3400's GVWR low? options=liability risk? - Page 6 - Montana Owners Club

rickfox · 07-21-2006, 09:25 AM

Gyro,

It is not my intent to take this thread down an undesired rabbit trail, but back in March, there was a fairly long thread about putting a hitch on the rear of Montanas.

In that thread, our Lippert frame guy pretty much stated what I have previously said. They will not get concerned if a 1 1/4" receiver were installed, mainly since that size receiver was not designed to carry/tow much weight. It's another story if a 2" receiver were installed because of the increased likelyhood that a significant weight might have been carried/towed. It has also been stated that "Keystone" will put a hitch on a Montana if the trailer is brought to their factory!

He made is clear that the issue was "not that a hitch was installed" but "how much was connected to that hitch". One way to limit weight is to limit size. Unfortunately, it's easy to purchase a 1 1/4" to 2" coversion - and many do just that. And by the way, the 1 1/4" receiver when properly mounted is rated as up to Class II hitch specs of 300# tongue weight and 3500# tow weight.

Even though I will not be placing much of a load on the hitch, I installed a 2" receiver since the whole thing was purcahsed as a kit that is easily installed on wide body frames such as 5th wheels and Motorhomes.

Enough said. I'll assure you what I have done is not a "Kluge" and is no different than is currently being installed on other Keystone brand trailers by Keystone, and onto trailers built by other manufacturers who in fact use frames that are built by Lippert!

richfaa · 07-21-2006, 10:24 AM

Rick,you have investigated and researched the subject throughly and it is obvious that you feel that you will be within spec's and can safely do what you intend to do.From reading your post I don't think you would do something if you felt it would put you or others in harms way. I would guess that the only way we would ever find out if you are 100% correct would be in a lawsuit or court action and that is unlikely.Just from what we saw on our latest 1200 mile trip there are many, many folks that feel ok with towing just about anything behind their campers.then there are those that just won't do it and that's the way it is..I will not even drill 6 holes in my Mor- Ryde hitch pin to add one of those big bubble levels although just about everyone does. To long in the aviation industry..read to many report about stress and metal fatigue and the the disastrous results. A RV is not a aircraft but it is subject to many of the same stresses. I am no kind of a engineer but the stress on the frame and hitch pin due to road conditions must be enormous so I am not going to drill a hole were there is none or hang something off the frame..it's just me..

h

richfaa · 07-21-2006, 10:33 AM

David..Funny thing about asking questions..every time you ask one you learn something. The weight on the slide room awnings does seem low, Perhaps he meant 70lbs each. The numbers I got a few months ago was @ 200lbs on the High Gloss, @ 200lbs on the dual pane and 100lbs for the second A/C//perhaps the A/C weighs 85lbs and the prep, etc weighs 15Lbs. A few more calls and perhaps we can come up with a "average" number.

Cat320 · 07-22-2006, 05:45 AM

Re Lengths: The lengths as noted in the spec sheets are very close to actual measurements made by owners, a non issue in my view.

Re Factory GVWRs: Keystone wants folks to think they can easily pull these things with 3/4 ton trucks. That's why the great hesitation to increase any GVWR or axle capacity. Should the light come on and people realize that it takes more truck, Keystone has visions of loosing a great number of customers/future customers.

Re Adding Aft Weight To Reduce Pin Wt: Not a good idea at all. A great many tow problems are a result of not enough pin weight...and are solved by increasing pw, not decreasing it. Adding weight aft of the axles serves to reduce overall stability and result in more lateral instability...the tail wagging the dog. If somebody is considering adding weight aft of the axles to reduce pw, IMHO, they need to look at a different tv, one that can handle the pw...or a trailer with less pw.

Wrenchtraveller · 07-22-2006, 08:23 AM

I agree with Cat320 and the first time I read that people were actually aft loading to reduce pin weight was on MOC. All the reading and tech advice I have ever read on pin weight agrees with Cat's post.

richfaa · 07-22-2006, 10:32 AM

Well let me tell you..What do you suppose two full size motorcycles on a ramp on the back of a Cardinal Fifth wheel would weigh.Don't know what brand as they were on the other side of the road.He may have had minus pin weight.Saw that on I-75 in Mich last week...

