28BHS or 29QBH?

[SuperAir]

I'm conflicted and would appreciate some help thinking through which one to buy.

We're a family of four with kids age 6 and 9. I don't want to change trailers in the next five years...I like to buy and hold, so I'm hoping to get a trailer that will last 10-12 years when I expect kids to leave home....then I'll sell and get something smaller. We've been using our trailer 30-35 nights a year and expect to do the same moving forward unless sports/school activities limit it.

I'm moving from a Rockwood 2701SS....which fit us fine, but I'm staying away from light weights. (Long story short: the trailer was totaled and is now gone...insurance paid a fair value.)

I've noticed the 28BHS seems more popular (based on number of hits when I do a search on this site). I'm wondering if that's just because it's lighter and therefore suitable to more tow vehicles, or if many folks find it's a better fit. My wife votes for the 28BHS because she likes a bit more compact, but she's not set on it and will go for the 29QBH if it's a better fit.

28BHS--Advantages: a bit more compact exterior dimensions, less tongue weight (my limiting factor), Maxistor door, sink outside the bathroom. Disadvantage: Small interior mainly because of small slide, light suspension/load range C tires & 5 lug wheels.

This is a great unit, but my fear is that it will seem very small as the kids get bigger. The walkway is relatively narrow and the dinette is the typical small unit.

29QBH--Advantages: bigger inside, kids love the separate bunk room and extra bunks, larger dinette scales well as kids grow, OEM outside bike rack/cargo carrier, heavier suspension (6 lug, load range D). Disadvantages: more tongue weight (pushing up against my capacity), longer and wider exterior dimensions, more expensive.

My main concerns with this unit are ( 1 ) possibly too big (our last unit was a little shorter and we had several occasions where we just barely squeezed into a site), ( 2 ) will the extra length and size of slide compromise the structural integrity or otherwise lead to more potential problems down the road (e.g. more twisting of the chassis = more leak potential, more slide problems, more bounce at the campground).

I'd love to hear thoughts...advantages/disadvantage. I'm sure I haven't thought of all of them.

[Crabman]

Welcome to the forum SuperAir! Many folks with your family size do well with the 28BHS and the smaller 26BH. As said there are advantages to the larger 29QBH, with the separate bunkroom and four bunks, and larger slide. I cannot think of any structural disadvantages to going with the larger unit either. If your tow vehicle can handle it safely it is something to consider. We have 3 boys with our 28BHS and I feel I`m about at the limit with room. But I could not tow the 29QBH with my truck and also I can barely get in some sites now. This is the trailer we will stick with until the boys are grown anyway so no regrets or desire to trade up here. I think you would be happy with either one, best thing to do is actually tour them because everyone is different. I know some folks who like lots of room and I know one couple that snowbirds all Winter in a 19' no slide trailer. So everyone has a different view on what is enough room. For us the 28 BHS works.

[STARCRAFT 309BHU]

What are you towing with ? i pull my Starcraft with a 2500 suburban and its a lot of trailer.We love the trailer (family of 5) and i wanted as much as i could tow because i wanted the bunk house so my kids were at the other end of the trailer and not on the kitchen table like my pop-up

[Terry]

Welcome to the Forum!

I will weight in to -- I have two kids age 8 and 10. I ended up with the 26BH because it was so much lighter than the slide models and it fit well with my TV. We dont really feel that cramped, but will probably be a little tight when they are teens.

My second choice would have been the 25BHS if I could have pulled it off. The way the slides are arranged, it just seems so much bigger than the 28BHS. Granted it has a smaller bottom bunk, but it is very roomy inside. I also like the double doors to the bedroom as it is tough getting out from the farm end of the bed sometimes on the 26 and 28. I also like the toilet configuration better. The 26 and the 28 both have your knees into the wall, where the 25 has you into the shower so you feel a little more open.

Me personally - I would not want the 29 unless I needed the beds for more than 2 kids. You give up a lot of other space for the second set of bunks and it is longer and heaver.

[SuperAir]

I appreciate the comments.

