Visit our Popular Forums

Gene · 12-07-2008, 11:32 AM

Steve,

It's a good idea to weigh everything, though I confess I haven't. You can get the true tongue weight with a lever and household scale. My owners manual tells how to do it, but you've got a 1978 and may not have a manual. Probably you can find how to do that online. It could be your Argosy is shrinking as it gets wet and once was 30', but has lost 10%, thus it will get lighter. Argosys were made to be the less lux line and also to be lighter (like Safaris in the past decade or so). They probably were not Sanforized* to save on costs. They are also before the wide body which added weight. Thus your Argosy probably weighs a lot less than my 25' Safari.

Gene

*only old people will understand "Sanforized".

rangebowdrie · 12-07-2008, 12:55 PM

Payload seems to be the first wall you run-up against in any of the 1/2 ton trucks. I see that for '09, that Ford is rating the F-150 as being able to tow 12,500lbs. At 10% tongue weight (1,250 lbs.), how much do you think would left for fuel, people, and "things",... not very much. It seems to me that all of the manufactures tow ratings are very optimistic, in regards to safe, real world towing, for 1/2 ton units.

Ron Gratz · 12-07-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty Oh

---While on the subject, if the tongue is a little high, should the tongue weight differ than when level or a little low?

With independent suspension, having the tongue a little high will cause the rear TT axle to carry more load than the front axle and will cause the load on the tongue to be greater than if the TT were level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty Oh

---Another subject, weighed axles the other day, 3300 ft and 3000 rr hitched up. I am just shy of level nose down, maybe 1" differance ft to rr. If I could get level would it take some weight off tongue?

If you raise the nose so the TT is level, you will actually increase the load on the tongue.

With 3300# on the front axle and 3000# on the rear axle, the load on the tongue might be around 30# less than if the TT were level.

If you really want to know how much the tongue load changes when the TT is not level, you can do the following:

1. Take your TT to the scales.

2. Disconnect from the TT leaving the TT's axles on one scales pad and the tongue jack on another scales pad.

3. Record the front and rear TT frame heights and the readings from both pads for the following: a) tongue 2" above level, b) TT level, and c) tongue 2" below level.

The above readings should show enough variation in tongue load to get a good estimate of the effect of having the TT out of level.

Ron

Gene · 12-07-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangebowdrie

It seems to me that all of the manufactures tow ratings are very optimistic, in regards to safe, real world towing, for 1/2 ton units.

I don't know about that. The marketing dept tells them to juice up all the ratings, some of their legal dept tells them it's ok to add a little "puff" in their advertising since there are court cases saying everyone expects ads to be semi-lies, and the other guys in the legal dept tell them the ratings in the owner's manual and some of the more obscure data at the dealership or online better be true or they're exposing themselves to a liability suit. The legal guys get in an argument about what is advertising and what isn't because the standards may be different and people stop listening.

So, I think what appears on TV may be puffery while the specific ratings in the manuals and other data are probably pretty close to true, unless the marketing dept is in charge. I expect different companies are influenced differently by the various internal wars going on between depts and individuals.

As consumers we have to make a judgment which companies have lived up to their claims on all aspects of their vehicles and hope that tells us what to believe. Companies with poor reliability ratings would be one way to judge company honesty. If they can't produce a reliable vehicle, why should I believe their ratings?

Gene

mi silver · 12-07-2008, 03:11 PM

I posted a fairly long reply about why I chose a 2007 GMC truck over a Tundra. It was not posted. WHY? I don't think I did anything incorrect in the posting process. Did someone delete my coments???? This really concerns me.Has anyone else felt like your coments or reply was deleted????

87MH · 12-07-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mi silver

I posted a fairly long reply about why I chose a 2007 GMC truck over a Tundra. It was not posted... Did someone delete my coments???? This really concerns me.Has anyone else felt like your coments or reply was deleted????

My guess is that you timed out - happens all of the time...

Just a slight touch of the wrong key will sometimes "poof" away a post - wish I had a buck for every time that happened to me....

Especially for long posts, I will compose in "Word", do a spell check, and then copy to the "reply to thread".

I sometimes think the Forums keeps the timeout function just to test how high my blood pressure can go.

Gene · 12-07-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mi silver

I posted a fairly long reply about why I chose a 2007 GMC truck over a Tundra. It was not posted. WHY? I don't think I did anything incorrect in the posting process. Did someone delete my coments???? This really concerns me.Has anyone else felt like your coments or reply was deleted????

Until Rick Wagoner gives back all his salary, benefits and stock options, all posts praising GM products will automatically go bankrupt.

Actually, I thought I posted something on another thread a week ago and then later, it was gone. It wasn't even about GM or the Tundra. So many keys to hit incorrectly. It's a good idea to compose in a word processor, though I never do it. Midway through one of my way too long posts, I sometimes save it (apple C on a Mac). I've also lost them when my ISP fails for a while and stuff goes into the electrovoid.

Gene

78GussyTX · 12-07-2008, 05:14 PM

Gene, I'll measure the Argosy on a Monday and a Thursday and see if it's still the same ... hehe!