Wrenchtraveller · 07-22-2006, 03:04 PM

I remember when the short wheel base RVs like the Ford Bronco and the Jeep Cherokee came out with engines big enough to pull a fair size trailer. A few people found out the hard way how lousy a short wheel base vehicle is for pulling and there were some bad accidents when these trailers fishtailed their TVs right off the road. Give me a long wheelbase and a TV made to take some pin weight and I'm a happy camper. It is the pin weight of a Fiver directly over the centre of the TV's rear axle ( or up to 3 inches forward ) that makes a fifth wheel so much superior to a tow behind. Now we have people moving the hitch back to give more clearance and now aft loading to lighten the pin. The human mind never fails to amaze me. People buy a TV without knowing it's combined weight rating, it's payload, and they trust the RV salesman to give them the OK.I have been ordering my trucks from the factory for the last 20 years. Spend 20 minutes with a brochure and you will know more than 90% of Ford salesmen. The 10% that get to know their product are professionals I can respect. The other 90 % are too lazy to work for a living and they sell vehicles to people that are inexperienced enough to believe them. Never let a salesman tell you what a truck will pull . Read up on it yourself. Be informed and be careful.

Dean A Van Peursem · 07-22-2006, 03:18 PM

Don:

I'm sure those that have had trouble with Ford's 6.0L Diesel engine will also agree with you. In 2003 I had a choice between the 7.3 and the 6.0L engine. I chose the 7.3L engine due to it's track record and had started to hear about those who were having trouble with the 6.0L. I guess it is a small minority of owners that have had trouble with the 6.0L but I have heard enough war stories from owners to stay away from it. Supposedly the 2007 models will have the 6.4L engine and maybe after it has been out for 6 to 12 months or so with a good track record I might consider trading. I notice you are running the V10. Does that give you a higher rated towing capacity or payload than an equivalent truck with a diesel engine?

Wrenchtraveller · 07-22-2006, 05:36 PM

I have less combined weight rating than the diesel because I have 4.10 gears. I have 21000 GCWR
If I had 4.30 gears I would have had the same GCWR as the diesel which is 23000 LB.

All the Ford diesel SRW come with 3.73s because of the huge torque ratings these new turbo diesels make they get a 23000 GCWR.
I kind of wish I would have ordered the 4.30s because the V10 owners I talk to get very close to my mileage but my 2955RL is a perfect match for my 11200 GVWR and 21000 GCWR and because I travel heavier than the average person, or perhaps because the weigh scales in British Columbia are left open after hours and I always know what I weigh, I am only 200 pounds under on both of them and if I went to a 23000 pound combined unit weight, I would have been way over on my pin.
I was very pleased that I can load my rig the way I need to and be all legal.

In 05 Ford went engine and model specific on GVWR. If my truck were a diesel it would have an 11400 GVWR versus my V10's 11200. Every thing I have read indicates the diesel engine is 500 pounds heavier than my V10 so yes, I should have 300 pounds more payload in an identical truck with identical people and dogs and contents. We are talking a parallel universe here but in my case, if I had a PSD in my truck, I would be over my GVWR, Another reason to go V10 for me.

We both love the 3400 so there might be a dually in my future because I never personally would attempt to pull that model with a SRW. That's me and I understand that people on this site feel that they can do it. More power to them. I won't try. Take care, Don

Dean A Van Peursem · 07-22-2006, 06:20 PM

What yet isn't clear to me is the GVWR really a measure of towing capacity or braking capacity? Since the GVWR seems to be dependant more on the power train components I tend to think the real safety issue is taking a secondary position in the GVWR spec. Having hauled heavy loads with my 7.3L diesel with 3.73 rear end I have no concern whatsoever about the ability to pull the 3400. And that experience includes many loaded trips over the continental divide including 10 to 15 mile 6% grades at high elevations. My wife describes it as "the diesel just growls a bit more on steep grades". I have heard rave reviews about the newer transmission however. I closely monitor transmission temperature and it hasn't moved a lick so far. As hot as it is here right now I'm kind of glad I'm not on the road. However, we will be on the road next week heading down to the Salem, Oregon area and then back up to Lynden, WA the following week. Hope it cools down a bit but that won't follow a historical pattern. :-)

Wrenchtraveller · 07-23-2006, 03:47 AM

Your GVWR is more of a measure of what your truck can carry. Your GCWR is the measure you use for what you can tow and if my truck had the 5.4 V8 and 4.10 gears, it would only have an 18000 GCWR
instead of my 21000 GCWR. This is from my 05 Superduty literature.

