Overland Journal Trailer Comparison

[Nullifier]

Having just completed a trip into the Sierras I'm finding that a 4cyl Toyota towing a Campa with only needing just a little more motor onthe highway a little hard to believe. Not dissing Toyotas, the Campa or you personally but here is the deal.

There were 4 Jeeps on this trip...my 98TJ with a built 4.0, another 98TJ with a Hesco 4.5 stroker, a 00 TJ with a Hemi conversion and an older CJ with a rebuilt and injected 258. All 4 Jeeps were towing various trailers in the 1500-1800lb range and all 4 Jeeps got hot engines and trannys after making the initial ascent up 9 mile canyon.

Maybe I should be dissing Jeeps but then, there is still that tiny little weight factor out there. I still think most folks are deluding themselves about the weight of trailers and the impact of that weight on their rig. While I understand the Campa philosophy, I'm not seeing it jive with smaller rigs.

I hear what you are saying but there are several factors. First driving a jeep you "feel" it more due to the short wheel base as well as the coil spring rear suspension. Coils just do not support weight like leafs so the slightest push or pull from the Campa would tend to throw your TJ around alot more then my tacoma. My tacoma has a full OME suspension and the rear leaf pack has an extra leaf per side added for heavy wieght. This obviously makes a big difference in how the dynamic tongue wieght impacts the tow vehicle. I am also running 4.88 gears on 33' tires so the added power found by my gearing also helps. At no time did I ever feel bogged down by the trialer. Only one time did I actually have to stop on a hill climb but that was due to a poor gear selection. Heck I even pulled one to the top of the hill just outside of El Golfo where they do the hill climb races. I had no issue on the beaches soft sand, crawling over rocks, a muddy canyon, or running the graded gravel roads.

I "felt" it most on the highway in 5th gear. Now did I move as fast on the trial as I would without a trailer...no. Did I get left in the dust by Campa's Highly modified supercharged tj or Outsiders Duramax... on the highway they could have easily left me but on the trail no.

Now I do tow trailers with my job everyday so possibly that also has an impact on my lack of sensativity of a trailer behind me but in all honesty if I owned a Campa the only mod I would consider is adding a supercharger to get me up to the V-6 power range for highway driving i.e. passing power and highway speed long steep uphills without slowing down.

Also in reguard to your "hot" vehicles. Were you using auto or manual trans? What about aftermarket skid plates that restrict air flow? Outsiders duramax was getting a hot auto tranny while towing the Campa in teh sand. However Chris Cole of Campa and I both use an infrared thermometer to check temps of Tranny, axles, hubs etc and although when I was pulling the trailer hard I did get an elevated read but nothing I considered "hot"

Bottom line the Jeep TJ is a great vehicle. They do what they were designed to do very well. However you are correct that they need help to haul a really heavy load since that was not really ever a part of the Jeeps design perameter. They are not Trucks and although they come with a bigger motor, the rest of the overall design is at a disadvantage when it comes to towing, especially heavy trailers.

I still stand by what I say give me a tacoma with a V-6 and an OME suspension and I will be happy on the trail, highway or anywhere.

 

[mrchips]

I PULLED MY CHASER THROUGH MILLER JEEP TRAIL, AND IT WAS NO PROBLEM WHAT SO EVER, IT WAS BETTER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE,



http://picasaweb.google.com/christaoetjen/MillerJune2008/photo#5218540519875221874

 

[robert j. yates]

I understand it was an apples to oranges kind of test and that a users conditions will vary but there is some information here in this post that is useful and I think maybe should have been mentioned in the article.

Pulling them all during the test with Scotts Jeep with 5.29 gears I can offer a bit of an opinion.

AS tested the campa is seriously heavy. Not only did I notice it back there, but it was a serious weight to have coming behind you down a hill.

On the up hills the jeeps gearing pulled it up just fine, but at all times it was really very completely noticeable.