I'm pulling with a 2008 Tundra. I've gone through all the capacities and the limiting factor is payload capacity. The 29QBH has a published tongue weight of 880lbs. If I assume 20% of that is shifted to the trailer with a WDH, that's 704 on the truck. If I add back 100lbs to acct for a heavier-than-published tongue weight, that puts me at about 800lbs...which is going to be right at the published limit for the Tundra after I reduce the payload capacity of the truck by the weight of passengers and stuff in the cab.

We looked at the 25BHS, too, but liked the 28BHS more. The 25 is certainly roomier in the walkway area, but it seemed like that's about all you get (other than double-entry to the queen bed area)...the dinette is the same small dinette and the bunks are small (...right now, the bunks make for nice play-space for the kids, so bigger bunks are better).

I should also look at the bathrooms again. On our last trailer, the toilet area was very very cramped. Could be it's the same on the 28bhs. My recollection is the 29QBH had a little more room (?).

[STARCRAFT 309BHU]

I would not tow the 29QBH with a tundra (i have owned a tundra) its a great truck but i have to say that trailer is BIG.I dont think my bathroom is large its ok for us but i have not been in a 28BHS trailer so i cant compare

[Crabman]

Originally Posted by STARCRAFT 309BHU

I would not tow the 29QBH with a tundra (i have owned a tundra) its a great truck but i have to say that trailer is BIG.I dont think my bathroom is large its ok for us but i have not been in a 28BHS trailer so i cant compare

I have to agree on the Tundra. That`s a whole lot of trailer for it. 28BHS would be a better fit for the Tundra.

[NLCobra]

Hi there, I did a fair bit of looking and did not want to go any bigger than the 28BHS because of my 5.4 F150 and also the length and fitting in sites. Since I bought it my 13 y/o daughter has taken at least one or two friends each time and it has worked out fine room wise.

[Denise]

Welcome to the Jayco Owners Forum SuperAir! We're probably on the same page as NLCobra. As much as I would love to have that 29Qbhs for the four bunks in back (we have four grandkids who are VERY active in our lives), you have to think about how far you plan to go. We travel (extensively) throughout the US (long distance with the older kids and/or without kids). Just a thought, if you plan to pull the tt camping "locally" within an hour or so then it may be nice to have the bigger one with room for friends. If you plan to tour the US in the summers or the regional area in your section of the states, you may want to really consider the 28bhs. Hope this helps a little.

[SuperAir]

Great points. Thank you for the input.

The 29QBH is 2.5' longer and 1500lbs heavier (with 200lbs more on the tongue) than the 28BHS (dry weight 6745 v. 5215).

I've towed a lot with the Tundra, but not more than 7000lbs...which wasn't a problem. With gear/stuff, the 29QBH will be about 1200-1500lbs heavier than what I've towed in the past. It's hard for me to know if that's too much for the truck given that I've been comfortable with previous loads. The 29QBH is well within the rated capacity of the truck on everything but hitch weight, where it's pushing against the rated limit.

My last trailer was 32.5' total length, only 6" shorter than the 29QBH. There were a few time where I wanted something shorter, but not often. Nevertheless, shorter is nicer when it comes to towing.

The comments here have me leaning toward the 28bhs even though the layout of the 29QBH would be a bit better.

[usmc616]

I have settled twice before for a different TT because of my TV. Is t possible to upgrade the TV now and then get the TT you want later?

[03Avifamily]

I'd like to offer up my opinion. I have a 29BHS. I pull it with a 2004 Chevy Avalanche. On slight grades and flat roads it pulls perfectly fine. On steeper hills it struggles, but I'm working on getting a tuner and switching out the servo in the transmission for better towing. Our Ford Expedition pulls it perfectly fine.

My honest opinion would be to get the one you like the most. I don't really see WHY a Tundra wouldn't pull it with their large V8, when my little V8 can. But the distance you pull could be a large factor. I wouldn't pull mine more than a few hours away.

