Jayco or KZ

On Jayco vs KZ, just on the frame, the Jayco is far superior. I just looked at a new Jayco 32BHDS this morning. It has a to-die-for frame that is first class. Extremely well-engineered compared to KZ. It has a one-piece forged beam (not 3-pieces welded together) which is taller. It has 2x2 tubing welded to the lower beam flange in the area of the axles and spring hanger brackets. It has gussets welded above the lower beam flange at the spring hanger points. If I were to design a frame from scratch, this is how I would do it. This is the only nearby Jayco TT that I could find of comparable length to our Spree 261RKS. This Jayco model is a heavier trailer and don't know if their shorter ones have a different frame design. Of all the trailer frames I have looked at lately, this one is way ahead of the rest.

To compare apples to apples with our KZ 261RKS, Jayco has a 266RKS which is very similar. It's a heavier trailer by 900 lbs but has a GVWR that is 1700 lbs more. That tells me that it probably has more substantial construction. Perhaps a stronger frame accounts for some of that. I really hate to say this, but if we were starting over, I would look at the KZ and Jayco side by side in very close detail and more than likely go with the Jayco. Don't know what Jayco dealer and factory support is like though.

Sorry it's been a while since I have replied, but I thought I would put this post to rest. I ended up with the Jayco and have been very happy so far. The real test will be next week when we bring it all the way down to the Florida Keys for 7 days. Wish me luck!

KZ owner here too bought new 2005. It has been a great unit and is still in A1 shape after 8 years. Has not been to the shop once. Only small things that I fixed myself. Jayco makes good units too but they also have lemons out there as well. Go to some of the other boards and you will see many there too. One right now with a big Jayco eagle trailer that is delaminating in several places and the dealer and Jayco are trying to figure who where and how it might be fixed. Don't judge by a few bad apples as there are others out there too. 2 year warranty on either will help if you have problems too.

We started with a Jayco, had issues, and moved to a Heartland Product. BIG mistake. Went on to a KZ Coyote Lite. Night and day. Very happy. Crack developed in the fender
Skirt at 2 years, KZ replaced it no questions. The trailer was flawless. I believe dealer service helped. Outgrew the KZ last year, back to Jayco with Jayflight 32BHDS, and the fit &finish is phenomenal. Can't go wrong either way, but be sure you have a reputable dealer. The best trailer with no support for warranty and after is a headache in the making.

bigcitypopo wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:
I have a KZ. If you go thru my library on Photobucket it might help you decide.

My KZ

There are upgrades and repairs shown to make this 2011 261rks useable.

I see you did a suspension upgrade... can you comment on reasons/expectations/ and observations?

Ease of install, and quality of parts in your kit... sorry don't mean to hijack thread... maybe reply in a PM as to not take from OP.

A few comments to answer your questions:

Axles were replaced because stock items were bent and testing showed that they would not carry near the 3500lb rating.

Springs were replaced because they were of different lengths causing wheel alignment to be off.

Shocks were added for better rebound control. A rear kitchen takes a beating without shocks.

Trusses were added to reduce lateral twist of the "I-beams." This twist caused the frame to crack where the cross members are attached.

Spring shackles were replaced with my improved parts because the stock parts were made of cheap steel that was too thin.

Wet bolts/bronze bushings were used because the stock plastic parts don't last very long.

The Equa-Flex unit was improved by installing special bolts, which I made, so that the brass bushings would actually receive grease.

Adding select fit spacers at all bolt locations reduced the slop in the springs and Equa-Flex.

The cheap junk locknuts on all the suspension joints were replaced with high quality nuts for safety reasons.

Brake wires were connected so that all four brakes now actually work.

The cheap steel 5" wide wheels were replaced with 6" wide aluminum wheels with a higher rating.

The Freestar Chinese tires were replaced with Goodyear USA LT tires.

This was a rather big, expensive job, but the only choice was to take a loss and trade the trailer for another one with a new set of quality problems. I now have a trailer that is much safer, more reliable, rides better, handles better and should last much longer. It still has a pathetic frame, but it is somewhat protected by the trusses.

As mentioned above, KZ has finally fixed the water loss issue on the new models. They produced thousands of units that are spilling the contents of the water tank onto the highway. Who do you think is the one person that pushed the issue and forced a change?

I don't want to change this thread around but you may want to look at another angle.

Why are you choosing the Jay Flight Swift 264BH over the standard Jay Flight 26BH?? Same floorplan but Swift is not much lighter and is actually more expensive when you consider the options.

When I was looking, just adding some basic options bought the price nearly the same. Also, Jay Flight includes most options that the Jay Flight Swift has as an option. With same options, their weights are about the same.

