Stardove wrote: Okay, now my head is spinning. First off truck is paid for and with a number of add on things like back up camera, trailer brakes, extended mirrors,etc. I don't really want to get in debt for another truck. The engine is 5.7L V8 on the Tundra double cab.
We love the TT and looked a long time before purchasing, and we are making payments. I do understand salesmen (no offense, if you are one) will tell you anything. At the time of purchase the salesman knew what we were driving and we were told the truck could handle the TT we wanted to purchase and did.
Checking on the Tundra's door the payload is 1465 lbs. I got the other numbers off the Jayco Factory listing for the 330 RLTS TT.
Now I have also read several way to calculate the hitch weight. Those being 15%, 10% and even 9% of the gross weight. The thing is the dry weight and gross weight difference is 2,480 lbs. I do not believe for a two day trip we added that much weight to the dry weight.
We did not fill the water tank. Some clothes, food, dishes, etc. no way an additional 2,480 lbs was added inside the TT.
With the gross weight here are the numbers.
15% 1,687 lbs (we would be over, if all 2,480 lbs were on board)
10% 1,125 lbs
9% 1012.5 lbs
There is no way the trailer had any where near to 2,480 lbs for the first trip, more like 200-250 lbs, if even that much. If I add 500 lbs to the dry weight I get 9,270 lbs, so of course the percents go down.
15% 1390.5
10% 927
9% 843.3
At this point I've read the difference percentages, but do not know which is more accurate or why they would vary. We want to keep both the truck and the RV TT, so I'm back to why the back end on truck is heavy. I still question the hitch stabilizer bars set up, even though the techs said it was correct. Correct equals no work and also "we" didn't mess up". Stardove
You are missing several points here and now we at least have an accurate payload for your vehicle which is 1465 lbs. I asked for several numbers that should have been easy to get so I don't understand why you haven't provided them. I'll make a guess that that number will be reduced by at least 300lbs for cargo and passengers leaving you 1165 remaining payload. Here are the specs I got from the Jayco website for your particular trailer:
Floorplan 330RLTS
Weights
Unloaded Vehicle Weight (lbs) 8,770
Dry Hitch Weight (lbs) 1,400
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (lbs) 11,250
Cargo Carrying Capacity (lbs) 2,480
Measurements
Exterior Length 36' 8"
Exterior Height w/ AC 134"
Interior Height 81"
Tank Capacities
Fresh Water Capacity (gals) includes water heater 90
Gray Waste Water Capacity (gals) 37
Black Waste Water Capacity (gals) 37
Other
Sleeping Capacity 6-8
and here is the floorplan:
Typically dry brochure wts. don't include about 110 lbs for the propane and battery and typically while folks don't carry additional onboard water you would normally carry a full Water Heater which is close to 50lbs. The dry tongue wt. of 1400 would then be over 1500lbs before you load the first item to the trailer. Also, not that the major storage areas are all in front of the axles and with a front queen and wardrobe at the very front anything clothes/bedding items will mostly increase your tongue wt. I also think you 200 to 500lbs of personal added wt. is overly optimistic and 1000 to 1500 is more typical.
My WAG is that you are going to have a "MAJOR" issue trying to keep the tongue wt on that trailer under 1400lbs which IMO will seriously overload the factory receiver. Final issue is that at least starting in 2011 the Tundra factory receiver is integrated into the frame and if your 2010 is that way upgrading your receiver is probably not possible.
Sorry for all the "bad news", but the facts or should I say "guesses" at this point w/o all the facts are what they are.
to your TV payload capacity, subtract the weight of the WD hitch. The hitch head, bars, stinger are in the 100lb range.
i have a similar trailer, an outback. with this type of floorplan virtually everything you add to the trailer is forward of the trailer axles, so your almost always adding to tongue weight. pass throughs, water tanks, closets,
that's one downside of this type of trailer layout. Great floorplan though.
We tow our outback with a cc 3/4ton duramax,
My truck is 6800lbs empty with me in the drivers seat and a full gas tank. Trailer is 9000lbs FULL, with 1450 on the tongue. (dry tongue is 800, see how tongue weight goes up with a pair of batteries, propane and trailer loaded0 With DW (130lbs soaking wet) and I, trailer hooked up, and the the stuff we hall in the bed (firewood, honda 2000, cooler etc) the truck goes ovver the scales a 8800lbs. with a GVWR of 9200lbs. so with a lighter trailer than yours, we are only 400lbs under the truck's GVWR. And the truck needed a new class V reciever hitch, the factory hitch was rated at 1400lbs max as a Class IV hitch. Your starting with a empty tongue weight that from your vehicle rating already puts you over max GVWR even without anyone in the vehicle or a hitch in the receiver.
