Looking to buy a ightweight, modest travel trailer

[Seashellmama]

Looking to get my first trailer. I have two kids, and none of us want to share a bed so it needs to have three separate sleeping places. I am super lazy, so would prefer those sleeping places be permanent-beds, because I know that once turned into a bed at a campground, that is how it will stay until we get home. I've got a 5000lb tow capacity (2014 Nissan Pathfinder 4WD), so don't want to go much over 3500lb GVWR. I realize that most people want a larger trailer after a while, but given that my kids will grow up and likely stop camping with me, I'm more likely to downsize in the future.

It seems like there are a few models with very similar floor plans, bunk beds and a queen... Jayco (174bh... previously 184bh?), Coachmen Clipper 17bh, Coachmen Apex Nano 185bh, a couple of others, too (I found one with a slideout, but still sub-3500lbs gross, but now I can't find it) then maybe a Forest River RP-172 and I don't know what else to consider.

I'm such a newbie I can barely differentiate any of these. I want to keep it around the $15k range, and I know I'll need to get things that don't come with them, like sway bars, weight distribution hitch, bits and whatnot that I didn't know I needed, other things I'll think I need that are totally useless, etc etc.

I'm open to all sorts of advice (though telling me I need a bigger and better tow vehicle has to fall on deaf ears, because reality; telling me I have to get a pop-up will make me cry). My current obsession is about how to choose among the available options, and whether any are a particularly poor choice.

[Ductape_Dave]

I was not referring to to popups but the same trailer as mine with the same toilet and no special base. I was just letting the person know to check the size of the tanks as some salesmen never mention it especially when I was shopping for one, sorry you took the joke thing offensively!

[SoundGuy]

Ductape Dave wrote:
... some competitors only have a 9 gallon black tank which is a joke.

Perhaps a joke to you but there's a reason for this ... these toilets are the same as those used a few years ago by Fleetwood in their Highlander high wall series of popup trailers in which the base of the flush toilet was actually the waste tank, meaning the toilet doesn't waste into a separate holding tank mounted under the trailer floor, as is the case with larger trailers. It's a viable method of dealing with available underfloor space for mounting tanks, necessary with some smaller trailer designs, and not intended as a "joke". :R

[Ductape_Dave]

Make sure you check the tank capacities. We have a Coachmen clipper 17bh and it has 25 gallon grey and black tanks, some competitors only have a 9 gallon black tank which is a joke. Also the roof air units will keep you cool while the window units are less in btu and can't keep up in the heat and have leaking issues.

[TomG2]

Details are everything and everyone has their favorites. What about price and build quality? My new Jayco has the best fit and finish of the dozen or so travel trailers that I have owned. Actual yellow sticker was only fifty pounds more than brochure (2590 versus 2550) and little details like outside speakers, two year warranty, power awning, and lcd lighting were a plus. I can live with the small holding tanks as I usually use other facilities.

[SoundGuy]

TomG2 wrote:
The Jayco 154 BH has a yellow sticker weight of 2,590 pounds, 3500 pound gvwr.

SoundGuy wrote:
A great model I'm sure BUT the OP clearly wants not only bunk beds but a bed of her own that doesn't have to be set up, not a dinette that does. That Coachmen Apex Nano 185BH she expressed interest in meets this requirement, as well as having decent sized 30 gal holding tanks, the same size tanks I have on my Coachmen Freedom Express 192RBS.

ttavasc wrote:
Moving up to the Jayco 174BH model would include a short queen in the front that doesn't need set up. At 85" wide this would present a little less frontal area than the Apex Nano 185BH. According to Jayco's web site the 2017 174BH has increased black/gray tank capacity to 20g each.

The Jacyo 174BH also offers less floor space, has narrower bunk beds, the tanks are smaller, yet it's UVW is higher and cargo capacity is a meagre 620 lbs compared to the Nano 185BH's 950 lbs. The devil is in the details. 😉

[ttavasc]

SoundGuy wrote:

TomG2 wrote:
The Jayco 154 BH has a yellow sticker weight of 2,590 pounds, 3500 pound gvwr. Has two bunk beds and the usual dinette for sleeping three in their own bed. Dry bath with shower and tub, micro, AC, H W heater, Propane/electric refrigerator, furnace, power awning, spare tire, two year warranty, $11,995

Biggest negative is small holding tanks.

A great model I'm sure BUT the OP clearly wants not only bunk beds but a bed of her own that doesn't have to be set up, not a dinette that does. That Coachmen Apex Nano 185BH she expressed interest in meets this requirement, as well as having decent sized 30 gal holding tanks, the same size tanks I have on my Coachmen Freedom Express 192RBS. I still think it's worth weighing her Pathfinder to determine exactly what it's real world payload capacity is, then plugging those numbers into the towing calculator I sent her.

Moving up to the Jayco 174BH model would include a short queen in the front that doesn't need set up. At 85" wide this would present a little less frontal area than the Apex Nano 185BH. According to Jayco's web site the 2017 174BH has increased black/gray tank capacity to 20g each.

[afidel]

Currently laying in bed next to the wife in my 2017 181BH. We bought it thinking we might tow it with our 2015 Dodge Grand Caravan, but knowing that it was likely we'd want a bigger tow vehicle (my car is a 2004 Pontiac Vibe that was ready to be handed down to the oldest). Although we were under all specs except frontal area it only took driving home to realize the bigger vehicle was necessary. Just got done with our first trip out, 1100 miles from NE Ohio to Cedar Key FL, the truck did a great job and was very comfortable for the four of us. One big thing that the van wasn't going to be able to do is carry a WDH with anti-sway (not enough cargo capacity on the rear axle for 150+lbs on top of the tongue weight). If you're dead set on trying this combo seriously look at the Anderson no-sway as AFAIK it's the lightest WISH with anti-sway.