The biggest differences is that Swift doesn't have in floor ducting, they use above floor ducting that eats a lot of storage space. They also use an inferior A/C that is only controlled by it's own control and not the trailers thermostat. It is ducted in the ceiling but it will run continuous instead of shutting off when not needed. Just like a standard none central AC but with ducts.

Other shortcuts are in storage areas where dividers have been deleted under beds. Also Swift models do not have the higher fresh water capacity as the standard Jay Flights.

Just making sure you are aware of this as the Swift models just seemed like a bad deal next to the standard line.

BTW, I've had excellent luck with Jayco and I was afraid I would be jumping into a trouble pit like I did previously with Forest River. I stick with Jayco because they make a great product, stand behind it, and have a great support staff.

Lynnmor wrote:
I have a KZ. If you go thru my library on Photobucket it might help you decide.

My KZ

There are upgrades and repairs shown to make this 2011 261rks useable.

I see you did a suspension upgrade... can you comment on reasons/expectations/ and observations?

Ease of install, and quality of parts in your kit... sorry don't mean to hijack thread... maybe reply in a PM as to not take from OP.

Just came across this thread and would like to add our recent experience. We bought a 2013 KZ, the same model as lynnmor. It's only about 3 months old now. I am 100% in agreement with lynnmor. Seems to me what he had posted is pretty factual and I don't understand anyone (like Spadoctor, eg.) who can say it's BS, unless they are a paid flag waver.... Lynnmor is a very accomplished person when it comes to mechanical fabrication and mods. I am very impressed with the things he has done, especially the shock absorber installation for one. He's done some of the best mods and upgrades I've seen anywhere.

Here's our story to back up the frame problems lynnmor has had:

We found bent spring hanger brackets on our frame the day after we bought it. Initially Lippert said it was within spec. Being a professional engineer and all, I knew they were totally wrong. Took in to a certified frame shop that is a government certified inspection facility. The frame was found to have "extreme flex". When on the hoist, the spring hangers bent to one side, and when on the ground they move to the other side. When they push on the side of the TT, the wheels go all wonky and way out of camber. The lower flange of the I-beam is distorted where each spring hanger is welded to it. Frame welds are sub-standard. The problem with this frame is that it is made from 3 pieces of 1/8" sheet welded together made to *look* like an I-beam. Presumably for weight savings. The frame flexes and moves around as if it were made from rubber. It's pathetic. To quote the frame shop, they said "it's terrible, terrible, terrible". The frame is in fact, already showing signs of failure at a point when we only towed it about 100 miles. But, it has over 2,000 miles on it from plant to the west coast. The spring hangers are bent to one side as much as 5/8" (over 6" height). The frame is inadequate to support the static and dynamic loads imposed on it. The shop said the frame will develop cracks and welds will fail, and it is a case of when, not if. Lynnmor is one example.

The spring and equalizer bushings are worn out already and need replacement! We've barely used it yet!

I noticed yesterday looking at the frame more closely that it has a large hole cut in one I-beam for the slideout mechanism. From my experience in the building construction field, the re-inforcement of the hole is inadequate. To me, this is something that could lead to premature beam failure. And I would never expect to see a skinny beam like this carrying the distributed static load of the trailer superstructure and cargo (4,000 lbs plus?) along it's approx. 26' length nor the dynamic forces imposed by the wheels/axles while towing.

I have not been able to look at the frame between the I-beams due to the enclosed underbelly. If I could get in there, I would expect to see problems with the cross-members, welds and tank support straps.

When you sight down the I-beams from front to rear, you can see a LOT of sag in them. That's in a static situation and you have to know that in a dynamic situation while towing, the frame is going to flex vertically and bounce up and down. This degree of flex is very bad for the TT structure above the frame. In fact, while doing a mod. for storage, I discovered that a weld between two 1x2 aluminum framing members has separated by almost 1/4". I have to wonder what has or can happen to the rest of the framing in the TT in the short or long term. With the electric stab. jacks down, the trailer still flexes a LOT. In some fairness to the frame, the stab. jacks (Lippert) are not very strong and I can see them flexing when someone walks in on the stairs, but much of it IS in the frame. Shouldn't have to install bracing on the jacks and use bottle jacks under the frame to help stiffen it up (esp. on a $30K+ TT)

Part of what aggravates the situation with our TT is that the spring hangers are tall at 6" high compared to many other trailers and we have the axles under the springs. This creates more torque (leverage) on the lower flange of the I-beam from side to side.