As for Nullifiers comment on hot....3 of us with TJ's removed our engine skids befor the trip so other than side, front and gas tank skid armor, there was nothing impeding airflow underneath the TJ's.

I do recognize the comment on the design parameters of the TJ which is what got me started on the weight issue and one that I am very sensitive to due to towing my Horizon. The Campa is being show towed by a TJ. While the TJ is modified to put out more power, it is most likely over its weight rating with that trailer. I suspect with my Horizon, I am very very close to doing the same.

 

[Nullifier]

The Campa is being show towed by a TJ. While the TJ is modified to put out more power, it is most likely over its weight rating with that trailer. I suspect with my Horizon, I am very very close to doing the same.

That campa jeep is no slouch. I do not think is there is one part of that jeeps drive train that is stock. I forget the exact lift but it has d-60 axles, custom coils, king shocks 35" bfg's and I believe rear air bags. no doubt a sleeper. Most people walking buy would think nice jeep on 35's However it is what is under it that sets it appart. I would not compare that jeep to anything else.

 

[Nullifier]

could it be aerodynamics playing that big of a difference between the yotas and jeeps?

I doubt it since they are both bricks in the aero dynamics arena.

 

[Nullifier]

Ok so I want to throw something out there without getting anyone upset so keep in mind as I say this that I think O.J. is a great publication but I think has caused a bit of confusion in a particular area of the trailer test.

The issue is on the trailer wieghts Now I do not have a reference on all the trialers however the 2 in question are the 2 that everyone is discussing the Campa and the A.T. units.

In the articles it states a Campa wieght of over 3000#s. The chaser is listed at 700#s. Now the things to keep in mid here is that A the Campa unit is a fully loaded wieght not a dry wieght. That trailer was hauling 40 gallons water, 10 gallons gas, gear, etc. Not to mention Chris's personal trailer features 3 heavy hutchinson 2 piece rims with run flats. As well as 2 optional hi lift jacks the unit I used just had stailness poles that dropped down and were light.

And then B the listed wieght of the A.T. unit is just the basic shell. According to the web site spec which matches the magazines the 700# dry wieght on the chaser. The 700#s though would not even include the wheels and tires. So there is no acurate kitted out ready to hit the trail wieght.

I bet that if a properly kitted out horizon and Campa were wieghed including, tents, batteries, fridges, watertanks full, gas tanks full etc. that they would be relatively close. Probably no more then 300 #'s And most of that would be the Campas additional spare and the additional 21 gallons of water

There is no arguing that the A.T. unit is lighter. However the magazine portrays a wieght difference of over 2000#'s and that is not any where near accurate.

now for an accurate comparison you would have to use a horizon unit which has a dry wieght of 1100 according to A.T. website. My guess is that if you added the options that would make the horizon a semi comparable unit the wieght would be pretty close especially since the majority of the trailers will get the following options.

Tent
Fridge
Fidge rack
transit cover
12v system
Brakes
kitchen
(2) 5 gallon gas cans full
19 gal water tank full
water pump
led lighting
awning
nose box
multi axis coupler
shower system

There is over 1000#s right here

Now in a nut shell both units are very well made and over all very well documented in the magazine. I just want to clarify that the wieght descriptions are not accurate since all the trailers were not wieghed as tested and that is what we really need. Maybe we can get the A.T. guys to take a loaded horizon tot he scale and give us the real world wieght.

On a side note I see the Kamparoo is listed at 845#'s I just find it hard to belive that hte trialer is tha light as it is featured in the magazine. I mean the 16 gallons of water is 133.6 lbs!

:lurk:

 

[jim65wagon]

OK, first of all; Thanks to everyone involved with the article - It was really well thought out and written and was full of great info.

Second; it reaffirmed my wifes wish-list Campa trailer. Someday... hopefully the Tundra won't be too worn out by then to tow one around the US.

