Want new TT trailer but don't want a "Throw Away"

Pay for indoor storage?

SailorSteve wrote:
Hi All,

Sorry if this is a double post (I hit enter too soon on the previous version).

I need your advice and experience. I'm in the market for a new TT and I don't want a typical 'throw away' unit. The last two units I had (Trail Lite and Aerolite) both rotted out from minor leaks that we're absorbed by the luan and foam floors. Aaagghhh! I had rot almost as I hate wasting money.

So, we want a midrange to upper midrange unit. Weight is not a huge consideration. Want a want is something that will last, if I maintain it well. While layout is important, it's what's under the lipstick that counts. It's the construction design, material, and assembly quality.

Is there a high quality midrange unit that will last?? Or should I save up for something like an Evergreen Everlite (fully composite) Arctic Fox, Outdoor RV Creek Side?? By the way, I like these 'Western' deigned travel trailers. They seem robust.

Please give me some feedback on a TT that long lasting, high quality, with good engineering. What's the best long term VALUE.

Thanks very much in advance. Regards, Steve

Look for the build types that are still around and very old. Most are stick and tin build. In fact I never see any older laminated builds for the reasons you sited. Models with laminated floors and roofs are models I'd avoid the most.

I also would avoid stick and tin models made of structure or particle wood as they will wick any water up and fall apart.

They all can leak from bad caulk but laminated builds are very hard to repair and are very expensive perhaps not worth the expense considering the worth of the trailer. Even though newer models don't use wood laun, the bigger problem is the glue not holding the components together. It can fail from defect, heat, water, etc.

Stick and tin materials are fairly inexpensive and much easier to repair. They also usually have stronger floors and roofs.

myredracer wrote:
If you want a smaller TT, have deep pockets and want something to last, look at Oliver. Someone on this forum posted about one they recently ordered.

If I were looking again, I'd be starting with Outdoors RV or Nash, but don't particularly like some of the design features on Nash that I've seen (like pass-through door is on the small side). One good feature with both these is that their frame is heavy duty off-road and built in-house by Nash and comes with higher-rated axles. Having a non-Lippert frame would desireable to me.

I would go to an RV show and spend lots of time crawling under TTs and looking at how things are put together inside.

Also, I would look into the dealer "quality" that you'd be buying from and see what you can find out. They range from outstanding to terrible and if you get a terrible one, an otherwise excellent RV can become a nightmare if things go wrong. The first dealer we had 3 TTs ago was a nightmare, while our current one is great. Some manufacturers/plants are also better than others.

That would be me. The Oliver is second to none on quality. There is nothing really to rot and the inner and outer hulls are thick, hand laid fiberglass like a boat. The only place for water to possibly enter is the vent and window openings. If any gets in, it will end up in the "bilge" and you just drain it out. Built to last a lifetime, but with a price to match.

beemerphile1 wrote:

Road Ruler wrote:

Hondavalk wrote:
www.airstream.com

...Airstreams have been in production for over 75 years and 80% of them are still on the roads today....

So you are saying that only 20% of them made it back home? :B

You could say that Beemer. At times they have problems just getting out of the campgrounds! Their structure is impressive.

We just bought a brand new Evergreen Element and definitely did not pay $45,000 for it.

Slowmover wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
Even Airstreams have their share of rot. Just Google 'Wood rot Airstream'. It's more about maintenance than anything. Yes some are not built as well especially when you are in the low end of trailers. But paying more doesn't guarantee you'll have a trouble free trailer. It's up to the owner to keep up on maintenance. I'm also a firm believer in covering your trailer during the winter if you live in the northern 1/2 of the U.S.

Let's see. My folks replaced the main awning and an A/C unit in 27-years. Granted, it wasn't poor cousin Airstream, but a Silver Streak. I've a '76 I'll be selling pretty soon. Zero evidence of water penetration in it either. None of them ever under cover.

As to resealing an A/S its a matter of attending to "rivets and gaskets" for the most part. Sistering in some wood to replace a soft floor. Not walls and roof ready to cave in. A huge difference.

The price is high when new. Used, a bargain. The square trailers aren't ever a bargain. They aren't easier to maintain, they're more difficult. Buy once or buy 3-5 times. Cheap is more expensive short and long-term. 20-50% better fuel economy also matters if high miles is part of the plan. And that one doesn't need a fuel-guzzling, rollover-prone pickup if the TT size is well-chosen.

The OP wanted something that wasn't a throwaway. Only one design/construction type comes close. The rest are a joke if ownership much past ten years is considered (and under cover, I'd agree). Among those jokes one might differentiate, but its a few years of difference at best.

If a Casita or Oliver makes sense as to size then I'd be on board the idea of promoting them as worthy of being termed non-disposable.

A narrower framework of choice would be useful. Say, up to ten years of ownership and 50-75k miles total for a reasonable lifespan. That fits the better square trailers given depreciation and maintenance are then comparable.

.

Except for the lousy layouts, small storage, yes they're great trailers. But for the average camper guy they're too much money and don't offer enough value for the dollar. I'd rather spend $20,000 3x than $60,000 once and not have enough room to move around inside.

DH and I have looked over the last year. time after time we go back to Outdoors RV. From the bottom up, I don't think you can get much better. Check them out. It's pricy for us, but we plan on keeping it for many years, like our 96 Lance!

goducks10 wrote:
Even Airstreams have their share of rot. Just Google 'Wood rot Airstream'. It's more about maintenance than anything. Yes some are not built as well especially when you are in the low end of trailers. But paying more doesn't guarantee you'll have a trouble free trailer. It's up to the owner to keep up on maintenance. I'm also a firm believer in covering your trailer during the winter if you live in the northern 1/2 of the U.S.

Let's see. My folks replaced the main awning and an A/C unit in 27-years. Granted, it wasn't poor cousin Airstream, but a Silver Streak. I've a '76 I'll be selling pretty soon. Zero evidence of water penetration in it either. None of them ever under cover.

As to resealing an A/S its a matter of attending to "rivets and gaskets" for the most part. Sistering in some wood to replace a soft floor. Not walls and roof ready to cave in. A huge difference.

The price is high when new. Used, a bargain. The square trailers aren't ever a bargain. They aren't easier to maintain, they're more difficult. Buy once or buy 3-5 times. Cheap is more expensive short and long-term. 20-50% better fuel economy also matters if high miles is part of the plan. And that one doesn't need a fuel-guzzling, rollover-prone pickup if the TT size is well-chosen.

The OP wanted something that wasn't a throwaway. Only one design/construction type comes close. The rest are a joke if ownership much past ten years is considered (and under cover, I'd agree). Among those jokes one might differentiate, but its a few years of difference at best.

If a Casita or Oliver makes sense as to size then I'd be on board the idea of promoting them as worthy of being termed non-disposable.

A narrower framework of choice would be useful. Say, up to ten years of ownership and 50-75k miles total for a reasonable lifespan. That fits the better square trailers given depreciation and maintenance are then comparable.

.

We just purchased our first TT. We bought a KZ Sportsmen Classic. The KZs seemed to be built very well and are very affordable. They have starters (we bought a 21 foot) and beautifully crafted higher end units. If I were to upgrade later, I would definitely consider KZ.

Road Ruler wrote:

Hondavalk wrote:
www.airstream.com

...Airstreams have been in production for over 75 years and 80% of them are still on the roads today....

So you are saying that only 20% of them made it back home? :B