here, but I think there are a number of reasons for manufacturers to do this. Probably the most logical is the standarization of inventory. Montana probably buys tires by the trainload, axles by the truckload and those parts are used universely for all models, frames too. I'm sure that as they make purchasing and design changes, they phase out on part by using them up and phase in the new part as the old style is depleated.

Another issue is probably to ensure that the pin weight stays low so as to not limit sales to 250 / 2500HD owners. I know that the 1770 pin weight is of high interest to me due to that being within my truck's capability. I'm not naive enough to think that the pin weight won't go up but, 1770 gives me a good base to start from and will allow me to add more weight to the trailer without seriously going way above my TV's capacity. I would not even consider looking at a 3400RL if it's pin weight was 1000lbs more. So, I'm sure the sales and marketing guys have come to that same conclusion too. The RV industry is getting really competitive and none of the manufacturers want to exclude a buying group.

I don't have a good reason for the difference between the 3670RL and the 3400RL but it may be the slides, and or the demographics of the buyers.

One of the primary reasons I'm looking at the Montana line is due to the size to weight ratio. If weight was not important to me I would be looking at the big Teton's, HR's, or Newmar units. Those are big honking heavy trailers. They are well built units but are too heavy for me.

I think you will see most of the manufacturer's going toward lighter units, with beefer parts where the customer wants, within reason.

Just my thoughts.. but would love to here from the horse's mouth also.
DavesDmax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 02:04 AM   #27
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
DavesDmax..Understand everything you say and you are most likely correct but the issues you mention are sales and marketing issues .Don't think I would put the safety of my family in the hands of the sales and marketing department. I like the 3400 for many of the same reasons you do..because it fits..but that is only one aspect of purchasing the RV..safety is # 1. I think the 3295 may have a better size to weight ratio.We as consumers rely to much on sales and marketing for our purchasing and have been misled far to many times. I would like to see keystone reply to rickfox concerns, No guessing as we are doing.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 02:32 AM   #28
steves
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Belvidere
Posts: 1,834
M.O.C. #185
Well - who can explain the Trailer GVRW formula for trailers.....who can explain the Trucks towing capacity ratings. Do all manufactures do it the same? I think not. Who says RV.ORG is correct over RV.NET ratings? There is a manufacturing and marketing element in all of these ratings as well as an engineering factors that we don't understand completely. Read the GVWR tags and buy what you feel comfortable with.
steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 01:29 PM   #29
sreigle
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
Rickfox, I loved my Corvair (1962 Monza)! Vicki loved hers (1963 Spyder). My brother loved his 1961 Covair, my dad is 1962 and also his Corvan (Greenbrier). That van was a ball. A rear-engined pancake 6 van! It would climb the infamous Top 0' the World hill in our area of the country.

Richfaa, I don't know much about size to weight ratios and what's good and what's bad. But our 3295RK is 36' 4" in length and weighs 14,360 actual. Is that good? Pinweight is 3,300 actual.

As for the axles, it was not long ago we were bashing Keystone for the weak link being the 6,000 lb Alko axles. They've since moved away from Alko to the much better (I think) Dexter axles with an upgraded rating (I didn't realize they are 8,000, I thought 7,000). So they have improved something we felt needing improvement. There may be more things needing improvement but I'm pleased they listened enough to make the axle change. I don't mean others' opinions are not valid. They certainly are. I just wanted to point out that the reason for the bigger, stronger axles has nothing to do with GVWR. It has to do with fixing a weak link. We also have to remember every chain has to have its weakest link.

That said, I'm also curious why the GVWR is not higher.
sreigle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 02:08 PM   #30
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
You know when you start trying to figure out all this size/weight ratio and Gvwr stuff after awhile the brain goes into buffer overload. I was looking at all the spec's for the all the Montana's and they just don't compute.So Im'. going back to my basic plan..seperate things into two categories Things you have complete control over, Like when do you put the garbage out or when do you wash the dog and things you have no control over what-so-ever..like size /weight ratios of Montana's and GVWR...We will just do as we have been doing for years..load the camper up and when it gets to where you can't move around or find anything..take some stuff out//// So it is written so shall it be done...
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 04:41 PM   #31
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
WOW!

I think its great that so many have responded to my original question/concern! To take the time to type out a response indicates to me that we are at least thinking about these issues, which hopefully means that we generally are not just going out and doing something and then watching what happens.

I also agree that starting out at 1770# is nice for my 2500HD, and also agree that the manufacturers need to be sensitive to the limits of the 3/4 ton trucks - which the 3400RL does.