Third, everyone with a trailer; Campa, AT, KK, Conquerer, etc; go out, load your trailer for a 5-day trip, tow it to the nearest set of scales, weigh it and report back here ASAP... Thank you

 

[ExpoMike]

On a side note I see the Kamparoo is listed at 845#'s I just find it hard to belive that hte trialer is tha light as it is featured in the magazine. I mean the 16 gallons of water is 133.6 lbs!

:lurk:

I agree about the weight listed (since it was my Kamparoo in the test and XJ). These weights are manufacture listed dry weights, I believe without options. I haven't dragged mine to a scale yet but I know loaded up for a trip, it comes in about the 1400# range or under. This trailer is light, which was one of the big selling points to us. I was a little surprised to not have had a documented weight test, in a ready to go configuration.

I can believe the Kamparoo's 845# dry weight, without options, base model. One of the biggest things to remember on this unit is food supplies don't go into it. It is just camp gear so the weight tends to stay the same. Food and coolers are in the tow rig. One of the few downfalls but for us, not a big deal.

I am excited to see the Adventure Trailers version since they will have an on board fridge setup with the kitchen. That will be nice.

 

[elcoyote]

Ok so I want to throw something out there without getting anyone upset so keep in mind as I say this that I think O.J. is a great publication but I think has caused a bit of confusion in a particular area of the trailer test.

The issue is on the trailer wieghts Now I do not have a reference on all the trialers however the 2 in question are the 2 that everyone is discussing the Campa and the A.T. units.

In the articles it states a Campa wieght of over 3000#s. The chaser is listed at 700#s. Now the things to keep in mid here is that A the Campa unit is a fully loaded wieght not a dry wieght. That trailer was hauling 40 gallons water, 10 gallons gas, gear, etc. Not to mention Chris's personal trailer features 3 heavy hutchinson 2 piece rims with run flats. As well as 2 optional hi lift jacks the unit I used just had stailness poles that dropped down and were light.

And then B the listed wieght of the A.T. unit is just the basic shell. According to the web site spec which matches the magazines the 700# dry wieght on the chaser. The 700#s though would not even include the wheels and tires. So there is no acurate kitted out ready to hit the trail wieght.

I bet that if a properly kitted out horizon and Campa were wieghed including, tents, batteries, fridges, watertanks full, gas tanks full etc. that they would be relatively close. Probably no more then 300 #'s And most of that would be the Campas additional spare and the additional 21 gallons of water

There is no arguing that the A.T. unit is lighter. However the magazine portrays a wieght difference of over 2000#'s and that is not any where near accurate.

now for an accurate comparison you would have to use a horizon unit which has a dry wieght of 1100 according to A.T. website. My guess is that if you added the options that would make the horizon a semi comparable unit the wieght would be pretty close especially since the majority of the trailers will get the following options.

Tent
Fridge
Fidge rack
transit cover
12v system
Brakes
kitchen
(2) 5 gallon gas cans full
19 gal water tank full
water pump
led lighting
awning
nose box
multi axis coupler
shower system

There is over 1000#s right here

Now in a nut shell both units are very well made and over all very well documented in the magazine. I just want to clarify that the wieght descriptions are not accurate since all the trailers were not wieghed as tested and that is what we really need. Maybe we can get the A.T. guys to take a loaded horizon tot he scale and give us the real world wieght.

On a side note I see the Kamparoo is listed at 845#'s I just find it hard to belive that hte trialer is tha light as it is featured in the magazine. I mean the 16 gallons of water is 133.6 lbs!

:lurk:

In the table on page 54 the Chaser is listed as 1100 lbs as equipped and the Horizon as 1500 lbs as equipped.

 

[robert j. yates]

That campa jeep is no slouch. I do not think is there is one part of that jeeps drive train that is stock. I forget the exact lift but it has d-60 axles, custom coils, king shocks 35" bfg's and I believe rear air bags. no doubt a sleeper. Most people walking buy would think nice jeep on 35's However it is what is under it that sets it appart. I would not compare that jeep to anything else.