Further, the GVWR is 6800 lbs but when I weighed the trailer at a scale with normal camping stuff like BBQ, folding chairs, outdoor mat, etc. plus sewer fittings, chocks, etc. and food and clothing for a 2 day camping trip, the TT weighs 6600 lbs. If we were to travel with a full tank of fresh water, we'd be overloaded and with all 4 tanks full, we'd be more than 1,000 lbs over the GVWR. You have to wonder how many are doing this and have no idea what their actual weight is vs GVWR? Our actual tongue weight is nearly 1,000 lbs but the factory dry wt. is 518 lbs. Had to buy new 1200 lb trunnion bars as the 800 lb ones I initially bought were too small. Our axles are 3,500 lbs each so okay there (since tongue carries nearly 1K lbs and transfers about 300 lbs onto trailer axles). However, the axles would be close to being overloaded if carrying 4 full tanks (we have 2 grey). Tires are load range C with total 7280 lbs carrying capacity. Since GVWR is 6800 and since it would be VERY easy to overload the TT, there is no safety/comfort margin. ST tires do not do well running constantly near/at the load cap. and definitely not over....

Since the frame has extreme flex and the spring hangers move so much from left to right, the ST tires are going to experience a lot more stress from the continual lateral (side to side) movement every time the TT moves a little or a lot from side to side. "Twitch" the trailer a little while driving, as in a gusty wind or while being passed by a semi, the tires will be subjected to above normal stress. Turn corners and the tires will camber in one direction as you turn one way and camber the other direction when turning in the other direction. Not good.... Add to that, the tires will be loaded to almost capacity, and likely for some, over capacity. I predict premature tire failure. Add to this the fact that the tires have over 2,000 miles on them by the time they are towed from the plant to the dealer. The tires are essentially well-used from the day you take your TT off the dealer's lot. And who knows how much care the delivery guy took while driving? Driving above 65 mph much of the way? Hitting bumps and potholes along the way?

I put the frame issue primarily on the frame manufacturer's shoulders. They should be held responsible for supplying a frame to the RV manufacturer that is not suitable for it's intended purpose. This isn't a new thing either, as seen in the case of lynnmor. Problem is that there are no design/engineering specifications for frames that can be enforced. Have a frame crack? Lippert will just blow you off and tell you that you overloaded your trailer and walk away from it. Have problems a few years later? If a 3-piece frame, you can bet it was likely substandard from the beginning. In the case of axle manufacturers (AlKo for ex.), max. weights of axle assemblies are clearly identified and specified on their website along with lots of tech info. Frames on the other hand have no such weight specs. or max. weight labeling on them or a website with publicly available tech. data. It's all behind closed doors and they do what they want.

I initially thought that this "3-piece" I-beam would be found in many other trailers being made today. Lippert does own something like 95% of the market. Yesterday I walked around a dealer's lot and looked at frames on about a dozen different makes (none KZ), including a few used ones. All except one had a "proper" one-piece and are made from thicker material. Could not see any signs of frame damage or hangers out of alignment on any of them. As I recall, the one with a 3-piece I-beam was a shorter and lighter TT. Did not look at any 5th wheel frames. I'm guessing at this point that the RV manufacturer may have some involvement in the 3-piece I-beam design but at the same time, as I said above, Lippert should not be supplying sub-standard frames to an RV manufacturer. They are clearly weak just by looking at them, if you know what to look for. Hard to say who's mostly to blame. Maybe KZ specified a frame that cannot weigh more than a certain weight and it's up to the frame supplier to meet that??

If anyone wants to slam lynnmor for his findings and posts, then I guess you'd have to do the same to me along with my professional standing. Come and take a look at our TT and I will be glad to show it you to. What I say here is 100% truthful and factual. I even have an independent inspection report in hand.

I may be wrong, but I think the quality of the Spree line has generally improved from 2 or 3 years ago. Our TT does not have the gravity water fill that lynnmor had such trouble with. We have some misc. interior things that need attention by the dealer, but nothing terribly significant. Certainly much better quality of fit and finish compared to our old FR brand TT. I can accept all the issues lynnmor has had with the various things he's shown and would not dispute a single one. Unfortunately, poor quality is endemic in the RV industry and you basically have to accept the fact that you will have at the very least, a small handful of minor issues to deal with. Substandard frames should not be an issue to deal with though.

Anything to do with weights these days is a farce in general. Dry and UVW weights that RV manufacturers publish are meaningless. Our actual TT wt. is a good example. Same thing with tow vehicles. Neither the trailer manufacturer or TV manufacturer tell you to check your actual payload capacity of TV, let alone the published/stickered payload figure. They all flog the tow-ability or towing capacity. How many are towing over their RGAWR? How many are towing near or over their tire capacities?