The GVWR chart shows my model with 18" wheels with a 5.4 V8 would still have an 11000 GVWR , just down 200 pounds from my 11200 and rear end ratios don't come into play on this chart so I would take GVWR as more on braking and suspension capacity.
GCWR is based on your engine and rear end ratio so it is more performance related but what we must remember, with a fifth wheel, we have to balance both of these capacites. Some feel that as long as their Combined weight is fine, then the TV's Gross weight does not matter. It does.

I have both the conventional trailer towing chart and the Fifth wheel towing chart and of course the Fifth wheel chart shows heavier weights.
The two foot notes on the bottom of the ford Fifth wheel chart are quoted below.
" Trailer King Pin weight should be between 15 and 25% of total loaded trailer weight. Make sure vehicle payload will accomodate trailer pin weight and weight of passengers and cargo added to TV. The addition of trailer pin weight and weight of passengers and cargo must not cause vehicle weight to exceed GVWR. For further information see the safety Compliance label found on the vehicle" This pretty much repeats what Cat 230 and I have been saying. Ford built my truck.
They set the standards for me and I am happy to comply.

On the PSD's towing ability, yes they will tow far more than the truck can handle, no question.
The new Torqueshift Tranny is great and many reliable sources say it was designed by Allison, built by Ford, and they both got it right.

richfaa · 07-23-2006, 04:10 AM

My 05 Ford,V-10 LB/Dually/4:30 Diff has a 16,100 5th wheel tow capacity, 23,500 GCWR and the 12,600lb GVWR package.That pulls the the 3400 without any effort at all.My reason for not going with the 6.0 diesel, among other things,was much the same story as Dean's. Living here in Ford country and having many Ford, folks as friends I decided it was a good thing to stay away from the 6.0 and with the new EPA laws and motors due out in 08 diesels in general. I too was a huge fan of the 7.3 and was devastated when it went away. You cannot compare a Diesel vs Gas motor..two different machines.There is no doubt in my mind that the diesel is the motor of choice for heavy duty towing and we hope to have one in 08/09 if there is a good one out there.The next year will tell the tale.In the meantime the V-10 does all we need it to do,,The fuel milage sucks, in the 8's towing is good and we can wind up to 3500RPM on a medimum grade in tow/haul to stay at 62MPH. I feel I can speak with some authority about diesel motors since I have been driving one 25/30K miles a year for the last 6 years (busses)

Cat320 · 07-23-2006, 05:01 AM

You two Ford guys obviously really know your trucks. I feel the same concerning my knowledge about GM products...my dually will be my fifth Chevy, and, as you know, I did extensive research before deciding on the D/A dually rather than the D/A 3/4. As an item of interest, I looked at Dodge and Ford...mostly for comparison and curiosity. One thing I noticed that Ford does much differently than GM is GVWRs. All GM 3/4s GVWRs are 9200. Ford has five different GVWR for its 3/4s, topping out at 10000. When I saw this 800 lb difference, I thought I should check it out, naturally, I assumed, it could carry more. However, when comparing a D/A 4x4 cc and a PSD 4x4 cc, the Ford can carry only about 100 lbs more. So the Ford is one heavy truck. The one I saw had an actual cargo capacity of 2507...meaning the truck was a shade under 7500. The D/A's cargo capacity (same equipment) varied from 2250 to about 2400.

Re salesmen: I had one salesman, backed up by his partner, at a GMC dealership look in the data plate on the driver's door and tell me the cargo capacity was the same as the GAWR for the rear axle. I'm not at home, and don't have my notes, but I think it was over 6000 lbs. This guy had been 'selling' for 17 years...he did not have a clue!

rickfox · 07-23-2006, 01:53 PM

Cat320 and Wrenchtraveller,

If what you say is true that loading to the rear to reduce pin weight is bad, then you shouldn't have purchased a Montana 5th wheel! That is exactly what Montana has done to reduce their pin weights. And, don't forget that it was Montana that placed the fresh water tank at the rear of many of the Montana models. Are you suggesting that it should not be used for fear that it will upset the balance of the trailer? Please explain to me why you apparently profess to know more than Montana or Lippert about this matter!

If reducing the pin weight to a more managable number is bad design then perhaps you need to follow your convictions - and knowledge - or lack thereof, and get rid of these badly designed trailers.

