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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-17-2017, 07:02 PM   #21
1 Rivet Member
 
2020 25' Flying Cloud
Brookfield , Connecticut
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 14
Mikeinca,

Mike, my wife and I are new to this and are looking to purchase a Flying Cloud 25 next year.
At the same time I'm evaluating tow vehicles and looking at F150 or the new Expedition which has a similar engine/drive train, although lower tow rating and a lower payload I expect.
I see you had the same set up and was wondering the pros and cons based on your practical experience.

I was also wondering what was the driver for wanting to trade up from the 25 to the 30? Is there something else we need to consider?
Redlac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 08:20 PM   #22
4 Rivet Member
 
Tn Traveler's Avatar
 
2006 25' Safari
Signal Mountain , Tennessee
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 450
Images: 5
Another consideration is how much weight the P265 tires can carry and at what pressure.
__________________
Don
'06 Safari 25 LS
'18 GMC 2500HD Duramax/Allison
TN,”Greenest State in the Land of the Free”.Davy Crocket
" America is not a place;it's a road." Mark Twain
Tn Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2017, 11:34 PM   #23
Registered User
 
2016 25' Flying Cloud
Fairfield , California
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhereStream View Post
TARE weight ... that's a new term. Have to look that up.

Always learn plenty on Airforums.
Tare weight is the weight of the container before adding the product you want to weight.
This means the Tare weight of your truck and trailer WILL change depending on what you are wanting to weight.

Total weight of everything truck and trailer are carrying you start with an empty truck - just enough fuel to get to a gas station, you get out of the truck, no water & lpg no nothing in the trailer. Then load it up - weight it, subtract the differance.

Then there are various Tares after that - how much more weight above your expected rolling weight. (What most people are looking for) Here you add passengers and fuel.

And so forth, depending what you want to weight.

On my phone and it is too hard to type in axle weights and how calculate weights from there.

From years of working as a Weightmaster.
Mattirs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 12:02 AM   #24
Rivet Master
 
mikeinca's Avatar

 
2020 25' Globetrotter
Santa Rosa , California
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,826
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlac View Post
Mikeinca,

Mike, my wife and I are new to this and are looking to purchase a Flying Cloud 25 next year.
At the same time I'm evaluating tow vehicles and looking at F150 or the new Expedition which has a similar engine/drive train, although lower tow rating and a lower payload I expect.
I see you had the same set up and was wondering the pros and cons based on your practical experience.

I was also wondering what was the driver for wanting to trade up from the 25 to the 30? Is there something else we need to consider?
Hi Redlac,

Based on my experience with a 25' FC and an F150 they are a nice match for one another. Equipped with a good weight distributing hitch the truck has plenty of power, brakes, and handling to cope with the size trailer you're considering. I also love the F150 for everyday use. The only thing I might wish for is more payload capability.

My F150 is a well equipped Supercab Lariat with a 5 1/2' bed and after factoring in all the options it has a payload of 1638#. The tongue weight of the 25' FC is rated at 838# but from what I've read on this forum the real world weight is closer to 1000#. With the two of us and a 65# Labrador that's about 400# of passengers and the hitch head weighs 50# for a total of around 1450# which leaves less than 200# of payload for "stuff". We have been able to work around that, but depending on what you're planning to carry, it may not leave much margin. If you get an F159 with fewer options, or one with 2wd rather than 4wd your payload could be significantly greater than mine.

I have no experience with the Expedition but do consider that the 3.5L EcoBoost engine in that vehicle (for 2017 at least) is rated at 365HP and 420 lb/ft of torque while in the 2017-18 F150 the equivalent engine is rated at 375/470. Also, the Expedition comes with a 6 speed automatic while the F150 has a 10 speed. Both of these things no doubt contribute to the fact that the Expedition is rated to tow about 2500lbs less than the F150 and has a MAX payload under 1600#.

There was nothing wrong with the 25' Flying Cloud; after a few trips we just came to realize we wanted a bigger trailer. To be honest, we really liked the 30' Classic from the beginning but were unsure whether we could accommodate it at our house or whether we wanted to spend that much money. After we resolved a couple of issues we decided it would work. I would just suggest that you think carefully about what your expectations are for both the TT and the TV and then factor in a margin for future "growth" of those expectations. Unless you're a lot different than we are, I guarantee it will be cheaper in the long run if you buy a "bit more" than "just enough". If an F150 and 25' FC meets that criteria for you, then you're good to go. Best of luck with your choices.

