2205S & Tundra: Tow & Go or No, No,No!!!!

[Tigger1]

Originally Posted by RET.LEO

Yup, I am seriously thinking the Winn Micro Mini and even possibly a Grand Design Imagine XLS.....probably the Winn..........love the build quality.
Whichever one of those two brands, it will be a bunkhouse without a slide. That will save some weight and dollars.
On a limited income Disable former Deputy I have to really go with what I have for a truck. The trailer is the main necessity (obviously) LOL. I should be in at 4,700 to 5,000 lbs tow weight and should be able to be right at my CCC by cutting down on some extra's. The Tundra's with the tow package has some good brakes plus I have plenty of experience using gears and trailer brakes. Drove semi's 20 years, everything from 28 ft to 53 feet and doubles.
A toolbox would be a nice "in instead of" for a shell but in bed tool boxes are hard to find deep enough to put my gas/LP inverter/generator.
Having a bunk model will make a good conversion for storage, Li batteries, hybrid inverter room and leave a bunk open for a Grandchild when they come.

Sounds like you want/need to stay with your current truck.

We towed our previous Mini Lite (see signature) with an ‘03 Sequoia, 4.7L, 4x4, 4:30 rear. Payload 1250 (removed 3rd row seat to gain ~100 so 1350), max tow 6200, GCWR 11800. Just two of us and we pack light, plus didn’t carry any fresh water. I seem to have lost the specs for the Mini Lite but dry ~4300-4400, loaded 4800-4900, loaded tongue 450-500 using a Sherline tongue weight scale.

It did fine in MD, VA, PA, and WV. It did struggle in WV on a curvy, couple mile switch back road, 6%-7% grade. Had it floored going 35mph. Also on some PA hwy roads I had to anticipate the next hill to get some momentum going.

In your post you mention a Grand Design XLS bunkhouse. The smallest XLS bunkhouse is the 21BHE:
UVW 4698
GVWR 6395
Dry tongue 456

https://www.granddesignrv.com/showro...xls/floorplans

Based on my experience with our GD XLS 22mle, your delivered weights will be ~4800, tongue weight ~560. Set up for camping you can expect your tongue weight to be ~650-700 and depending how you pack the trailer ~5500-6000.

There are a couple of people on the GD forum towing the 21BHE with V6 Chevy Colorados with ~7000 tow capacity.

Depending how you pack, where you plan to travel, you may be able to make it work although it will be close. But I hear you about being on a fixed income and having to do with what you already have.

A couple suggestions is to forego the 200lb cap and go with a foldable vinyl tonneau cover weighing ~25 and get a light weight hitch like the Andersen WDH which weighs a little less than 60lb.

Good luck with your decision.

[RET.LEO]

Originally Posted by RGrimm

Just beware you read the specs correctly on the Nash Trailers. The Only Nash TT I found with "your listed" 4177 dry weight is the Nash 17K, but that is the Axle dry weight, not the trailer's dry weight. The actual dry weight of the Nash 17K is 4766 lbs. which would be the Dry axle weight (4177) plus the Dry Hitch weight (589) = 4766 lbs.
If you use all the Nash 17K's CCC (2634 lbs) you end up with a 7400 lb trailer (888 lb Tongue weight at 12%) plus the actual WDH weight (100 lbs approx)

I realize you're looking closely at the 'numbers' to stay within your truck's specs, so I'm just trying to help you to look at the correct numbers. The Nash numbers can be deceiving by showing a dry axle weight as their first number. Good luck with your decision. Be safe.
-Russ

Nash 17K Specifications (from the Northwood-Nash site):
Dry Axle Weight (approx. Lbs.): 4177
Dry Hitch Weight (approx. Lbs.): 589
Net Carrying Capacity: 2634
Gross Dry Weight (approx. Lbs.): 4766
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVWR)-Lbs.: 7400
Exterior Length (approx. w / hitch): 22’4″
Exterior Height (approx.): 11’1″ incl. AC
Exterior Width (approx.): 8′
Tire Size: ST205/75R15
Load Range: D
Fresh Water Capacity (w/water heater, approx. gal.): 50
Gray Water Tank (approx. gallons): 35
Black Water Tank (approx. gallons): 36
LPG Capacity (approx. lbs): 60
Sleeping Capacity: 4
CSA – Canadian Dealers Only: YES
Auto Ignition Furnace (1,000 BTUs): 25

