The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[polarlyse]

WHAT THE CHIEF SAID

[SteveH]

What the Chief said also, with my 17' Casita.

[kscherzi]

Originally Posted by HowieE

What specs? Are you saying the weight on the rear axle is greater than the TV manufacture has suggested? YES

Please post the manufactures rear axle load limit, approximate for any load in the rear of the TV, your dry tongue weight, and your scale weight when loaded. It may be that you are just out of range with that combination of loads. From vehicle sticker on door, rear axle 4128lbs. CAT scale reading rear axle, $4200 lbs.

I attached photo's of the Ford Expedition door jam sticker, a photo of the weight tag on the Airstream, and a photo of the CAT scale reading. I also attached photo's of the installation. My first trip across the scale had higher rear axle readings so I added one more revolution to each bushing to get the second reading. I figured 72 lbs overloaded wasn't worth worrying about for the trip home, especially as my wife and dog were getting tired of me fussing with the trailer. I am open to any and all constructive suggestions. Since I now own this hitch I prefer to get it to work. I should add that both the trailer and tow vehicle sit very level.

At some point I'll trade the 2003 Expedition for a newer and more robust tow vehicle which may relieve these concerns, but for now need to take a breather from spending.

-------

As far as killing this thread, that's fine with me, but I see most of you are more senior than I, so maybe it would be helpful and productive for one of you to start a new thread that summarizes knowledge learned here for new people like me to move forward.

[Rendrag]

From your pictures, especially the next to last one, it appears that the frame brackets have shifted enough that they are no longer perpendicular. You are losing a little bit of weight distribution since the chains are not in a straight pull. A few percent anyway. If anything, they should be slightly forward at the top, not tilted to the rear.

[AirHeadsRus]

Kscherzi,
You may want to check and see if you have not run out of adjusting room by the eye of the chain hitting the stops. I did when I had 9 to 10 threads showing and could not get any more weight to transfer. The fix was to move the brackets back a little so I could get more adjusting room.
Hope that helps,
Joe

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

As far as killing this thread, that's fine with me, but I see most of you are more senior than I, so maybe it would be helpful and productive for one of you to start a new thread that summarizes knowledge learned here for new people like me to move forward.

I did a summary a few months ago here, post #6 ...... http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1259312

[Rich of SCal]

Quick question, and yes the answer may be buried in these almost 2000 postings, but I am weary of sifting through them over and over again, so please indulge me.

Is there a direct replacement for the dreaded Atwood model that supposedly fails? By direct, I mean the measurements all match so that no modifications need be made...just remove the old and weld on the new. Same tongue jack hole position, triangle size, etc.

One more question: Anyone know why Andersen still doesn't say anything on their site to warn against using the 88000 series Atwood? Are they only warning people AFTER they make their purchase???

[Rendrag]

Corporate lawyers advise their clients not to confess to any problem, lest they be sued later. All a result of our litigious society. What if some hitch from a 1920 farm wagon fails and Andersen didn't mention it might be a problem? I am not saying corporations are always right, but they have been sued by people that did not know that coffee is often hot. Truck manufacturers do not tell us what specific brands of accessories are not compatible with their vehicles either. Same reason.

I hope this and other forums can continue to inform consumers with real data and facts from actual users.

[slowmover]

" data and facts"

Yes, something in which this thread has been deficient considering the number of posts. But it has not been deficient in mischaracterization of issues -- or sadly, of those posting -- by some over-zealous owners.

Data = scale tickets

Facts = vehicle manufacturer WD requirements

Some subset of potential TVs for a defined set of A/S TT's may be able to use this hitch. But it will be a small group all around. Data and fact must work together for any & every combined rig.

Examples of what isn't fact or data pertaining to WD is how well the anti-sway works. Of all the TT brands on the road this one is least likely to need it. And is optional to requirement.

Or that one "likes" it. Subjective isn't objective. The latter needs to be able to support the former for the former to have any believability.

There are around a dozen scale-verified set-ups. Only three or four came close to meeting spec.

And, as 2Airishuman used to note, PMs that fly around and can't stand the light of day aren't worth anything. Caveat emptor applies at several levels around this.

.

[morgandc]

You defined everything but "spec". What is your definition of "meeting specs".

[HowieE]

kscherzi

First thing you have to do is reposition the brackets so the chain is aligned with the center line of the bracket when hitched. Once positioned you will have to secure the top of the bracket in that position otherwise it will move while under load. This can be done by welding a stop behind the top of the bracket, or by drilling through the bracket and frame and bolting through the frame. You may have to move the bottom of the bracket rearward a bit to reduce the amount of treads showing after hitching. Do not pay any attention to the sacred #7 count. You are interested in a workable number for your rig. If you have to move the bracket rearward to get an adjustable amount of threads you may not be able to use the original set screw hole and have to drill a new position to bolt through the frame. Be mindful as to not intersect the old set screw hole as that may cause the bracket to move into the old hole while under load.

There are 2 reasons I make these comments. The chains want to be in alignment to reduce ware on the bottom of the brackets and while not in alignment you are introducing additional friction at the contact point and this could be limiting your WD

[msmcv51]

Originally Posted by Rich of SCal

Quick question, and yes the answer may be buried in these almost 2000 postings, but I am weary of sifting through them over and over again, so please indulge me.

Is there a direct replacement for the dreaded Atwood model that supposedly fails? By direct, I mean the measurements all match so that no modifications need be made...just remove the old and weld on the new. Same tongue jack hole position, triangle size, etc.

One more question: Anyone know why Andersen still doesn't say anything on their site to warn against using the 88000 series Atwood? Are they only warning people AFTER they make their purchase???

