Towable versus Motorized RV?

[NekkidFish]

Hi everybody! I have posted here in the past, but it was when we were renting RVs. Now, after renting RVs over the years, we have decided to buy.

I always thought we would buy a motorized RV. However, we now own a large truck, and could get a towable RV.

Is there anyone who used to have a motorized RV, and now have a towable RV? If so, which do you prefer and why?

Or, reverse the question ... Did you used to have a towable and now have a motorized? Same questions.

Thanks bunches! Jules

[2112]

Your payload is 1430 lbs.
Subtract your husband and your weight, any weight you plan on putting in the truck or truck bed, 100 lbs for a hitch. The remainder is how much trailer tongue weight you can carry.

Look at the GVWR of each trailer, not dry or delivery weight. Go with 12% of that value as tongue weight. That puts you in the ball park. My guess is you are looking at no more than a 8000lb fully loaded trailer.

Now go shopping 🙂

[NekkidFish]

2112 wrote:
You didn't find this?

There is something similar. It says Vehicle shouldn't exceed 1430 pounds.

But, that didn't sound right to me. It's such a low number.

????

[NekkidFish]

So WBWood, did you buy your MH used? I have such a fear of buying anything this big used, fearing I am buying somebody else's problem.

[wbwood]

wildtoad wrote:
Since you already have the large truck, I would go with the towable/fifth wheel. You will have better use of the space. We opted for the unit we have as we did NOT want a big truck, the 30ft size is easy to drive and park, and setting up is a 5 minute task, and don't have to get out in the rain to go from driver seat to living space.

Agreed

[wbwood]

Campfire Time wrote:
While I have not owned a motor home, I can definitively say that we will always have a towable. For 2 main reasons. One is that care and maintenance of a towable is a fraction of the cost and time of a motorized RV.

Have to disagree...no more cost on our Class C with a V10 motor than the F250 that we had with a V10 motor. Since you need a truck to pull a towable, you need to include it in the cost of maintenance.

The second is usability/drivability. In many places it hard to park a motor home.

How is it hard to park a motorhome? Especially if you have not owned one? We have owned both and I can tell you, it's much easier to park a motorhome than it is a towable.

[wbwood]

The debate again....bottom line it's preference.....

We've owned both. Previously a 35' TT and towed it with an F250. Now we have a 32' Class C motorhome. Our preference is the motorhome. Mainly due to simplicity. We can get in, crank it up and go. We don't have to hook it up or unhook it. It's much easier to back into a site with, plus we don't need as big of a site to park the truck in addition. Driving is much more comfortable with the motorhome than with the truck/trailer. You are constantly having to see where the back of the trailer is going. We were about 55' or more in total length hooked up with a pivot point in between. Even with the WDH and sway control, a good wind or truck coming up beside you, you give you a push to the side. There's a difference in the way the motorhome handles it than the truck/trailer on that pivot does. People with towables will try and use the excuse of "I don't want to care for an additional motor". I used to think the same way when we had our towable. But I looked at the numbers and realized that was silly to think that way. Since you already have a truck and plan on using it for other things, then by all means save the money and go the towable route. Our thing was that we didn't have a truck, nor did we need one. So that was an additional cost for us. We traded in a mini van for it. The truck got 11-12 mpg not towing anything. Towing it got 8 mpg. So it really wasn't feasible for us to have as a second vehicle. We live 35 miles from my work and I drive a little commuter car. My wife works from home most of the time, but has to drive that 35 + miles every so often for meetings. Her driving the truck into town cost us $20 a trip. Plus the cold winter days or rainy days she would use it to take our kid to the bus stop and sit there idling...After a few years of that, and figuring most of our trips were to the beach 4 hrs away, we decided to keep the TT stored at the beach (campground would put it on site for us) and trade in the truck for an SUV for my wife (twice the gas mileage). We ended up getting a used pop up to pull behind the SUV for trips to the mountains. That was short lived. We got a great deal on our current motorhome and traded in the TT and pop up on it...

[2112]

You didn't find this?

[NekkidFish]

Okay, I went out tonight and looked, and there is absolutely no information on towing or payload capacity on the stickers on the inside of the door. I guess hubby was right.