Mike
__________________
Mike

2020 25' Globetrotter Twin | 2024 GMC Sierra 2500HD Denali Ult. 4x4 Duramax
400Ah Battle Born lithium battery string | 580W solar (400W roof 180W portable)
mikeinca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 02:45 AM   #25
Rivet Master
 
2017 19' International
Tallahassee , Florida
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS View Post
That site is amazing ... thanks for the link

As for what I am towing, a Bambi 16 Sport ... tongue weight of about 350 pounds.
WhereStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 02:50 AM   #26
Rivet Master
 
2017 19' International
Tallahassee , Florida
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tn Traveler View Post
Another consideration is how much weight the P265 tires can carry and at what pressure.
Excellent point ... I will check on the tires and see what they can handle.
WhereStream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 08:04 AM   #27
1 Rivet Member
 
2020 25' Flying Cloud
Brookfield , Connecticut
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeinca View Post
Hi Redlac,

Based on my experience with a 25' FC and an F150 they are a nice match for one another. Equipped with a good weight distributing hitch the truck has plenty of power, brakes, and handling to cope with the size trailer you're considering. I also love the F150 for everyday use. The only thing I might wish for is more payload capability.

My F150 is a well equipped Supercab Lariat with a 5 1/2' bed and after factoring in all the options it has a payload of 1638#. The tongue weight of the 25' FC is rated at 838# but from what I've read on this forum the real world weight is closer to 1000#. With the two of us and a 65# Labrador that's about 400# of passengers and the hitch head weighs 50# for a total of around 1450# which leaves less than 200# of payload for "stuff". We have been able to work around that, but depending on what you're planning to carry, it may not leave much margin. If you get an F159 with fewer options, or one with 2wd rather than 4wd your payload could be significantly greater than mine.

I have no experience with the Expedition but do consider that the 3.5L EcoBoost engine in that vehicle (for 2017 at least) is rated at 365HP and 420 lb/ft of torque while in the 2017-18 F150 the equivalent engine is rated at 375/470. Also, the Expedition comes with a 6 speed automatic while the F150 has a 10 speed. Both of these things no doubt contribute to the fact that the Expedition is rated to tow about 2500lbs less than the F150 and has a MAX payload under 1600#.

There was nothing wrong with the 25' Flying Cloud; after a few trips we just came to realize we wanted a bigger trailer. To be honest, we really liked the 30' Classic from the beginning but were unsure whether we could accommodate it at our house or whether we wanted to spend that much money. After we resolved a couple of issues we decided it would work. I would just suggest that you think carefully about what your expectations are for both the TT and the TV and then factor in a margin for future "growth" of those expectations. Unless you're a lot different than we are, I guarantee it will be cheaper in the long run if you buy a "bit more" than "just enough". If an F150 and 25' FC meets that criteria for you, then you're good to go. Best of luck with your choices.

Mike
Hi Mike,

Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. The new Expedition will have the higher hp/torque and 10 speed trans, however, payloads is not yet available. You've hit the nail on the head, my concern is having enough payload to carry what we need.

What hitch did you use for this TV/TT and are you using it again for your next setup?

I appreciate being able to tap into your and this forums practical experience.

Thanks,

Redlac
Redlac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2017, 09:59 AM   #28
Rivet Master
 
mikeinca's Avatar

 
2020 25' Globetrotter
Santa Rosa , California
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,826
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlac View Post
Hi Mike,

Thanks for a very comprehensive reply. The new Expedition will have the higher hp/torque and 10 speed trans, however, payloads is not yet available. You've hit the nail on the head, my concern is having enough payload to carry what we need.

What hitch did you use for this TV/TT and are you using it again for your next setup?

I appreciate being able to tap into your and this forums practical experience.

Thanks,

Redlac
That's cool about the new Expedition. Makes sense that Ford would start to use the more powerful engine and upgraded transmission in other applications.

I'm currently using an Equalizer with the 1000# tension bars. There may be "better" hitches but the Equalizer is cost effective, easy to use, and it works. Plus, it's the one my AS dealer installs and recommends.

For the new, heavier trailer I'm planning to stick with the same brand of hitch but will be getting the model with 1200# bars. My dealer is throwing in this hitch with my deal on the Classic.

Mike
__________________
Mike

2020 25' Globetrotter Twin | 2024 GMC Sierra 2500HD Denali Ult. 4x4 Duramax
400Ah Battle Born lithium battery string | 580W solar (400W roof 180W portable)
mikeinca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 10:13 AM   #29
ObviouslyKnot
 
james.mileur's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
KAILUA , HI
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 862
Speaking of Design . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
Towing "capacity" has more to do with trailer design (aero + suspension), height and frontal area over weight (where the expectation is highway travel).

TT weight is only one of a number of considerations and FAR from the most important.

Axle/wheel/tire limits are an easy enough gauge to work with. TARE weight on a combined and per axle basis covers it.

Have a starting point. It isn't "weight". Its DESIGN.

.
Learning mode here
If the axles/wheel/tire ratings are not the "limiting" factor on the design to poop out a GVWR, then it seems that using them as an operational limit ignores the weak(er) link(s)?

"GVWR is a suggestion" you/somebody posted? Any accident investigators agree with that? Is my insurance company going to agree with aftermarket mods and testing or the door sticker the State Highway guy included in the Accident report?

Talk to me, Goose!
__________________
James Mileur, HY80-2-Al,
2017 Classic Twin, 2016 RAM 3500 Megacab, ProPride hitch
james.mileur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 12:12 PM   #30
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar
 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,658
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.mileur View Post
Learning mode here
If the axles/wheel/tire ratings are not the "limiting" factor on the design to poop out a GVWR, then it seems that using them as an operational limit ignores the weak(er) link(s)?

"GVWR is a suggestion" you/somebody posted? Any accident investigators agree with that? Is my insurance company going to agree with aftermarket mods and testing or the door sticker the State Highway guy included in the Accident report?

Talk to me, Goose!
Speaking as a Manufacture's factory rep, GVWR, nor any of the other specs are suggestions regardless what else you may read from other "experts".
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 01:04 PM   #31
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.mileur View Post
Learning mode here
If the axles/wheel/tire ratings are not the "limiting" factor on the design to poop out a GVWR, then it seems that using them as an operational limit ignores the weak(er) link(s)?

"GVWR is a suggestion" you/somebody posted? Any accident investigators agree with that? Is my insurance company going to agree with aftermarket mods and testing or the door sticker the State Highway guy included in the Accident report?

Talk to me, Goose!
The problem is when people take a single number such as GVWR and consider it without context.

When you think of axle and tire loads adding up, or not adding up, to a GVWR you are ignoring system effects. Tire loads don't add up to axle loads because the owner may load asymmetrically side to side, and may go around corners, and thus load up the outside tires. Axle loads don't add up to GVWRs because the manufacturer doesn't know where the owner will position the load. So the manufacturer makes assumptions, and includes safety factors.

GVWR has particular application to commercial vehicles, and for tax implications. It is used, for example, to determine whether one can write off vehicle expenses. I once bought a vehicle with a 6005 lb GVWR. It was promoted as being eligible for the commercial vehicle depreciation schedule (in the US, not in my country). This despite it being a luxury SUV that was never likely going to carry tools. The manufacturer bumped up the GVWR to attract that market segment (well off users of luxury personal vehicles who wanted to claim commercial vehicle tax credits) It is used to determine which level of emission controls applies, or sometimes which crash standards apply. It is useful when considering that some users may load to the GVWR, and the vehicle cargo location determines how much of that load is on any one axle (those are hard limits). It has less applicability when a weight distributing hitch is used, since such a device can be used to balance axle loads irrespective of physical cargo location restrictions.

Consider my current vehicle, a European SUV. It has a published payload. It is available with a variety of option levels, from basic to deluxe. All model variations have the same payload, per the literature and the door stickers. The manufacturer varies the GVWR for each model variation. Because they can. This is diametrically opposed to how NOrth American pickups are built and sold, with a single or optional GVWR and infinitely variable payload. How should I consider published GVWR a single design maximum when every configuration on the dealer's lot for this vehicle has a different GVWR? It is nonsensical. It isn't that the GVWR doesn't matter, in this case, but rather that taken in isolation, it doesn't add much to the calculation of "what is safe?"

Now consider a RAM 1500 that exceeds the GVWR when hitched up with WD equipment, but is still under the published axle weight ratings. Obviously the chassis and suspension can manage the load. Some will claim that the power train can't handle the load (pulling or stopping), that it will wear faster, that it is unsafe. But the vehicke under discussion is under the GCWR published for the vehicle, so that doesn't compute. Why does the power train care whether the load is in front of the hitch or behind it?

The GVWR matters. But a narrow focus on it at the expense of the rest of the numbers is, well, narrow. If you have a commercial license which changes with different GVWRs, pay lots of attention to it. Otherwise, it is only part of the picture, and probably not the most important part.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 02:03 PM   #32
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,714
My 2012 Ram 1500 had 1450 lb "payload" capacity, derived from GVWR. So I drop a 1450 lb hitch weight on it and am safe and good to go, based on payload/GVWR.

The truck understeers and the front brakes have lost effectiveness, the headlights are pointing to the sky and the rear bumper is very low. But so what, I'm within payload/GVWR, and the combo is within GCWR.

However, the rear axle is overloaded (GVWR) and it's miserable, unsafe thing to drive, an accident looking for a place to happen.

The point is, GVWR/payload is not useful when recreational towing. It is my axle ratings (GAWR) properly loaded by a quality weight distribution hitch, and GCWR that will make a safe and enjoyable towing combination.

Do I have great concern if I sometimes may load a few hundred pounds over GVWR/payoad but well-distributed for front and rear GAWR and within GCWR, not only no but heck no. I do have concern for those many combos going down the road with lousy w.d. setups (or none), self-assured because they have plenty of "payload" (a little sway but not too bad).
__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles

The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 04:47 PM   #33
Rivet Master
 
Lakes Region , New Hampshire
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkottum View Post
My 2012 Ram 1500 had 1450 lb "payload" capacity, derived from GVWR. So I drop a 1450 lb hitch weight on it and am safe and good to go, based on payload/GVWR.
So you have a 2012 1/2 ton truck with a hitch that states it can handle a 1450 lb tongue weight, without a weight distribution hitch....? Ohhhh... I would like to see a picture of the stamp on that hitch, pretty much most trucks in that size configuration are stamped 500 lb max without weight distribution, so that IDIOTS don't drive around with their headlights pointed to the skies...
RandyNH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 04:57 PM   #34
Rivet Master
 
Lakes Region , New Hampshire
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
Consider my current vehicle, a European SUV. It has a published payload. It is available with a variety of option levels, from basic to deluxe. All model variations have the same payload, per the literature and the door stickers. The manufacturer varies the GVWR for each model variation. Because they can.
When attempting to make such a point, please do use vague and general references. A EUROPEAN SUV

Please be specific make, model, year, trim level etc.. also any links that may lead to the stated claim of the same payload across trim levels with fluctuating vehicle ratings.

You may just change my arguments if actually provable and not just general claims of a friends friends uncle's old car from some foreign country...
RandyNH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 05:16 PM   #35
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,714
Randy, the point of these posts is missed by you. Actually I think you're just screwing around.

Like so many on Airforums who would rather disrupt a discussion than consider it. And I believe it's time for me to spend my time doing something else other than trying to help fellow Airstreamers.
__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles

The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 05:19 PM   #36
Rivet Master
 
Lakes Region , New Hampshire
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkottum View Post
Randy, the point of these posts is missed by you. Actually I think you're just screwing around.

Like so many on Airforums who would rather disrupt a discussion than consider it. And I believe it's time for me to spend my time doing something else other than trying to help fellow Airstreamers.
Nope, not screwing around. So it must be that I missed it, I will re-read it to see if I can find where
RandyNH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2017, 05:42 PM   #37
Vintage Kin
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,014
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by james.mileur View Post
Learning mode here
If the axles/wheel/tire ratings are not the "limiting" factor on the design to poop out a GVWR, then it seems that using them as an operational limit ignores the weak(er) link(s)?

"GVWR is a suggestion" you/somebody posted? Any accident investigators agree with that? Is my insurance company going to agree with aftermarket mods and testing or the door sticker the State Highway guy included in the Accident report?

Talk to me, Goose!
Manufacturer ratings are what they're comfortable with. Period. Call them suggestions or recommendations, it's all the same.

GVWR is typically less than "ratings". My 9k GVWR truck is 11k based on axles. (The AAM Drive Axle by itself is actually rated at 11k by them; Dodge affixes it's own number).

Overloading those is what to avoid. Am I going to worry about being at 9,260-lbs? Higher? Not so long as tires/wheels/axles are good.

Second to that is travel in this state is a minimum of miles compared to solo. Solo miles matter more as there are 2X, 3X and more of them.

So far as an accident is concerned if a citation is issued it will be driver error. Too fast for conditions, is usually it.

The stable rig is the one to have. Not the one where the TV is the weak link in roadgoing dynamics. Or a greater hazard when solo.

These things aren't binary. Either/Or. There are plenty of vehicles to choose from. And one design or class that will most closely approximate need.

Need first, desires second. P

.
slowmover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 12:31 AM   #38
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyNH View Post
When attempting to make such a point, please do use vague and general references. A EUROPEAN SUV

Please be specific make, model, year, trim level etc.. also any links that may lead to the stated claim of the same payload across trim levels with fluctuating vehicle ratings.

You may just change my arguments if actually provable and not just general claims of a friends friends uncle's old car from some foreign country...
It is a BMW, but that doesn't matter. It is available with different engines, optional third row seating, premium package or not. I leave brands out because they trigger those who want to argue brands instead of discuss engineering. Your trigger appears to be the words 'European' or 'foreign'.

I am travelling now but could forward the technical literature when back home.

But I suspect you don't actually want to see it, as you didn't comment on the substance of the point.
jcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 06:13 AM   #39
Rivet Master
 
Lakes Region , New Hampshire
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
It is a BMW, but that doesn't matter. It is available with different engines, optional third row seating, premium package or not. I leave brands out because they trigger those who want to argue brands instead of discuss engineering. Your trigger appears to be the words 'European' or 'foreign'.

I am travelling now but could forward the technical literature when back home.

But I suspect you don't actually want to see it, as you didn't comment on the substance of the point.
I actually would like to read it, it as requested, just point me in the right direction to begin the research on the internet (manufacturer information not forum input) I'm more than happy to do the research.

As to the substance of the point, the OP asked how to determine his payload rating, to which rather than answer his question on either where to find it or how to calculate it, people trying to "help out other airstreamers" chime in that it is a number to be ignored and disregarded, because as indicated on other threads they are over that limit so they only choose to use others.
Then there is the wild and completely bombastic example of putting the entire payload amount on a single point furthest from the center of the vehicle.
And then, in the post directly before yours there's "GVWR is typically less than "ratings"." Hello the R stands for RATING. It's not GVWS (suggestion) although I suppose if the blinders are too tight, it may never be seen, in all the literature and regulations and could be thought of as GVWR (recommendation)
Your post intrigued me, and I asked for clarification, because if actually true because it goes against everything I've researched read. European nor foreign are sticking points for me, outside of the fact that if sold in this country the vehicle would be required to meet US standards and I have not realized the need to research overseas regulations or specifications, but science and engineering are just that and if this sheds a new light on the subject then I will definitely dig into it, to see what the differences are. Until then, I only see the use of generals and far off references as a means of attempting to make an unverifiable point.
I can assure you I am truly sincere and find that when discussing hitches, weights, vehicles there is way too much hyperbole on here.

Okay, BMW was good, very interesting/crazy numbers, lots of reading to see where and how the come up with them. I will say that when they spec 5963 lbs GVWR for an X5, I might be even more inclined to be careful of not exceeding it, seeing as though they believed they couldn't even round it up to 6000
RandyNH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 06:55 AM   #40
4 Rivet Member
 
Chelsea , Maine
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
You missed the part about about obtaining TARE weight and axle/wheel/tire limits, huh?

Or how design is applicable?

And I'll bet you've never used a car, have you?

So take it easy, new guy. There's hope.
I still respectfully disagree.

Weight is weight. Rated capacities are (legal) limits.

Thanks for the kind words.
__________________
2023 Entegra Odyssey 26M
2017 FC 27FB
2017 F250 Lariat Crew Cab 6.2L
Equal-I-Zer 10K/1000
JMynes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
so, you need a truck with payload? richinny Tow Vehicles 10 03-28-2014 07:44 PM
What do you do with the extra "water" impact on payload? switz Tires 5 12-10-2012 10:37 AM
2010 F150 payload question woof Tow Vehicles 71 10-15-2012 09:48 AM
Enhancing a 1/2 ton pickup's payload? davidmenges Tow Vehicles 21 03-27-2012 08:46 PM
Payload affected by Hitch Weight Tony S Hitches, Couplers & Balls 16 04-14-2011 10:45 AM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.