Thanks for the info. The good news is there's no way I would even come close to the Nash 2634 Lb CCC. I would be more at 800 lbs cargo which would put me at 5500-5600 lbs range which is 78% of my tow capacity, I like that, it's a safe number to be at. Hitch weight would put me at 660Lbs which leaves me 670 Lbs for the truck cargo carry capacity. I think that would be pretty doable. Without a shell on the truck and a storage compartment on the trailer for my 2500 Watt Inverter I think things are looking better.

[01tundra]

Originally Posted by RET.LEO

Thanks for the info. The good news is there's no way I would even come close to the Nash 2634 Lb CCC. I would be more at 800 lbs cargo which would put me at 5500-5600 lbs range which is 78% of my tow capacity, I like that, it's a safe number to be at. Hitch weight would put me at 660Lbs which leaves me 670 Lbs for the truck cargo carry capacity. I think that would be pretty doable. Without a shell on the truck and a storage compartment on the trailer for my 2500 Watt Inverter I think things are looking better.

Not sure what the typical tongue weight percentage is on the Nash, but the 2205S is going to basically be the same percentage as our 2109S, which is right at 15% (without water, packed light and with the batteries moved to the rear of the trailer). Rockwood's tend to be tongue heavy.

If you compare the two, I wouldn't be surprise if the Nash were closer to 15% as well, just comparing dry weights.

Rockwood 2205S Specifications:
Dry Axle Weight: 5004 lbs.
Dry Hitch Weight: 530 lbs.

Nash 17K Specifications (from the Northwood-Nash site):
Dry Axle Weight (approx. Lbs.): 4177
Dry Hitch Weight (approx. Lbs.): 589

[ppine]

I had a Nash 22 once. It was a great trailer but made of stick and tin and really heavy. I sold it and now have a Rockwood which is much lighter.

I like Lexus cars and have learned to like Toyotas. Their pickups seem to get poor mileage and just do not tow enough. They are dependable and easy to maintain. They have a great following, but for towing I like Fords.

[RET.LEO]

I am really leaning towards the Nash now. Especially with the weight and tongue weight of the 17. I'm glad that they switched to laminate walls. The aluminum, fiberglass construction really cut down on the weights since the stick and tin days. And of course you get the quality that Ron Nash was well known for in his Nash, Arctic Fox and sister company O.R.V. brands. Watching factory tours; it's refreshing to see workers taking their time to build quality rather than their counterparts in Elkhart who are running, slapping them together as fast as they can.
I look at the Mini Lites as more of a campground trailer compared to the Nash that is made with the intention of boondocking. Less fluff but still a quality attractive interior. I really like the quality of cabinets, etc that they make.
I agree that the Ford F-150 with a heavy tow package or the F-250 with the new 7.3 engine are tough to beat for towing. So I'll run 55MPH instead of 65 MPH , pull the steep hills at 20MPH instead of 25 MPH
My old Toyota isn't a heavy T.V. by any means but it has enough for what I intend. Once up in the area I want to be I wont be traveling very much. Fourteen days at a time on BLM land for free is hard to beat. Fuel mileage is not great but probably equal to or better than a Class C M.H.
One of the other great advantages is the Trailer will be paid in full leaving the lot and my Tundra has been the same for many years.

[01tundra]

So you're going to have approximately 1,000 lbs of additional weight in the truck (per your original statements), and you'll be at least 800 lbs of tongue weight (very likely 900+ lbs since you're dry camping and hauling water). You haven't accounted for the weight of the WD hitch or the extra parts you're adding to the truck.

So at best, you're truck will be carrying 1,800+ lbs with a 1,300 lb payload rating

I had a 1st Gen Tundra for over ten years and would occasionally pull a 4,000 lb boat about three miles to the boat ramp, I can't even imagine pulling a travel trailer with that kind of tongue weight, especially over mountains.

I wish you luck, but I think you're not going to be happy with this decision at best.