When I replaced our coupler, I just cut off the old one at the frame member and the Quick bite fit right over the remainder of the old Atwood. We had to do some filing of the jack bolt holes to get the jack to fit but nothing major.

[HowieE]

When installing the Quickbite all you have to insure is that the jack hole alines with the old jack hole. This positions the coupler so the jack will clear the bottle cover. Some filling between the frame and coupler is required along the lower edge

[AirHeadsRus]

Originally Posted by slowmover

" data and facts"

Yes, something in which this thread has been deficient considering the number of posts. But it has not been deficient in mischaracterization of issues -- or sadly, of those posting -- by some over-zealous owners.

Data = scale tickets

Facts = vehicle manufacturer WD requirements

Some subset of potential TVs for a defined set of A/S TT's may be able to use this hitch. But it will be a small group all around. Data and fact must work together for any & every combined rig.

Examples of what isn't fact or data pertaining to WD is how well the anti-sway works. Of all the TT brands on the road this one is least likely to need it. And is optional to requirement.

Or that one "likes" it. Subjective isn't objective. The latter needs to be able to support the former for the former to have any believability.

There are around a dozen scale-verified set-ups. Only three or four came close to meeting spec.

And, as 2Airishuman used to note, PMs that fly around and can't stand the light of day aren't worth anything. Caveat emptor applies at several levels around this.

.

You could be a lot of help to us Andersen users if you would post all of your weight tickets since you got your trailers. We sure would like to see how an expert goes thru the process of setting up a hitch. Also please post the requirements for your TV's as well. Your data and facts only please. I do not like subjective post any more than you do.
Kindest regard,
Joe

[Rendrag]

Fact. With the revised requirement specifications for Ford and GM, most of their pickups are well suited for use with the Andersen hitch with trailers up to 6,000-8,000 pounds depending on the application. GM does not require WD systems on their 2500 series at all now and only on trailers over 7,000 pounds with their 1500's. Even then, they only require 50% front axle restoration. Not as familiar with Ford except they have been quoted as only requiring 50% these days. These specs represent the majority of pickups sold today. They do not apply to SUV's, Minivans, or sedans.

By the way, anyone with an agenda can publish all the numbers they want, both positive and negative. Mine come from Owner's manuals.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

---GM does not require WD systems on their 2500 series at all now and only on trailers over 7,000 pounds with their 1500's. Even then, they only require 50% front axle restoration.---

According to the online 2013 Silverado Owners Guide, http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Ownership/Manuals%20and%20Videos/02_pdf/2k13silverado1.pdf,
Chevrolet has several 1500-series configurations which have a "Maximum Trailer Weight" rating greater than 9,900#.
The online manual states that a 1500-series vehicle with "Trailer Weight" over 9,900# requires a "Hitch Distribution" of 100% -- not 50%.

Chevrolet also states that "Weight of additional optional equipment, passengers, and cargo in the tow vehicle must be subtracted from the trailer weight rating."
Assuming that deduction also applies to "Trailer Weight", a loaded trailer weight of 9,000# might require the 100% distribution depending on how the TV is loaded.

---Not as familiar with Ford except they have been quoted as only requiring 50% these days. These specs represent the majority of pickups sold today. They do not apply to SUV's, Minivans, or sedans.

According to the online Owners Manuals for Ford Explorer and Expedition SUVs beginning with the 2011 model year, the WDH adjustment specification corresponds to a 50% elimination of front-end rise.
Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburbans (and I assume, their GMC counterparts) still specify 100% elimination of front-end rise.

To me, it seems a bit strange that Chevrolet specifies WDH adjustment on the basis of "Trailer Weight" rather than on actual tongue weight.
For example, per their specs for the 1500-series, a 7001# "Trailer Weight" with a 700# tongue weight would need 50% "Hitch Distribution" --
while a 7000# "Trailer Weight" with a 1050# tongue weight would not need WD.

Ron

[ROBERT CROSS]

Ron,

Your trying to pound nails in a rock. Let them be.
We are all on the same road, some just further along than others.

Bob

[Rendrag]

I did leave out the requirement for 100% restoration for GM 1500 series pickups towing over 9,900 pounds. Do people really think that people are towing travel trailers weighing in excess of 9,900 pounds with 1500's? That would put their optimum tongue weight at or over 2,000 pounds. Even 100% restoration is not going to help. I realize common sense and logic left this thread on about page three.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

---Do people really think that people are towing travel trailers weighing in excess of 9,900 pounds with 1500's?---

Since you asked -- I really do think there are people who read and believe what's printed in Owners Manuals and feel there is nothing wrong with operating up to or at 100% of a manufacturer's rating.

If the manual says you can have a "Maximum Trailer Weight" in excess of 9,900#, I really do believe there are people who will see nothing wrong with towing at that weight -- perhaps even more inclined to do so when they learn that other "1/2 ton" pickups are rated to tow up to 11,300#.

And, if a 1500 owner is going to tow at a "Maximum Trailer Weight" in excess of 9,900#, IMO, they should follow Chevrolet's "Hitch Distribution" specification of 100% rather than following misleading information about the 50% specification.

That would put their optimum tongue weight at or over 2,000 pounds.---

What is your basis for believing a tongue weight percentage of over 20% (over 2000/9900) is an "optimum" tongue weight?

We're not talking about fifth-wheel trailers.

Ron

[Rendrag]

You are right, as always. As always, I do not recommend the Andersen hitch for trailers over 9,000 pounds. The GM 1500 hitches are rated at 1,100 pounds max with WD hitches, so they are going to be pushing it with 10,000 pound trailers anyway. I have towed over 7,000 pounds with a 1500 "rated" to tow 9,600 pounds and it was not fun and that was with a Husky WD hitch and 100% FALR. Have you?