Forum Discussion

Jawn's avatar
Jawn
Explorer
Dec 25, 2019

Small bunkhouse RVs? Have I missed any?

I have a 2012 R-pod 177 that we started RVing with about 3 years ago but my family has outgrown it (there's now 4 of us), so we're starting to look for a "bunkhouse" plan to replace it, probably within a year. Not stuck on a new one, but I'm browsing manufacturer sites for details of what's out there.

Tow vehicle is a 2018 4runner and trading cars is not an option right now, so we're looking for trailers within the capabilities of that vehicle. It's rated 5k towing but I'd like to not max it out, so I'm looking at no more than 3500-3600 dry (current R-pod is 2560# dry and the 4runner handles it very well even with a load in the tanks and full of stuff).

We need a queen bed for us, bunks for two kiddos, plus some sort of additional "living" space (dinette, couch, etc) and the usual kitchen and something bigger than the wet bath of the r-pod.

I've browsed websites of KZ, Forest River, Gulfstream, Dutchmen, Coachmen, and Keystone and have assembled the following list. Are there other lightweight "bunkhouse" plans from other manufacturers I've missed?

Best options:

KZ Escape E191BH - 3320# dry
KZ Sportsman Classic 190BH - 3260# dry (tandem axle... is that going to be better/worse with a smaller tow vehicle?)
Forest River Wolf Pup 16BHS - 3097# dry, only 85" wide
Gulfstream 19DS - 3100# dry, only 84" wide
Gulfstream 199DD - 3160# dry, 96" wide
Gulfstream 198BH - 2790# dry, 96" wide
Jayco SLX7 174BH - 2934# dry, only 85" wide
Jayco SLX7 184BS - 3210# dry, only 85" wide

(edit: added jayco models to this list)

Others I'd consider but may be too heavy:

Dutchmen Kodiak Cub 175BH - 3532# and 96" wide
Coachmen Catalina Expedition 192BH (can't find a weight spec)
Coachmen Apex Nano 193BHS - 3515# dry
Keystone Springdale Mini 1800BH - 3394# and 96" wide
  • Jawn's avatar
    Jawn
    Explorer
    Dec 28, 2019
    Boomerweps wrote:
    Queen bed BUT with an east-west orientation. I.e., the forward sleeper has to crawl over the rearward sleeper to get to that dry bathroom at night ;( My wife's biggest complaint.

    That is less than ideal, but the plans I'm looking at all look a LOT easier to get in/out of bed than the R-pod we have. She makes me sleep "in", so I have to climb over her and through the narrow opening between kitchen and bath which is maybe 30-36 inches in the R-pod 177. Further complicating it is an overhead cabinet right in the middle.

    Boomerweps wrote:
    it is easy to overload it on the single axle.

    That surprises me a bit, I feel sure we're never near the limit of our R-pod even with its single 3500# axle. Then again, it's small enough there's not a whole lot that will fit inside and I don't travel with a lot in the tanks if it can be avoided.

    As to the mirrors, the 4runner's mirrors can see around the 77" or so body of the R-pod... but going to an 85" wide camper may necessitate add-on mirrors.
  • Boomerweps's avatar
    Boomerweps
    Explorer
    Dec 28, 2019
    Jawn wrote:

    Boomerweps wrote:
    it is easy to overload it on the single axle.

    That surprises me a bit, I feel sure we're never near the limit of our R-pod even with its single 3500# axle. Then again, it's small enough there's not a whole lot that will fit inside and I don't travel with a lot in the tanks if it can be avoided.

    As to the mirrors, the 4runner's mirrors can see around the 77" or so body of the R-pod... but going to an 85" wide camper may necessitate add-on mirrors.


    My wife originally packed out the TT like it was a vacation cottage/second home and had pots, pans, cast iron, clothing, lawn furniture and soft goods (which can add weight in quantity) for us, the grandkids and guests! Plus while I traveled with empty tanks, I had many ice tea jugs full of filtered water. Now add in firewood! After some camping experience, I removed a lot from the TT (P.O.ed the wife in the process) and cut back on food, water, and other supplies to that that would be USED over the camp time period. As opposed to unloading half the supplies loaded out upon return home. Now with some experience and several items carried in the truck, I have less weight concerns.

    Note that many if not near all single axle TT use 3500# GAWR axles. The GTWR is based on the GAWR and the anticipated tongue weight added together. So the Cargo Carrying Capacity is in part expected to be carried on the tongue! 16BHS GTWR 3877#, 3500# GAWR, 694# CCC, dry weight 3166#, 266# full fresh water tank.

    Forgot til I looked at my TT stats:
    FRONTAL AREA considerations. 16BHS 47.8 sq. ft. by my calculations, Every towing vehicle has a recommended maximum trailer frontal area. 60 sq. ft. on my F150, Explorer is only 40 sq. ft.
  • drsteve's avatar
    drsteve
    Explorer
    Dec 29, 2019
    Boomerweps wrote:
    Forgot til I looked at my TT stats:
    FRONTAL AREA considerations. 16BHS 47.8 sq. ft. by my calculations, Every towing vehicle has a recommended maximum trailer frontal area. 60 sq. ft. on my F150, Explorer is only 40 sq. ft.


    Most people are unaware of the existence of this number, and would probably ignore it even if they knew...
  • Boomerweps's avatar
    Boomerweps
    Explorer
    Dec 29, 2019
    drsteve wrote:
    Boomerweps wrote:
    Forgot til I looked at my TT stats:
    FRONTAL AREA considerations. 16BHS 47.8 sq. ft. by my calculations, Every towing vehicle has a recommended maximum trailer frontal area. 60 sq. ft. on my F150, Explorer is only 40 sq. ft.


    Most people are unaware of the existence of this number, and would probably ignore it even if they knew...


    To me, towing a TT best is more of a math excercise than towing a flat bed or cargo trailer. A LOT more things to consider. Being aware of where and when you push your gear to or past its limits is needed for safety and wear & tear.
    As shown above, while I was within all other ratings, my Explorer maximum towing frontal area was exceeded by about 17-18%. Interstate speeds cause a huge drag and I suspect the excessive frontal area was part of what made for a less comfortable towing experience on the interstate. I get the same or BETTER MPG with the 5.0L V8 heavier truck than the 4.0L V6 Explorer, around 9.5 MPG average.
  • Jawn's avatar
    Jawn
    Explorer
    Dec 29, 2019
    Boomerweps wrote:
    Note that many if not near all single axle TT use 3500# GAWR axles. The GTWR is based on the GAWR and the anticipated tongue weight added together. So the Cargo Carrying Capacity is in part expected to be carried on the tongue! 16BHS GTWR 3877#, 3500# GAWR, 694# CCC, dry weight 3166#, 266# full fresh water tank.

    Not all, several of the ones I *was* considering are definitely over 3500 on the axle. Granted, most of those have been ruled out for being too wide or porky.


    drsteve wrote:
    Most people are unaware of the existence of this number, and would probably ignore it even if they knew...


    Well, to be honest I have been unable to find any such specification in the owners manual or anywhere online. About all Toyota gives is a flat "5000 lbs" towing spec, and 500lb tongue limit. That said, it seems to do fine with a 77" wide trailer at about 3000lbs wet. Stretching that to 85" wide and maybe 3500-4000 wet hopefully won't be too much of a stretch.

About Travel Trailer Group

44,029 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 20, 2025