[RET.LEO]

With a gen/inv compartment on the rear of the Nash that will help offset some weight from my truck bed plus I have cut way back on what I need to carry: no need for the truck shell, with the twin 30Lb tanks that come on the Nash that will help, only one "back-up" 30lb will be needed. waiting to "water up" when I get close to my destination. I know it can be difficult for a lot of boondockers to get water but I have kind of a "ace in the hole" I can go to any Sheriff's Office and show my retirement I.D. and probably get water. I have the extra gas cut back to a single 5 gallon container. The Li batteries and hybrid inverter can be put under the bed or rear under dinette inside to transfer weight closer to the trailers axles depending on a 60/40 weight distribution on the trailer. I know the hitch will add a extra 100 lbs but it should offset more than that equally to the truck & trailer axles let alone the whole safety issue of anti sway.
I know a some folks are fortunate enough to be able to buy a new trailer and a 50 to 70K tow vehicle......I don't, I'm in the majority that have to go with what they got. I would rather put the money into a quality trailer.

[Bhrava]

Take my advice or don't take it, that is up to you, but Get the Truck WEIGHED! Stop guessing before you get in over your head. Know what available payload you have, THEN decide on a trailer if you plan to keep the truck.

[RET.LEO]

A CAT scale is a needed necessity for anyone with a trailer or 5th wheel.
My truck with tow package: trans cooler (and extra will be added) Tundra's heavier brakes, 4.30 rear, bilstein shocks, either sumo or timbrens, tow/haul trans.7300 LB tow rating, 1330 CCC with a Equalizer to help balance things out. Twenty years of towing experience with everything from 28ft-53ft trailers and pups, then off to the Sheriff's Academy with more driver training. I think with the right loading and attention to payload the Nash will be fine, if not.....there's still the Winnebago Micro Minnies.
Interesting my son's late model F-150 that he spent over 50K for is only rated for 1700 CCC and 7400 Towing...ouch!
Haven't said anything before but this is close to the bottom of my bucket list. When I'm done with it my middle son will enjoy the heck out of it. He has a 2019 Tundra .......good man!

[BigH]

Originally Posted by RET.LEO

A CAT scale is a needed necessity for anyone with a trailer or 5th wheel.
My truck with tow package: trans cooler (and extra will be added) Tundra's heavier brakes, 4.30 rear, bilstein shocks, either sumo or timbrens, tow/haul trans.7300 LB tow rating, 1330 CCC with a Equalizer to help balance things out. Twenty years of towing experience with everything from 28ft-53ft trailers and pups, then off to the Sheriff's Academy with more driver training. I think with the right loading and attention to payload the Nash will be fine, if not.....there's still the Winnebago Micro Minnies.
Interesting my son's late model F-150 that he spent over 50K for is only rated for 1700 CCC and 7400 Towing...ouch!
Haven't said anything before but this is close to the bottom of my bucket list. When I'm done with it my middle son will enjoy the heck out of it. He has a 2019 Tundra .......good man!

Be very careful playing the shift the weight around the trailer game that you discussed earlier. Good luck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mW_gzdh6to

[RET.LEO]

I figure those two axles are there for a reason.....to hold weight on top of them 10-15% for tongue, 60 percent in front of the trailers axles and 40 percent on top of them or directly behind. One of the reasons I don't like rear kitchen trailers. I like the kitchen directly above the trailers axles.
Of course a CAT Scale is a haulers best friend

[Theo]

RET.LEO -

You seem bound and determined to make your choices work. I totally understand the dilemma in which you find yourself vis-a-vis buying a new TV. But remember: it may work out, but it also may not. You seem to be on (if not over) the limits of your truck. So my question for you is:

What changes will you make if things wind up going cattywumpus?

The final verdict will come after you have purchased the TT and a WDH, hooked them up to your truck, loaded your occupants/cargo and have your three CAT Scale weight tickets in your hand. So, after you do your weight worksheet and calculate the numbers, what if you're over the truck's or trailer's payload or axle ratings? What if the overage can't be negated by leaving things at home? Do you just roll with things as they are risking your safety and the safety of those around you on the road?