I'd never consider towing it with a half ton from anybody after towing ours about 10K miles. they are long trailers, and heavy tongues, to big IMHO for a l/2ton. I'll bet if you weigh your tongue it's in the 1500-1700lb range if it's 1400 unloaded.
* This post was
edited 04/22/12 08:45pm by ktmrfs *
2011 Keystone Outback 295RE
2004 14' bikehauler with full living quarters
2004.5 Silverado 4x4 CC/SB Duramax/Allison
Stardove wrote: Okay, now my head is spinning. First off truck is paid for and with a number of add on things like back up camera, trailer brakes, extended mirrors,etc. I don't really want to get in debt for another truck. The engine is 5.7L V8 on the Tundra double cab.
We love the TT and looked a long time before purchasing, and we are making payments. I do understand salesmen (no offense, if you are one) will tell you anything. At the time of purchase the salesman knew what we were driving and we were told the truck could handle the TT we wanted to purchase and did.
Checking on the Tundra's door the payload is 1465 lbs. I got the other numbers off the Jayco Factory listing for the 330 RLTS TT.
Now I have also read several way to calculate the hitch weight. Those being 15%, 10% and even 9% of the gross weight. The thing is the dry weight and gross weight difference is 2,480 lbs. I do not believe for a two day trip we added that much weight to the dry weight.
We did not fill the water tank. Some clothes, food, dishes, etc. no way an additional 2,480 lbs was added inside the TT.
With the gross weight here are the numbers.
15% 1,687 lbs (we would be over, if all 2,480 lbs were on board)
10% 1,125 lbs
9% 1012.5 lbs
There is no way the trailer had any where near to 2,480 lbs for the first trip, more like 200-250 lbs, if even that much. If I add 500 lbs to the dry weight I get 9,270 lbs, so of course the percents go down.
15% 1390.5
10% 927
9% 843.3
At this point I've read the difference percentages, but do not know which is more accurate or why they would vary. We want to keep both the truck and the RV TT, so I'm back to why the back end on truck is heavy. I still question the hitch stabilizer bars set up, even though the techs said it was correct. Correct equals no work and also "we" didn't mess up". Stardove
Okay, even if you didn't even put a single roll of toilet paper in the rig, you still stated the trailer had a DRY TONGUE WEIGHT of #1400..
All your figures above represent in % based on total trailer weight, which you REALLY DON'T KNOW..
Anyway, that is an awesome floor plan and I'm sure a very nice trailer, but no where in Toyota's "tow ratings" does it state that it's specific to that trailer...
Yes, you might have a #10,000 "tow rating", but it also assumes that you DON'T exceed ANY of your other truck weight ratings.. Like GVWR, Rear GAWR or even the max hitch weight.. I've NEVER seen a hitch that was not attached to a 35xx rig that didn't have more than #1000 tongue weight using a WD hitch..
I feel for you and obviously, you've towed this combo and found it to be inadequate... You can add a solid piece of steel in place of the shocks and you'll still have a very lite feeling front end, IMO..
You can, of course, ignore what all of the FREE advise you are getting here, or believe the one who got your $$ for a sale on his spreadsheet for the year...
I wish you the best and hope you are able to achieve the RVing goal you wish to reach..
Mitch
*Anything I post is for entertainment purposes only and what usually works for me.. Your Mileage May Vary..
Assuming you are keeping the TT and your Tundra, I would suggest the following which will help the sag tremendously without sacrificing ride quality. Granted, you will still be over your truck ratings, but the following will help tremendously.
1. Air springs (hd 5000 Ride Rites by firestone) which can be adjusted according to weight or no load. These ONLY help the rear sag.
2. Super Springs work like magic...only engage under load..and when no load...you still have a good ride..easy install
3. Rancho 9000XL shocks (adjustable for loads, and no loads)..really help truck sway..and run smooth.
still over your truck axle ratings, but will help you run level and smooth.
I did all of the above on my last truck, and added the Hellwig hd sway bar, and added Timbren bump stops on the front
FlyFishn
2012 Lance 1685 with 4 Season Cert, Blue Ox Sway Pro
2011 Ram "Outdoorsman" Hemi with max Tow Package, Timbren
Stardove wrote: Okay, now my head is spinning. First off truck is paid for and with a number of add on things like back up camera, trailer brakes, extended mirrors,etc. I don't really want to get in debt for another truck. The engine is 5.7L V8 on the Tundra double cab
(snip)
At this point I've read the difference percentages, but do not know which is more accurate or why they would vary. We want to keep both the truck and the RV TT, so I'm back to why the back end on truck is heavy. I still question the hitch stabilizer bars set up, even though the techs said it was correct. Correct equals no work and also "we" didn't mess up". Stardove
Understandable. A second/third opinion on the hitch is always best
However lets look at some Tundra numbers.