[2112]

Here are some used HA's in your neck of the woods:
Nashville craigslist
Norfolk craigslist This one is missing parts

The beauty of buying a used HA is you can sell it for what you paid for it when you no longer need it.

[NekkidFish]

Just sent in for their info CD and info package. Thanks!

[NekkidFish]

Thank you Ron! If we get a TT, we will want to get one of those for sure!

It always scares the sheet out of me when I see a TT swaying back and forth on the highways.

[lanerd]

NekkidFish wrote:
What is the Hensley Arrow unit? A stabilizer?

The Hensley Arrow is the ultimate weight distribution/sway control unit that money can buy. It adds the highest safety margin available you can install on a travel trailer and is guaranteed to "eliminate" any sway that is common to travel trailers.

The HA is a totally different design from the common "friction" type of WD/SC such as the Equal-i-zer and Reese Dual Cam units. There are other name brand friction type, but essentially the same device. There are also other units that are much like the HA such as the Propride and the Pullrite systems. You will pay much more for any of these three units, but the safety factor goes way up with them.

Ron

[NekkidFish]

Francesca Knowles wrote:

NekkidFish wrote:
...........snip......
Hubby thinks we would be fine with a small MH or TT, like a 25' one. I keep reminding him that we have been in a 29' and a 31' MH (no slide outs) and how tight that was for us. I like to kick back and have some space .... And more than a couple of inches of counter space in the kitchen. I think once we start going to some dealerships and he sees how small he is talking about, he will change his mind.

I have to run to the grocery. Just need to remember to pick up a lottery ticket. 🙂

Something you yourself might keep in mind is the possibility that when Hubby suggests a 25 foot trailer, he may be allowing for the fact that except for the overhead bunk in a Class C, the first six feet or so is engine/cockpit space. A 25 foot or so trailer is a rough equivalent, usable space-wise, of a thirty foot MH, and they can be had even within your likely weight restrictions with a slide or two for extra space.

Also, and this is Very Protective Grandma speaking:

Your children will be much, much safer traveling in the well protected passenger area of the Tundra than in the rear area of ANY motorhome. Recreational vehicles are exempt from most safety requirements except perhaps in the "cockpit" area. Everything behind the front seat area is un-crash-protected except perhaps for the presence of a seat belt or two. Do take a good hard look at the construction/interior add-ons of the living space of these units and try to visualize what may happen back there in a crash. I think you'll see what I mean!

We have been out on the road, and he will see one of the 20 foot MH's and say, "We could get along in that." Again, I have to remind him of what we have been in the past, and how cramped we were.

We don't have kids that will be traveling with us, except the four-legged kind. 🙂

[toedtoes]

I have more room in my 21ft MH than I did in my 18 foot TT. A lot of it has to do with layout.

I recommend that you go look at some (both MH and TT) of varying sizes and see how they compare for you. Look at layout and functional space and identify those that meet your needs. Then you can fine tune and determine what TTs are options for the Tundra payload-wise, etc. And then, you can decide if you are better off getting the TT or the MH.

[Francesca_Knowl]

NekkidFish wrote:
...........snip......
Hubby thinks we would be fine with a small MH or TT, like a 25' one. I keep reminding him that we have been in a 29' and a 31' MH (no slide outs) and how tight that was for us. I like to kick back and have some space .... And more than a couple of inches of counter space in the kitchen. I think once we start going to some dealerships and he sees how small he is talking about, he will change his mind.

I have to run to the grocery. Just need to remember to pick up a lottery ticket. 🙂

Something you yourself might keep in mind is the possibility that when Hubby suggests a 25 foot trailer, he may be allowing for the fact that except for the overhead bunk in a Class C, the first six feet or so is engine/cockpit space. A 25 foot or so trailer is a rough equivalent, usable space-wise, of a thirty foot MH, and they can be had even within your likely weight restrictions with a slide or two for extra space.

Also, and this is Very Protective Grandma speaking:

Your children will be much, much safer traveling in the well protected passenger area of the Tundra than in the rear area of ANY motorhome. Recreational vehicles are exempt from most safety requirements except perhaps in the "cockpit" area. Everything behind the front seat area is un-crash-protected except perhaps for the presence of a seat belt or two. Do take a good hard look at the construction/interior add-ons of the living space of these units and try to visualize what may happen back there in a crash. I think you'll see what I mean!