The truth is that maintaining a minimum of 15% of the total weight is good engineering, and good loading practice. The more balanced the overall unit, the better, as long as it has the above mentioned load percentage toward the pin. Too heavy a pin weight is just as bad as too light a load. If I were to believe you - which I don't because I know better - I would carry the whole trailer on the back of my truck.

By the way, I wonder how many holes Montana drills in the I-beams of those "certified" frames during the manufacture of a 5th wheeler. I'll bet there are 50 holes just to hold up the bottom insulation. Guess that means none of us have "certified" frames, and the warranties are void on all of them!

My point here is that the objective of this site should be to meaningfully discuss issues, and pass along worthwhile information, and not for people to simply pass judgement on things they know very little about.

It is just flat wrong to not know your weights, and to properly manage them. And piling more weight onto the pin without regard to proper weight management is just poor judgement!

And one more little comment. When large flatbed trucks pass by, take a look at many of the main I-beams that support the entire structure of the flat bed trailers. You will see that many of them have hugh holes in those beams. This is in part to reduce weight. These holes have very little effect on the strength of the I-beam. Ask any knowledgeable mechanical engineer, and you will find that I'm correct!

PS. Rich, I am in no way talking about you!

Wrenchtraveller · 07-23-2006, 02:32 PM

If you have to depend on a full tank of fresh water to be safe or to handle well, well isn't that just a dandy design. In my 30 years of Rving I have run out of water many times because the water available was so poor I would not take it with me.

Another big hole in your warped logic is that a vehicle already over it's combined weight rating has to add 500 pounds of extra weight to tow well.

You people with light tow vehicles will go to any lengths to justify your short comings and speaking of a model like my 2955RL which has no cupboards to speak of behind the trailer axle, I am sure Montana expects us to put sheets of lead under our rear recliners to balance our pin weight. I have known a few engineers in my time stupid enough to do that.

Montana_1240 · 07-23-2006, 02:55 PM

Rick,

Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed, today.

I think what was being spoken to was the idea that someone with a heavy pin weight could simply go load more stuff in the rear of the trailer to lessen the weight. He never mentioned moving stuff from the front, to the rear. Just said “ If somebody is considering adding weight aft of the axles to reduce pw, IMHO, they need to look at a different tv, one that can handle the pw...or a trailer with less pw."

As for fresh water tanks? We all hear from two camps on that. The boondockers who will carry a full tank, and the weekends bound for full hook-ups who may only have enough to flush the toilet, and wash hands a few times in one day’s travel.

It may well be a “trick” Keystone’s created to lessen pin weight. Or, it may just be that, like the electrical connections, it’s handy to have the water connections in the same place, or close by. Fact is, we don’t really know, unless we were to hear from a Keystone engineer.

The two folks you cited have yet to NOT mention the importance of managing the weights. They just might not deal with how some have, and made it clear that those folks just could be wrong in how they did it. That’s their opinions.

As for the number of holes in a frame? I will leave tractor trailers to their engineers to explain. I’m sure there is one...Or two. But in a Monty’s frame, drilling a few small holes on the bottom side of a, I-Beam, and filling those holes with screws made of stronger material is hardly inviting disaster. And the majority of the holes wherever Keystone drills them are also most often filled with screws, as well. I think the effect is null and void.

The point about adding something the Monty was absolutely not designed to have was something I tried to ask about. I also felt free to add my own opinion to the mix. I am not going to force anyone to NOT add length, weight, and the obvious stress to the frame of an additional trailer to the mix. If he wants to do it, I’ll be sure to give him as wide a berth as possible if I should ever encounter him on the trail. That’s my personal feelings on something that I personally think isn’t too correct.

The rest of the thread’s been a bunch of personal opinions tossed around. Which is a reason why this is a great place, and fantastic way to educate folks. If not to the actual things that any one of us feels is correct, at least to the wide world of varying opinions. There was no “passing of judgment” going on. It was just sharing of personal experiences and the opinions formed by them.

If for some reason you feel put upon because someone else’s opinion doesn’t match with you, just state your opinion, like the others have. Coming out slugging just because you didn’t agree with something you read is a sure way to stop communication.

This isn’t a personal attack, BTW. It’s just a way to keep a thread that I’ve found very interesting going along so even more can be learned. All too often once someone blurts this sort of stuff out, the thread dies an ignominious death.