I suggest thinking through a Plan B approach no matter what your initial thoughts are about the eventual reality of the situation. Can the TT be returned without any financial penalty? Will you keep the TT and get another (more capable) truck? Will the dealer allow you 24-hours to get to the CAT scale and calculate the numbers and plug them into your worksheet? What if the tow is absolutely miserable and/or you bust the ratings of your truck or trailer?

Yes, you can modify your truck, but please remember that the weight of the parts of any modifications must be subtracted from your payload capacity! Also, have you subtracted the weight of the anticipated WDH from your truck's payload in your estimates?

In my life, I've been saved a couple of times by working through good Plan B scenarios well in advance. To me, it seems that returning the TT and trading it for a lighter one is the only Plan B option you may have...that is, if the dealer allows it.

As you might have guessed, I am very risk-averse when it comes to the safety of my family and the safety of those I encounter with my actions. YMMV.

Good luck.

[moose074]

I was trying to stay out of the fray, as I know I am biased towards Tundras. I bought my Tundra out of spite for all practical reasons. I already had a perfect tow vehicle. That said I was right under total tow capacity and way over payload. That said the Tundra performed flawlessly and I never felt unsafe. Yes I took it through the Rockies, Cascades, Siskiyou and Sierra Nevada mountains. It was with a 5.7, so I can’t comment on the smaller V-8 but it’s amazing how soon people forget things.

Tundra 276 HP and TQ 313 yes all at high rpm but I am will to bet around 2500 RPM numbers are still fair.

1983 Ford 351 in a 250 or 350 139 hp 278 TQ
The infamous Ford 7.3 210 hp and 425 TQ ( 1994)
Cummins 5.9 when first released 160 hp 400 TQ

Now I know people had RVs and towed with these trucks and they made it to where they were going.

Finally to the video it’s a video trying to educate people on pulling a trl that has virtually no tongue weight empty. While m sure not impossible to load a travel trailer with enough weight in the rear, the op isn’t trying to put EVERYTHING in the rear just a few items.

[BigH]

Originally Posted by moose074

I was trying to stay out of the fray, as I know I am biased towards Tundras. I bought my Tundra out of spite for all practical reasons. I already had a perfect tow vehicle. That said I was right under total tow capacity and way over payload. That said the Tundra performed flawlessly and I never felt unsafe. Yes I took it through the Rockies, Cascades, Siskiyou and Sierra Nevada mountains. It was with a 5.7, so I can’t comment on the smaller V-8 but it’s amazing how soon people forget things.

Tundra 276 HP and TQ 313 yes all at high rpm but I am will to bet around 2500 RPM numbers are still fair.

1983 Ford 351 in a 250 or 350 139 hp 278 TQ
The infamous Ford 7.3 210 hp and 425 TQ ( 1994)
Cummins 5.9 when first released 160 hp 400 TQ

Now I know people had RVs and towed with these trucks and they made it to where they were going.

I'm not sure what a person hopes to gain from a post like this ^:

What's the goal? To show someone its ok to be over on weights because you did it and got away with it...so it will be fine if they overload and go for it?

Originally Posted by moose074

Finally to the video it’s a video trying to educate people on pulling a trl that has virtually no tongue weight empty. While m sure not impossible to load a travel trailer with enough weight in the rear, the op isn’t trying to put EVERYTHING in the rear just a few items.

Anyone that has come on here with a sway problem has a loading issue with too little tongue weight and/or too much weight aft of the trailer axles and it doesn't have to be EVERYTHING to make it a problem.

[01tundra]

Originally Posted by BigH

I'm not sure what a person hopes to gain from a post like this ^:

What's the goal? To show someone its ok to be over on weights because you did it and got away with it...so it will be fine if they overload and go for it?



Anyone that has come on here with a sway problem has a loading issue with too little tongue weight and/or too much weight aft of the trailer axles and it doesn't have to be EVERYTHING to make it a problem.

I was thinking the same thing. Of course this is the same old deal, OP comes in asking a question, when they don't get the answer they hoped for they discount everyone's comments and explain why they're wrong.....

And I've owned a Ford 7.3L diesel and two Tundras (and likely more in the future), but comparing them HP to HP is laughable. Hook a heavy load to each and get back to us, there's a whole lot in play with that extra 100+ ft-lbs of torque.