It's good to know that Keystone is now using 7,000# axles. Interestingly, during last winter's RV show in Dallas, a Montana Rep told me they were using 6,000# axles on their longer model 5th wheelers, and that the GVWR of these models was calculated to be 2 X 6,000# + UVW hitch weight. Check out the specs and you will see this is a true statement for the 3400 and up.

Here's another thought! I just finished looking on the Goodyear website and found that the 235/85R16E tires (used on Montana) are rated at 3042# at 80psi, or 6084# per axle. I believe we have found the weak link!! 4 tires will support only 12168#, regardless of how stong the axles are - thus the 12,000# rating apparently being used by Montana!
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 05:07 PM   #32
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Hello Again,

I really do have other things to do other than play around at my PC, but I was just looking on the Hitchhiker II website www.nuwa.com and I noticed that they are actually addressing this problem.

Their standard axles are 6,000#, with the same 235/85R16E tires. And their GVWR's are similar to Montana. The difference is that they also have an upgrade package that allows you to purchase 7,000# axles, G rated tires (3752# per tire) and G rated wheels. This allows the unit to achieve GVWR's of over 15,000#.

Again, I believe the limitation in the 3400RL's carrying capacity is the tires and the wheels they are on - especially if Montana is currently already using 7,000# axles.

How about a similar "reasonable cost" upgrade for Montana - for those of us who wish to stay within the design limits of the trailer.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 05:32 PM   #33
Countryfolks
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ft. Smith
Posts: 981
M.O.C. #116
I think you'll find that the wheels are not rated for a higher capacity tire. Higher rated wheels,$$$. So the wheels need to be included in the equation.

Skip
Countryfolks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2005, 06:46 PM   #34
keham
Montana Fan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids
Posts: 173
M.O.C. #3778
Hi

New here. But I just got a april built 3475RL and empty it weighted 11395 coach and 1850 at pin. Now this is what it has for axles dextor D60-8 i believe this is 6000 # axles not 7000# and the tire are tacoma 235/85/E16 80# 3040 now it says cvwr 14225 and pin 2225 this makes me believe when pin is at 2225 then coach will be 12000 no error margine. now what i feel the diff in specs is the lenght from the pin to the center of the front axle on the 3475 is about 1 and a half feet lomger then the 3400. I measured because i was trying to to decide between the Two. So becuase of this the cvwr would be lower on the 3400 As the longer lenght of the 3475 will have a higher weight to the pin. and they like all trailers seem to use the pin x empty coach weight for cvwr. so i feel becuase of that shorter lenght of the 3400 could make it real easy to over load the coach (axles) and the 3475 most likely over on the TV load carrying rating.(becuase of layout) For me i would rather be over on the Tv then the trialer axles. I guess what I am saying is it is the measure lenght from the center of the front axle to the pin seems to be the key that all are diff. Now they all have the same axle and wheels and tires now or as of apr28 05 build date.

thanks
ken
keham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 06:23 AM   #35
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Ken,

I agree that the distance from the hitch to the axle has a bearing on what the hitch weight will be. But there are also other things to consider such as the weight distribution of the unit.

My comment with respect to overloading one part of the TV/trailer combination is as follows. I have heard numerous stories about tire blowouts - both on the TV and the trailer - many of which caused damage as well as injury! I have personally not heard of frame and/or axle failures. My major concern would be that the tires are not overloaded - as sooner or later such tires will fail.

There seems to be only a relatively small margin of safety on the Montana tires - 6084# per axle pair - with the unit GVWR rating assuming 12,000 is riding on two axles + the hitch weight at 1770# = 13,770#. Thus overloading the trailer - which is relatively easy to do since it has a relatively low carrying capacity - amounts to overloading the tires.

On the other hand, the rear axle of my 2500HD weighs 2900#, with a maximum additional weight rating of 3000#, or 5900#. Interestinly, the rear tires are rated at 3042# or 6084# total. I can thus add 3000# in weight of the hitch and trailer to the rear wheels before I overload the tires.

My conclusion is that although I may exceed the GVWR of the TV by - say adding 2800# in hitch weight - I will not overload the rear tires until I put more than 3000# additional load. It is therefore "less riskly" to overload the TV than to overload the trailer. Overloading the TV is a GVWR issue (frame issue) but not a tire issue. Overloading the trailer amounts to exceeding the GVWR, the axle ratings, and the tire ratings! Sooner or later, if the left one don't get ya, the right one will!
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 06:49 AM   #36
keham
Montana Fan
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids
Posts: 173
M.O.C. #3778
Rickfox,

I agree, with that. tires and axles should be rated higher. anything over 80% of axle rating i believe you enter into a safety margin for overload prevention. I mean like the weight shifting that happens at highway or city cornering. Way it is now, I am sure weight loads on individual tires is happening and just matter of time before that effect causes problems. For this reason I will be updating to 7000 axles and G type tires. while keeping my loads as the trailer is currently rated. That way as loaded i should be at or close to the 80% rule my dad swore by, and he never got a failure from his tires (except road hazards).