Gentlemen, please continue. I’m learning loads about a subject I need to get educated on, and found to be REALLY contentious in other RV forums. (I think I’ve mentioned the unofficial, and self-appointed “Weight Police” on other forums.)

Steve

Wrenchtraveller · 07-23-2006, 03:14 PM

Gyro, you sound like a real gentleman and a person I would like to meet in person. I wanted to add that my 2600 pound pin weight represents only 21 % of my Montana's weight and if I did go to the maximum 25% I would be well over my 11200 GVWR. Then I would have to put a few sheets of lead under the recliners because 2600 pounds of pin weight is with a full fresh water tank.
But wait,if I put in the lead, I will be over my 21000 pounds combined rating. Gee Whiz

I know, I will get an F250 and pretend everything is fine.

Montana_1240 · 07-23-2006, 03:28 PM

Don,

I appreciate your insight on the issue of weight, and weight management. Actually, I appreciate hearing from all the folks on the matter. I may not UNDERSTAND all that’s being said, yet. One reason I know I appreciate the chance at being educated by these many experienced folks. But I do know what WASN’T said. And I think that that was what was being targeted. And I won’t go into the motive behind the complaints. It doesn’t play into the thread’s most prevalent content…Weights and how to manage them.

I’ve a lot to learn about weights. When I first started fulltiming, I knew I was over the 2002 F-350’s GCVWR by almost 3,000 pounds. But I played dumb, even as I felt it could be a problem. I wasn’t so much IGNORING it, as I was relying upon the cushion factor “so many manufacturers build in,” (even if I didn’t know for sure if the actual factor existed,) and saw that my TV was handling the towing. I made it all the way down the Alcan Highway with only one five-day delay while Ford replaced burned discs in my tranny…Burned, I felt comfortable thinking, due to the fact that I was always using the old OD, and hadn’t been educated about how that locks up the torque converter and causes transmission cooling to be less than adequate.

After that episode, though, (and possibly because I knew weights were important,) I swore to get a tougher TV. And I did. Even after getting a newer and seemingly lighter Monty.

I’ve mentioned in other threads that I really want to spend time on a scale and get all the weights required to calculate the figures I need to KNOW that I’m Ok with this combination, loaded with what we now have left in it.

Because our basement’s full, my wife’s wardrobe is jammed, and we bought a freezer, to boot, I’m getting nervous, all over again. Just like I was when I waited to see if Ford was going to fix that 2002’s tranny under the warranty, or if they wanted to go get my Monty and weigh it to see if I ABUSED the truck, and therefore invalidated my warranty.

I don’t want to have another situation like that, myself.

As for you getting a 250 to haul your Monty? Just don’t forget AIRBAGS! LOL!

Kidding....

Steve

Wrenchtraveller · 07-23-2006, 03:41 PM

Well Steve, good post and about rick fox's rants about holes in the frame, I am puzzled. I never entered that debate but I guess someone was going after the messenger because he didn't like the message. The only time I ever get my feelings hurt is if a person I respect lays into me. In this case, I find this all pretty entertaining.

Montana_1240 · 07-23-2006, 04:04 PM

Don,

I like to see threads continue until all the possible issues are dealt with. They do tend to die, eventually. But all too often someone gets their dander up, and others, fearing the same sort of complaint, simply clam up. Too much is left undiscovered.

Heck. If we stopped talking every time a comment was made that someone else doesn’t happen to agree with, we’d be no more than a bunch of bobble-heads, flaccidly agreeing with things that happen to not be what our own personal opinions guide us to think.

And anyone reading such, (horribly short threads,) would come away not knowing if one opinion is based on factual and solid evidence, or if it’s just so much mistaken hooey.

I’m hoping the complaint has soothed over, so I’m not going to pile on. I hope Rick doesn’t take offense. But I have to agree with you on some of this, because weight does matter. And what a salesman tells you can be so cleverly disguised as “fact” that you might go on believing it, despite a pile of evidence to the contrary. And if weight is ignored, or dealt with faultily, it can endanger those around you on a highway.

I try to make my decisions based on experience. I’ve spent a great deal of time in the Air Force, and I know what stress can do to otherwise solid metal. And I know how some fatigue has been managed in some situations. I try not to do something that might cause a stressful situation. Whether in materials, or in my own wellbeing. But I still purchase insurance and extended warranties to try to get around the things that even common sense can’t avoid.

Steve

You may also like: