Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-20-2007, 10:43 AM   #1
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
Axle Ratings 34'...2005, 2006, 2007?

Hi All...the NADA axel listing for the 2005 34' s/o are 3-9023#...2006 are 3-7990#...2007 are 3-8247#.

Were the axels carry capacities actually reduced that much from 2005 to 2006? Maybe they just did not list the s/o for 2006 and 2007? If so...anyone know why the axels weight ratings were reduced??

Is the 1033# reduction from '05 to '06 an issue?

Thanks...Tom R
__________________

__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 10:59 AM   #2
Colonial Airstream NJ
Airstream Dealer
 
Colonial Airstream's Avatar
 
1968 17' Caravel
Lakewood , New Jersey
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 570
Images: 79
The 2004-2005 Axel ratings were misprinted. The NCC was rougly 200 lbs. with a full fresh water tank because of that the axel size was increased in 2006-2007.
__________________

__________________
Patrick Botticelli - Colonial Airstream 1121 Route 88 Lakewood, NJ 08701 - 1-800-265-9019 www.colonialairstream.com
Colonial Airstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 01:07 PM   #3
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
hi tomR...

i'm not exactly sure WHAT your question is...

so here is an answer, it may not be the one u r seeking....

axle ratings were INCREASED for the 2005 models and beyond.

the 'axle rating' for 2005 triples is 3800 lbs...

this was an INCREASE from the 2004 and earlier units...

and resulted in a gawr increase to 11,400 lbs for the '05s.

gvwr was LESS on earlier models and carry capacity was declining b4 this change...

which occurred DURING the 2005 calendar year, but perhaps after 2005 production began...

disc brakes were made standard equipment later in the 2005 product year (march/april),

while the higher segment protectors had been added around dec/jan of the 05 product year.

the ubw on a 'stock 05, along with estimated option weights is HERE..

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f296...res-27055.html

while the 'limited' model became the 'standard' for classics the last 2 years...

not ALL of the doodads were included (flag boxes, bigger tanks, electric jacks)

my unit was around 9,000 lbs b4 being occupied with the everyday essential camping crap, and has a gvwr of 11,500 lbs.

the current units carry this same limit, i think.

IF you contact a/s and ask for a buyers packet, it will include an up to date 'options/weight' list like the one linked above for 05....

cheers
2air'

now what was your question?
__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 01:22 PM   #4
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
My question has to do with NADA Appraisal Guide. It has an "Axel WGT" column...and as I said...34' with slide is listed as 3 (being number of axels) -9023 for 2005...and 3-7990 for 2006 and 3-8247 for 2007....which makes it appear that they lowered the axel weight ratings from 2005 to 2006.

Must be an error of some type? Tom R
__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 01:33 PM   #5
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
i don't know what 'axle wgt' means...

regardless there was NO decrease in axle capacities...

just the opposite.

for example HERE are the unit capacities for 2005 34s slide/sanslide...

BEFORE the axle upgrade...

ncc is much less (especially on the s/o model) compared to after the upgrade.

i've posted those newer unit stickers elsewhere...

cheers
2air'
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2005 classic so capacity.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	69.0 KB
ID:	49649   Click image for larger version

Name:	2005 early classic no slide capacites.jpg
Views:	75
Size:	65.8 KB
ID:	49650  

__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 01:41 PM   #6
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks...2air...I think NADA has an error in this listing...Tom R
__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 01:42 PM   #7
4 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Two Harbors , Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 311
2air...it appears the upgrade was mid-year 2005...did this happen at the same time they added the disc brakes? Thanks Tom R
__________________
TomR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 02:42 PM   #8
_
 
. , .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 8,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomR
...it appears the upgrade was mid-year 2005...did this happen at the same time they added the disc brakes? Thanks Tom R
sort of but not exactly.

the higher segment/wrap protectors were added in dec/jan...

disc brakes were an option about the same time.

you will notice discs aren't on the order sheet i posted (dated november 2004)

the discs became standard in mar/april along with a SIGNIFICANT PRICE BUMP...

on the order of 5-7,000$, and this was DURING the 05 product year...

so i suspect the up rated axles were part of this price increase.

the base price actually INCREASED during the year and,

that issue alone makes the nada numbers misleading for the 2005 model year.

anyone considering a used unit from this period (nov-april) should get the vin and check the specs.

because not all units with the higher segment/wrap protectors have discs,

some disc units have the shorter segment/wrap protectors...

and some early 05s may have discs as an option...

from mid march of 2005 forward, i think they all had uprated axles, disc brakes, higher wrap protectors and the higher msrp.

cheers
2air'
__________________
all of the true things that i am about to tell you are shameless lies. l.b.j.

we are here on earth to fart around. don't let anybody tell you any different. k.v.
2airishuman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2007, 10:40 PM   #9
Moderator dude
 
Action's Avatar

 
1966 26' Overlander
Phoenix , Arizona
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,067
Images: 13
Tom,

As you may have discovered NADA isn't always the most accurate with details and options. I have found this to be true with vehicles also. So that answer may be the data is inaccurate with NADA.

The other thing I have found with a NADA guide, once the data is there usually it stays there unchanged.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Action
__________________

__________________
1966 Mercury Park Lane 4 DR Breezeway 410 4V, C-6, 2.80 - Streamless.
1966 Lincoln 4 door Convertible 462 4V 1971 Ford LTD Convertible 429 4V Phoenix ~ Yeah it's hot however it's a dry heat!
Action 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
2005 34' Classic purchase advice Craftsman 2001 - 2005 Classic 38 12-22-2007 11:26 PM
Axle Replacement - 1999 34'???? TomR Axles 12 12-13-2007 04:40 PM
Axle weight ratings Lumatic Axles 20 05-15-2007 11:16 AM
2006 vs 2007 Toyota Tundra SilverGate Tow Vehicles 3 04-23-2006 06:36 AM
2005/2006 International Rallies Over59 WBCCI Rallies & Events 21 06-24-2004 11:55 AM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.