There's no doubt a 5.7L has the "power" to pull a trailer, but the OP has the 4.6L, which is not known to be a powerhouse. Comparing a 1st Gen to a 2nd Gen Tundra is apples and oranges, complete different platforms.

If you're OK with being overloaded and don't care about payload ratings....well then a lawn tractor will likely "pull" your trailer so carry on.

[moose074]

I must be reading a different post the only thing the OP doesn’t really want to do is get rid of the Tundra. He has changed his trailer he is looking at dropped some of the extras like the topper, extra gas, propane decided to move things further back to decrease payload.

While I did say I was overweight and I had no problems. I never said do it. I provided the horsepower and torque of older vehicles because many people claim he won’t have enough power to pull. I was just showing he has more power than most did 15 years ago and is probably lighter so hp to weight ratio probably better not to mention the 4:30 gearing in back. Will he break speed records no but he should be able to do the speed limit most the time.

As for the video again it would be very hard unless he packed everything behind the axle to get 60% of weight behind the axle. The op has already stated he knows to keep 12-15% on the tongue he is just trying to keep it closer to the 12%. First time I saw video I was intrigued but then I began asking relevance to pulling a trl with a actual tongue weight and an axle not exactly in the middle like a teeter totter on wheels. Perhaps it’s not the OP that asked a question and wasn’t open minded enough to accept the answer.

[01tundra]

The thing is, the 1st Gen Tundra was about the same size and the newer Tacomas. The 2nd Gen Tundra would be much better fit to pull a trailer the size the OP is talking about.

I’m sure his Tundra will pull the trailer, but the handling is going to be not so great and his transmission will likely be the first to go under those loads since the A750E/F is known to grenade the planetary gear.

[RET.LEO]

Actually I am leaning now towards the Winnebago Micro Minnie. Very well built, good nation wide dealer network for any service or warranty work (if you can get in) that might be needed. RVInsider has them listed as some of the best trailers from owner's reviews.
The model I'm looking at is 22ft, has a 5500GVWR, 2- 3,000lb Dexter Torsion axles under it, 3860 lbs dry weight, 430 lb hitch weight. I intend to get the off road package which will make this a great little off grid camper. Depending on where the breaker box is located, my Li's, hybrid inverter charger will either go under the bed or under the bottom bunk (probably removed) which would put them directly on the back axle and leave floor space for clothing (light weight storage) Woul still have a bunk for a grand child. The kitchen is right over the two axles. Should make for a good pulling rig. Travelling Robert on YouTube has pulled a size smaller Micro Minnie all across the Country with a Kia SUV before switching up to a Canyon so I know my Tundra with a Equalizer will pull it easily and safely. I normally get 19-21MPG so I think 9-10MPG will be a good estimate. A little better than a Class C but gas is still cheaper than truck payments and extra insurance.

Scotty Kilmer did a vid. on the 1st gen Tundra's, he doesn't pull any punches on any of his vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i3MH2d1-M

[RET.LEO]

Originally Posted by 01tundra

The thing is, the 1st Gen Tundra was about the same size and the newer Tacomas. The 2nd Gen Tundra would be much better fit to pull a trailer the size the OP is talking about.

I’m sure his Tundra will pull the trailer, but the handling is going to be not so great and his transmission will likely be the first to go under those loads since the A750E/F is known to grenade the planetary gear.

I believe the planetary issue comes from heavy towing without using the tow/haul feature. That was a issue in the 00-04 years production. I have read where the 2006 4.7 and 4spd trans has a industry expectancy of 300,000 miles.

[01tundra]

Originally Posted by RET.LEO

I believe the planetary issue comes from heavy towing without using the tow/haul feature. That was a issue in the 00-04 years production. I have read where the 2006 4.7 and 4spd trans has a industry expectancy of 300,000 miles.

They did go to a stronger planetary in 2003, but I would still be gentle with that transmission, I've seen a few of the newer let go as well, but it's not as common as the earlier version.

The trailer you're looking at now is a much better fit for your current tow vehicle.

The main complaint with Tundra's (other than fuel economy) is their low payload ratings. I'm really hopeful that this changes in 2022, because I would love to go for number 3. It would look really good along side our 4Runner and Tacoma