[Rustic Eagle]

Originally Posted by SuperAir

snip.........I've gone through all the capacities and the limiting factor is payload capacity. The 29QBH has a published tongue weight of 880lbs. If I assume 20% of that is shifted to the trailer with a WDH, that's 704 on the truck. If I add back 100lbs to acct for a heavier-than-published tongue weight, that puts me at about 800lbs...which is going to be right at the published limit for the Tundra after I reduce the payload capacity of the truck by the weight of passengers and stuff in the cab.(?).....snip

Apparently you aware of what many folks overlook..., the payload capacities of 1/2 ton trucks are the limiting factor with heavy TT's, specifically the "loaded" tongue weights. Also considering that the published tow ratings of vehicles are based on the curb weight of the base model in question, and the fact that the curb weight only includes a 150lb driver and a full tank of fuel. Your correct that the published tow rating will be reduced by the combined weights of the TV's options, passengers, and cargo.

It's great that you are watching your weight limits and that "loaded" weights should be the focus. Yes, the 29QBH has a "dry" tongue weight (hitch weight) of 880lbs, but the actual recommended "loaded" tongue weight should be 13% to 15% of the "loaded" TT weight. So, it really depends on your loading habits.

Using the 29QBH as an example: UVW 6,745lbs, Ship Weight 6,995lbs (approx.), off the RV dealer's lot (battery, hitch, etc.)..... 7,120lbs. So your "loaded" TT weight will be somewhere between 7,120lbs and the TT's GVWR of 9,250lbs. Adding 1,200lbs (your number) to 7,120lbs brings one to a 8,320lb "loaded" TT weight. Thus the loaded tongue weight would be 1,082lbs to 1,248lbs (13% to 15%).

The above thought process can be applied to the other models you are looking at as well.

The Tundra 1/2 ton is a great tow vehicle, and it may pull the 29QBH, but IMO you won't be happy towing around an 8,400lb TT.

Just food for thought.

Bob

[SuperAir]

As ever, I really appreciate everyone's input and hope to keep it coming.

Toyota is an interesting case in that it doesn't play games with capacities at quite the level of the Big 3. For Toyota, payload capacity is determined by trim level and after accounting for fuel. So, per Toyota, the payload capacity is reduced by passengers and cargo only and not by fuel. The Big 3 have typically based capacities on a bare-bones truck, literally no fuel, and one individual. Consequently, Toyota 1/2 tons appear to have less payload capacity (by 2-300 lbs) than similar American trucks. Apples to apples, however, they're very similar with the Toyota typically coming out a bit ahead.

Nevertheless, payload capacity is absolutely the issue with 1/2 tons as most newer ones are strong enough to drag around 8-9k lbs but may not be strong enough to take the tongue weight.

The 15% tongue weight issue is an interesting one and I see folks use that to do a back-of-the-envelope tongue weight calculations often. 15% has been the rule of thumb for "ideal" tongue weight for travel trailers for as long as I can remember. But with many travel trailers, getting to 15% would require not using a WDH. So, even though it's the rule of thumb, I doubt most folks are putting 15% on the tongue if they're using a WDH (...especially since another common rule of thumb is a WDH will typically be set up to transfer 20% to the trailer in order to get a similar amount of weight on the front axle of the truck). I really have no way of knowing how much will remain on the, but I question 15% as a good estimate.

As an aside, the rule of thumb for boats is 5-7% tongue weight...and has been for as long as I can remember (I've been towing boats since I was 16...so 30 years). But, of course, you typically get what you get and don't mess with tongue weight on boats (where WDH is uncommon) unless the tongue weight is too much or you're getting sway. I'm thinking travel trailers might be the same---the tongue weight is a residual value and "is what it is" after adjusting the WDH to keep the TV level.

But I could be wrong.

[usmc616]

I disagree with your statement that the big 3 give payload capabilities without fuel. My Excursion states the rating is with a full tank of gas and a driver.

[SuperAir]

Learn something new every day. I guess the take-away is to read your manual to see how these things are calculated...the manufacturers don't all do it the same way.

The new SAE tow rating standard should make things a bit more coherent. All the manufacturers have played around with capacities in the past. Toyota adopted the new standard this year and, if I recall correctly, the US manufacturers do it for model year 2013.