The "1/2 ton" towable label is all too popular now. To look at a brand I am familiar with, KZ now has a "1500" designation for their "1/2 ton towable" line. They show a 34' 5th wheel with a GVWR of 10,800 lbs as being capable of being towed by a 1/2 ton. Are they kidding? I doubt that there is a 1/2 ton truck out there that has the actual payload capacity to handle a 5th wheel this big, let alone the sticker payload number. Even our 3/4 ton could not handle this 5-er. This is happening with other brands/models out there though.

When it comes to weight capacities and limits, the RV industry is a mess. Look at how many owners are having problems with their frames. A little googling will turn up lots a lots of stories. The more I look into to it and read RV forums, the more I just can't believe how bad the entire industry is when it comes to weight.

We bought KZ because of their reputation for having better quality and dealer/factory support. IMHO, they need to look more closely at the weight side of things and take the high road, and not stoop down to the level of the other RV makers.

In summary, I can say that KZ has come forward to resolve our frame problem but I don't want to say more than that. Kudos to KZ for doing something about it. In this respect, KZ IS head and shoulders above the rest. I'd like to see some of the other brands do the same, but I'm sure I know what'd happen.

camperforlife wrote:
Lynnmor, didn't KZ get away from the water console that was causing your problem? I know my 09 still had the gravity fill/city hook up and I thought they went back to that in '13.

I understood where your knot hole was, I have a big one in the dinette support, just making a point about lumber in general.

As for my KZ dealer, I needed a slide roller on my rear slide Jag (previous KZ trailer) and the item and trailer was discontinued so the dealer drove to the KZ plant to speak personally to the KZ parts guy and to get what was needed. The repair with part was $150.00 even with the 140 mile one way trip to the plant.

I once had a Starcraft (Jayco sister company) that all four tires rubbed the wheel wells because of improperly welded metal wheel wells. The dealer worked with Starcraft and had both axles replaced which had to be custom made at a length that wouldn't rub. Again a testament as to what a good dealer can accomplish.

Sometimes I believe the dealer is more important than the trailer brand.

The "console" wasn't the problem. The tank was vented with 2 pipes attached at the top edge and ran straight down toward the road. On a curve or hill the water would just spill out of those vents. On curvy PA mountain roads you can lose almost all of the water. To make matters worse the last 10 gallons are below the pickup port.

Many KZ trailers that were made approximately 2010 thru 2012 had this faulty design. All they ever had to do was run the vents up and out of the trailer well above the tank, but it was impossible to get them to understand that water runs downhill.

Now why did they do that? Lower cost. By eliminating the gravity fill port, the large fill hose and the labor to install it, they saved a few bucks. A valve was added to send water from the city water port into the supply line to the tank. The two vent hoses were needed so that the tank would not expand while pressure filling.

After two failed attempts by KZ to make the water in my trailer run uphill, they installed a gravity fill tank. I told them to leave the pressure fill plumbing in place and that I would take care of that.

What I did:
1. Replaced the water dish they just installed with a locking hatch type gravity water fill.
2. Modified the new fill by adding 2 vents, plugging the original vent and drilling 246 .041" diameter holes in the door.
3. Replaced the hoses they just installed with the correct type.
4. Made and installed a custom tee in the fill hose and attached a vent hose to one of the new vents.
5. Connected the vent hose to the other new vent.
6. Added two more straps to support the sagging water tank.
7. Replaced all the wet insulation with a fiberglass blanket.
8. Plugged the original supply port on the side of the tank.
9. Attached the supply/fill hose to the drain port on the bottom of the tank.

You can see all of this in my photos.

My system now has gravity fill, pressure fill and a protected inlet. It doesn't lose water and the tank doesn't sag. Nearly all of the water is now accessible. It is safe to fill and it is no longer a hazard to people following me.

You will not find another system like mine, so just call me a nut job.

Lynnmor, didn't KZ get away from the water console that was causing your problem? I know my 09 still had the gravity fill/city hook up and I thought they went back to that in '13.

I understood where your knot hole was, I have a big one in the dinette support, just making a point about lumber in general.

As for my KZ dealer, I needed a slide roller on my rear slide Jag (previous KZ trailer) and the item and trailer was discontinued so the dealer drove to the KZ plant to speak personally to the KZ parts guy and to get what was needed. The repair with part was $150.00 even with the 140 mile one way trip to the plant.

I once had a Starcraft (Jayco sister company) that all four tires rubbed the wheel wells because of improperly welded metal wheel wells. The dealer worked with Starcraft and had both axles replaced which had to be custom made at a length that wouldn't rub. Again a testament as to what a good dealer can accomplish.

Sometimes I believe the dealer is more important than the trailer brand.