We do have the original manual, along with the original purchase receipt, and every receipt for every service it has had along the way ... including the Airstream factory repaint in 1995. The trailer is supposed to weigh 5600 pounds as I recall, and the Tundra capacity 10,800 towing plus payload, again if I recall correctly -- I think it was around 12,000 total, but maybe the 10,800 included the payload. So I have never really worried about the weight, by my guesstimates I am way below the point where I need to worry, and towing has always been effortless.

As for the Argosy models, I heard both ways -- that they were a special enhanced breed, and also that they were made because Airstream had a large quantity of aluminum that did not have the proper finish -- which would make sense as to why the Argosy's were painted. In any case, I must say I am impressed at how well it has held up. It is thirty years old now and looks brand new inside and out (see our pics). It is pretty much all original except carpet, exterior paint color, and refrigerator. I guess that comes from my father in law keeping it indoors all these years, a practice we have continued.

I agree that the recent news has made the big three look pretty foolish. And I sure as HECK do not want my money going to bad business decisions. A lot of their vehicles are perfectly good these days, but they have killed their own competitive posture through bad decisions.

We bought a Ford Windstar for $30K in 2001. It traded in 2006 for $3K, with 50,000 miles and very clean condition. That wasn't that great, but worse, it cost us $3K per year in maintenance the last two years, so we "fired" it.

Regards,

Steve

Gene · 12-08-2008, 08:54 AM

The Argosy did use a cheaper aluminum and part of the front and back were steel. I think the decision to make them had nothing to do with having a stock of defective aluminum. During tough times economically, it made sense to see if a cheaper model line would sell. I don't think, at least for a while, they sold many. Now there's a Sport model line, lighter, simpler, cheaper, for the same reason.

Gene

OhScottyOh · 12-08-2008, 03:23 PM

Good article in latest issue of Airstream Life on this very subject, about Argosy.

78GussyTX · 12-09-2008, 04:29 AM

Thanks for the info Gene and Scott. I have been very impressed with the trailer and how it has held up for 30 years, even more so if that was a cheaper model. I'll be curious to see what the "more expensive" models from the era were like, we will see at our first Rally in Texas in February.

Scott, is that article online somewhere?

b3Talent · 12-12-2008, 12:10 PM

I keep reading all of the skeptisism about the Tundra as a TV. Let me say that I have a new 08, 5.7 Crewmax and it tows my 34' Classic just fine, HOWEVER my next truck will be 3/4 or better.

connorsa · 12-12-2008, 02:36 PM

Ok, what does 'BIL' stand for? Love the acronyms on the forum!

Gene · 12-12-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by connorsa

Ok, what does 'BIL' stand for? Love the acronyms on the forum!

From the Department of Trivia and Minor Hijacking, "bi'il" means "dress" in Navajo. This is a significant part of my vocabulary of about 5 words in Navajo.

As for BIL, I haven't a clue.

Gene

**azflycaster** · 12-12-2008, 04:38 PM

Brother-in-Law?

78GussyTX · 12-12-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b3Talent

I keep reading all of the skeptisism about the Tundra as a TV. Let me say that I have a new 08, 5.7 Crewmax and it tows my 34' Classic just fine, HOWEVER my next truck will be 3/4 or better.

I kind of got that sense too, I'm not sure why or where that comes from. The Tundra when properly equipped is every bit as powerful just about any vehicle I can think of.

OhScottyOh · 12-12-2008, 05:22 PM

Bilstein Gas Shocks maybe. I don't remember for sure

OhScottyOh · 12-12-2008, 05:29 PM

Gene, I had the Timbren SES system installed today and will let you know how it effects the ride and handling, if any. Don't really know if needed, but what the hey, for a couple of hundred bucks.

t walgamuth · 12-13-2008, 06:46 AM

I have Bilsteins on my 03 Dodge 3/4 quad cab short bed deisel, the ride and control are excellent. The basic suspension on the front of the truck is defecient in travel though so when a large dip is hit it can bottom out on the rubber stop, but under most conditions it rides very very nicely....much better than it did from the factory and the first three years I owned it when no aftermarket shocks were yet available for it.

From the factory if you hit a certain type of small bump the front wheels would begin hopping uncontrollably and the front end would wash toward the outside of the turn....very disconcerting when you are towing a thirty five foot excella on the interstate.

But it always stopped after a few seconds and after I cleaned out my shorts I was fine too!

My first solution was Rancho nine way adjustable which worked really well but after thirty thou miles were shot. The bilsteins if they perform as well as they do on my old mercedes will last for one hundred thou miles or decades whichever comes first.

macofpei · 12-13-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b3Talent

I keep reading all of the skeptisism about the Tundra as a TV. Let me say that I have a new 08, 5.7 Crewmax and it tows my 34' Classic just fine, HOWEVER my next truck will be 3/4 or better.

If the Tundra is working that great, Why would you change up next time to a 3/4 ton? I am trying to decide what I will get as a TV for my 32' excella, The book says it weights 8400. If the Tundra is rated @ 10400 then that leaves only 200 lbs for everything else.( I may have just answered my own question)
Mac