Toyota says the Tundra has a 4150 RAWR for carrying loads on the trucks rear axle/tires. This is where having actual scaled weights is necessary for knowing actual loads on the trucks axle/tires.
However many std duty 1/2 ton trucks like the Tundra may have a unladin rear axle weight of approx 2300 lbs which leaves approx 1800 lbs max payload on the rear axle/tires and wheels.
The stock P tires are the weak link which is why many folks with a std duty 1/2 ton truck upgrade to C or D load range tires. You don't need any certification mumbo jumbo for upgrading tires/wheels or suspension parts. Very typical upgrade the truck owner can do.
You may also want to check out tundrasolutions.com web for all tundra owners input as those folks should know the Tundra's actual scaled weights and specs for each cab configuration.
"good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment" ............ Will Rogers
'03 2500 QC Dodge/Cummins HO 3.73 6 speed manual Jacobs Westach
'97 Park Avanue 28' 5er 11200 gvwr two slides
Your TT should be loaded to camp and then all adjustments need to be made to the w/d system.
You may not have enough weight shifted to your TV front axle.
SEMPER FI
Joe,Joyce 4 kids & 3 dogs
2004 Ford Excursion LTD 4x4 V-10 3.73 Gears, Hellwig Swaybar, Bilstein Shocks & Steering Stabilizer, Roadmaster Active Suspension, Super Duty Tow Mirrors
Reese Dual Cam & Prodigy Brake Controller
2010 Jayco G2 32BHDS.
The stock P tires are the weak link which is why many folks with a std duty 1/2 ton truck upgrade to C or D load range tires. You don't need any certification mumbo jumbo for upgrading tires/wheels or suspension parts. Very typical upgrade the truck owner can do.
Not sure what you are trying to imply that it is to "the weak link" as it pertains to this thread since I think all vehicle manufacturers must provide tires with enough capacity to meet or exceed the AWR on the door jam. While a C or D range tire might provide more stability, I don't think it will do anything to increase the FMVSS sticker listed ratings or the suspension and/or actual designed axle ratings.
More and more tire places like WM, Cosco and others won't put oversized or higher rated tires on vehicles since IMO they don't want to imply that the ratings for that vehicle have somehow changed by using non OEM spec'd tires.
The only type of shocks that will hold up the rear of your truck are air shocks. Tube shocks do NOT hold any weight. They simply control how much bounce there is in your suspension. You can take any brand new tube type shock, heavy duty or not, & fully compress it with your hands, so how would you expect it to hold up the rear of your truck? Ain't gonna happen. You need to look at air bags, air shocks, or adding either an additional helper spring (overload spring) or adding an additional leaf spring.
Ron & BJ
2008 Dutchmen Freedom Spirit FS180 (24 FT) w/full factory dark tinted glass & front window
2007 Dodge Ram 4 WD, Quad Cab, Big Horn Edition, 5.7L Hemi w/tow pkg, 3.92 LSD, Prodigy
The stock P tires are the weak link which is why many folks with a std duty 1/2 ton truck upgrade to C or D load range tires. You don't need any certification mumbo jumbo for upgrading tires/wheels or suspension parts. Very typical upgrade the truck owner can do.
Not sure what you are trying to imply that it is to "the weak link" as it pertains to this thread since I think all vehicle manufacturers must provide tires with enough capacity to meet or exceed the AWR on the door jam. While a C or D range tire might provide more stability, I don't think it will do anything to increase the FMVSS sticker listed ratings or the suspension and/or actual designed axle ratings.
More and more tire places like WM, Cosco and others won't put oversized or higher rated tires on vehicles since IMO they don't want to imply that the ratings for that vehicle have somehow changed by using non OEM spec'd tires.
Larry
The weak link on any 1/2 ton truck suspension is its tires. In this case those P tires that can exhibit lots of carcass roll and sidewall flex = the weak link.
Guess your not familiar with a LT tires advantages over a P tire on a truck for stabilizing a load on the rear axles. Old trick and has been around for years and no one will have any problems getting a load range C or D tire mounted in place of a P tire. That Costco/WM/other won't do this is pure speculation on your part.
You need to read the FMVSS.
Heres a copy and paste;
S4.2.2.1 .... the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall not be less than the GAWR of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567. If the certification label shows more than one GAWR for the axle system, the sum shall be not less than the GAWR corresponding to the size designation of the tires fitted to the axle.
S4.2.2.2 When passenger car tires are installed on an MPV, truck, bus, or trailer, each tire's load rating is reduced by dividing it by 1.10 before determining, under S4.2.2.1, the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle."
#1. Nothing in the FMVSS could keep a tire dealer from mounting a LT tire in place of the P tire.
#2 Notice the FMVSS says a P tire when used on a truck shall have its capacity reduced 10 percent.
Offline
Online