Btw the 181bh vs 19BHS isn't just a name change, it's a pretty big change. They added 3" of interior height (super important to me as I'm 6' 3" so hit my head on the roof AC in the 19BHS), power awning with LED lighting, outdoor speakers, and a few other things I'm forgetting.

Oh and the dinette in the slide is great because it's big enough for 4 adults to sit comfortably at, something we didn't see in any unit without a slide (the oldest is 6' 170, a bit bigger than the wife, so the little dinettes were a big minus for us). Those 'small' bunks are big enough to fit me at 6'3" 250lbs with a wide frame so I'm pretty sure they'll fit 99+% of kids.

[JIMNLIN]

seashell...
looks like you did a good job on the numbers.
Just keep in mind the trailer is simply a camper and your not going to be living in it.
Check out these small TT's from Allen Campers in OK allen campers. Allen is a small company and have been around making rvs since the '60s. I bought my 1st 9' 6" truck camper from them in '72.
I don't know if they have a dealer system in southern CA but give them a call if you see something you like.
Good luck on your search

[Seashellmama]

SoundGuy wrote:

Seashellmama wrote:
Sorry, 19bhs (or now, 181bh)
https://www.kz-rv.com/products/sportsmen-classic-travel-trailers/181BH.html

My kids are narrow, and can suffer 28" bunks, but I did identify that as a downside. Also, very small tanks.

And at only 84" wide the 181BH needs a slide. :W

The Apex Nano 185BH is 90" wide, has wider bunk beds, much larger tanks, a longer awning ... but the UVWs are similar because slides add weight, something you're trying to avoid.

Great points! Though losing 6" in width reduces drag? And the slide adds more than that back in the area it's in...

I think I agree that the Apex is looking like a really good bet; I'm not finding one available within geographic reach, though.

[SoundGuy]

Seashellmama wrote:
Sorry, 19bhs (or now, 181bh)
https://www.kz-rv.com/products/sportsmen-classic-travel-trailers/181BH.html

My kids are narrow, and can suffer 28" bunks, but I did identify that as a downside. Also, very small tanks.

And at only 84" wide the 181BH needs a slide. :W

The Apex Nano 185BH is 90" wide, has wider bunk beds, much larger tanks, a longer awning ... but the UVWs are similar because slides add weight, something you're trying to avoid.

[TomG2]

Seashellmama, I think I speak for most of us in commending you on your well thought out questions and comments. You are cool enough to hold your own with what you want and expect out of this purchase. You are wise enough not to run for cover when the "Sky is falling" folks tell you that "It can't be done". There are some options out there for you and you are wise enough to figure out which ones will work for you, as well as any compromises that you might have to make. Enjoy whatever you purchase and welcome to the wonderful world of travel trailers.

[Seashellmama]

Sorry, 19bhs (or now, 181bh)
https://www.kz-rv.com/products/sportsmen-classic-travel-trailers/181BH.html

My kids are narrow, and can suffer 28" bunks, but I did identify that as a downside. Also, very small tanks.

And yes, I am accepting the limitations of the Pathfinder, as it really does seem to be the balance of vehicle that I need right now. Unfortunately, towing isn't my top priority, and if this means we're in a popup or kicking each other in the face when we camp, so be it. I promise I am risk-averse enough that while I might brush the edges of just-barely-ok, I promise I'm not going to be the nutty guy rolling backwards down the Grapevine being towed by their trailer oops. Er, well, I hope I'm not. And I'm not wealthy but I'm not so desperate that I won't call it and take a loss if I end up making some huge mistake TV<->TT matchwise (but I'm certainly going to *attempt* to not just throw away money).

I *really* appreciate all the thought and consideration that's been put into my thread: I recognize that "hi, I'm totally new with unrealistic limitations and requirements that I think are totally reasonable" posts are a dime a dozen, whatever the hobby or activity.

[SoundGuy]

Seashellmama wrote:
Did we already talk about the KZ sportsmen classic 19bh? That one keeps the queen and adds a slide out for floor space and large table, while staying very light ...

:h No slide on this model. Bunks are also awfully narrow.



Any trailer with a slide is inherently going to be heavier than similar models without.

[SoundGuy]

gmw photos wrote:
Point being this is not the old, body on frame, rear wheel drive Pathy from previous years.

Similar to the Ford Explorer which is no longer a BOF vehicle and not anywhere near as suitable for towing as it used to be. 😞 The OP did have the opportunity to address this issue by returning the vehicle to the selling dealer by a certain date but presumably she's chosen to not do so and will therefore just have to accept her Pathfinder's limitations for what they are.

[gmw_photos]

More food for thought.

Something to think about and I'm not trying to start an argument on the merits or otherwise of certain designs.... I'm simply trying to add to the conversation.

For those who are considering the applicability of a '14 Pathy as a tow vehicle, in '13 Nissan redesigned this car, making it a unibody, front wheel drive, with a CVT.

I think the OP said hers is 4WD. A more accurate description is automatic 4 wheel-drive. This is a front drive car that can send power to the back wheels on demand, or can be manually locked into 4WD, like for snow, etc.

Point being this is not the old, body on frame, rear wheel drive Pathy from previous years.

This car has a CVT. Take that how you like as to suitability for towing.

I see that etrailer sells a rear suspension upgrade for this car. A guess ( that's all it is, a GUESS ) would be that enough customers are finding these cars to have a rather soft rear suspension, and needing more capacity back there. So to the OP, consider when setting this up for towing, you may need to have a rear suspension upgrade. Or maybe not ?