Wish all RV manufactures had spare capacity for loads built in. Am surprised that they don't think the liability factor would influence this but guess not.

ken
keham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 07:10 AM   #37
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
Guys you are Right but I doubt keystone will give you a job because you would cost them Money.They are just barely within spec's.there is no rule/law that they have to provide a safety margin so if you overload the fault is on you not Montana.It is a simple Money issue most,if not all manufactures do it..You are wise to upgrade that will give you the safety margin and save Montana many $. Of course they could offer a upgrade that the buyer would pay for...but then that would be sort of an admission the the standard may not be adequate..So it is better that they stay just within safety limits and let us worry about safety margins.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2005, 05:39 PM   #38
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Rich,

I agree. But unfortunately - and I don't mean to be argumentative -- there are people who make comments like Steve and Dan - it hasn't hurt me so far, so it probably never will. If they aren't aware of the true limitations of the 3400RL then they wont know the risks they are taking with themselves, their families and other innocent people on the highways until its too late!

With little margin in a number of "spec" areas, and with a fairly low carrying capacity, the 3400RL IS fairly easy to unknowingly overload. That's the reason rv.net says it is unsafe.

In Montana's defense, they have perhaps properly "speced" the unit and thus have made the public aware. But none the less, the uninformed public will likely overload the unit - especially if they decide to add the 600# hi-gloss fiberglass option. And by monitoring other areas of this site, many believe the only way to go is with this hi-gloss option.

I like the 3400 design. But I also wish to have the hi-gloss option. Unfortunately, I am going on record to say that anyone who purchases the 3400RL with this option is looking to trouble, or just simply ignorant of what they are doing.

Help us out here, Montana. The 3400RL is a nifty layout - now make it safe!!
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2005, 02:25 AM   #39
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 20,229
M.O.C. #2839
I think it is more that folks just don't take/have the time or have the where-with-all that you and others have and the Rv manufactures are remiss in not being more informative..however...they are within safety specs' so the responsibility is on the buyer.The 3400 was one of our picks for purchase but for the reasons you and others stated and that we were aware of before the post, we will not buy. We have seen the results of Rv overloading..it is not a pretty picture.Since we have a choice we will chose on the side of safety. You have done a good job of research and information.but at the end of the day the choice is up to the INFORMED individual.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2005, 02:26 AM   #40
steves
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Belvidere
Posts: 1,834
M.O.C. #185
Rick, My replies was not intended to hurt you but only to put all issues in perspective. There is no proven or published methodology that manufactures use when it comes to ratings thus there could be same structure design but different ratings from different manufactures . As far as the gel-coat option I don't think that it is the only way to go. I've had two Montana's and have elected not to have the gel-coat because of the added weight. Again, this becomes a personal choice that one makes based on tow vehicle, extra cost, weight and not minding a little more work when it comes to cleaning. I've found that by keeping a good wax on the unit cleaning is not a problem.If you want the gel-coat then you have to add that element to your evaluation and if it don't fit move to a lighter model.

Safety of the 3400 - If I thought I was putting anybody at risk (your opinion)I would not put the unit on the road and I don't think keystone would not be marketing the unit.(my opinion). I do have to make a correction to an earlier post when I said I had 8,000 pound rated axles. That was incorrect they are 6,000 pound rated. In looking at the numbers it was hard to see because of dirt and the light condition under the unit. The 6 looked like a 8.

Good luck with your decision process related to a Montana. Perhaps you should contact Keystone directly with your concerns.

Regards,

Steve
steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Montana 3075 or 3400 pin weights BrokenElbow Tow Vehicles & Towing 4 04-27-2007 04:51 PM
2006 v 2007 v 2007 3400 RL weights dsprik General Discussions about our Montanas 28 01-20-2007 03:51 PM
rv and weights richfaa Tow Vehicles & Towing 10 12-01-2006 04:03 PM
Confusion - Tow Weights, GVWR, Pin Weights, etc.. Montana_5701 Tow Vehicles & Towing 11 05-02-2006 07:17 AM
3400 Measured Pin Weights lightningjack11 Tow Vehicles & Towing 0 05-13-2004 10:35 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Montana RV, Keystone RV Company or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.