[dorayme]

I think you should go with the TT that you believe will be the most comfortable for how you will use it both now and in 10 years. If you spend time indoors somewhat, the kids bring friends, or as stated you are staying local I would say go with the 29BHQ. The layout and roomier feel will be appreciated. If you are mostly using the TT for sleeping and meals, you go farther distances, or probably won't bring any friends, the 28BHS would possibly be a better fit.
We went with a larger TT/layout and haven't for one moment regretted it. It has meant more comfort, when we are trying to relax. Before our curent TT we had a 1980 Avion. It was close in size in the length, but had no slides so it had a submarine feeling as Rocky described it. The configuration quickly started to feel cramped as the kids got larger. Negotiating from one end to the other was unpleasant and neither Rocky or I are large people.
A method I believe works for seeing if the TT is right for you is to go through a pretend day in it. Try the beds, bathroom schedules, prepping meals, hooking up utilities, etc. Basically, moving around inside and outside of the TT. See if it feels homey and natural or not. If you have to do something special to get through the day, depending on whether or not you like it, it may be a poor fit for you!
Best of luck!

[Rustic Eagle]

SuperAir,

Just some open thoughts;

Originally Posted by SuperAir

snip.......Nevertheless, payload capacity is absolutely the issue with 1/2 tons as most newer ones are strong enough to drag around 8-9k lbs but may not be strong enough to take the tongue weight.

I couldn't agree more, and unfortunately many folks with 1/2 tons are towing over their TV's GVWR for this very reason, and don't realize it.

Originally Posted by SuperAir

snip...... So, even though it's the rule of thumb, I doubt most folks are putting 15% on the tongue if they're using a WDH (...especially since another common rule of thumb is a WDH will typically be set up to transfer 20% to the trailer in order to get a similar amount of weight on the front axle of the truck). I really have no way of knowing how much will remain on the, but I question 15% as a good estimate......snip

For clarification, it should be noted that the actual TT tongue weight load placed on the hitch ball never changes, with or without the WDH. The 20% (approx.) of the tongue weight value distributed to the TT axles originates from weight removed from the TV's rear axle, as is the weight returned (distributed) to the TV's front axle. I offer this clarification in the event someone may unknowingly use an under rated TV receiver or WDH assuming that their actual tongue weight will decrease.

Originally Posted by SuperAir

snip.....The new SAE tow rating standard should make things a bit more coherent.....snip

I hope so...., it will be nice to have pertinent data generated by the automotive manufactures originating from the same "rule book".

SuperAir, your informative post also brings to mind.....;

As we all know, RV manufactures and WDH manufacturer's established years ago the recommendation that tongue weights should be 10% to 15% of the gross TT weight. What many folks have found when towing the heavier and longer TT's, a 13% to 15% range provides for enhanced handling characteristics when towing in ideal, and more importantly under less than ideal road/weather conditions.

I would bet that most folks towing a TT, HTT, etc., have never visited a CAT scale, or used a Sherline scale to confirm their loaded tongue weights. Just one visit to a CAT scale will provide a wealth of important data confirming the towing integrity of any TV/TT combination.

Bob

[SuperAir]

Originally Posted by Rustic Eagle

For clarification, it should be noted that the actual TT tongue weight load placed on the hitch ball never changes, with or without the WDH. The 20% (approx.) of the tongue weight value distributed to the TT axles originates from weight removed from the TV's rear axle, as is the weight returned (distributed) to the TV's front axle. I offer this clarification in the event someone may unknowingly use an under rated TV receiver or WDH assuming that their actual tongue weight will decrease.

Bob-I appreciate your input...and your clarification. After I clicked to post earlier, I thought about the very issue you clarified and that I was a bit fast and loose wrt how I used the term "tongue weight."

[NH 2500HD]

I own a 29QBH and had it weighed.

Total trailer weight is 7780lbs with all out junk inside but NO water. 86 gallon fresh tank will add A LOT of weight.

900lbs of tongue weight with 2 full propane bottles.