I'm really not talking about any one trailer but rather weight. My rig being highly modified as well from the engine to the frame and the suspension to the axles is no slouch either and it is still affected by the weight of my trailer. You are however, doing an OK job of helping me make my point by posting that information

 

[campausa]

Thanks for a great OJ article

We thoroughly enjoyed taking our Campa to Arizona and meeting with the OJ test crew. You guys did a great job and it was a pleasure meeting all those involved. Thanks for posting the pictures too. Thanks for a great time

It seems there is a great discussion about weight. We actually did weigh my Campa when fully loaded - water (40 gallons), fuel (10 gallons), gear, etc. (except for food and beverages [lots of beverages] which we bought in Arizona) and the weight was 3100 lbs - fully loaded. My unit has a great deal of gear on it including Honda generator, Pull Pall, two high-lift jacks, pelican cases, water purification system, two propane tanks, 2X5 gallon jerry cans, axe, shovel, compressor and tank, etc. etc. and the list goes on. This is how I prefer to travel and I have built my vehicle to be able to pull it quite comfortably.

I think the key is one of personal choice - if you want to take a lot of gear, supplies and equipment, regardless of where you elect to travel, then you are going to require a trailer capable of carrying a significant load and you will require a vehicle capable of safely towing that load. Personally, I prefer to "have it and not need it, than need it and not have it". I also prefer to have far more capacity than I need - for example my Campa has a 6000# axel with 12" x2" electric brakes and I seldom load it more than 3500#'s - but then that is my choice.

Having said that, the point of the manufacturer's suggested "dry weight" of a trailer needs to be properly understood. On the one side, some manufacturers will suggest a dry weight of a trailer that is bare bones and even without wheels and tires, while on the other hand some manufacturers will suggest a dry weight of a unit that has the options included, wheels, including spare etc. I think this is plain enough to appreciate. Therefore comparing manufacturers stated dry weights can be misleading and a cause for confusion. The important thing to understand is what the "dry weight" actually includes and then make comparisons.

In actual fact, although the overall weight of a trailer is important to consider, far more important in off-road conditions is the tongue weight of the trailer. This brings the point of engineered weight distribution to establish a tongue weight that does not impede off-road traction and performance regardless of how heavy the overall weight of the trailer is. Usually you would want to have tongue weight expressed as a % of the gross trailer weight so you have an idea of the maximum anticipated tongue weight should you elect to load your trailer to the max. You can then determine if your vehicle will handle that tongue weight and still articulate properly off-road.

A vehicle with a sagging rear suspension due to the tongue weight overloading the rear suspension while unloading the front suspension is a really bad thing - especially off-road where traction is required to pull the trailer through obstacles. By design off-road suspension systems are usually on the soft side and allow significant travel - for obvious reasons. This may not be the best scenario for towing a trailer.

It's great to see these discussions as I think it helps us all be better equiped and better prepared for our respective adventures. Thanks again. Chris and Anne from Campa

 

[Martyn]

Chris

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

To add to what you said, and be a little more specific, a trailer's tongue weight should be between 10% - 15% of the total trailer weight.

Having less tongue weigh can cause trailer sway.

 

[campausa]

Tongue weight

Martyn,

You are absolutely right - particularly for trailers that are used on the road and driven at high speed. I think though for trailers designed for off-road travel I prefer to see the tongue weight not greater than 10% of the gross trailer weight. I actually have mine at 7% when it is loaded at 3000lbs. Off-road trailers also generally tend to have larger wheels and also with larger profile tires and that can contribute to sway too. Generally off-road trailers should not typically be driven at speeds that purpose built on-road trailers can safely travel at.

The higher center of mass also poses an interesting engineering challenge as does the longitudinal location of the center of mass. The further forward the center of mass the greater the tongue weight. On that note, pick-ups are generally more frequently used to tow trailers on the road and they have the suspension suited to take a higher tongue weight [because they are built for a large payload] without the typical sag so often seen on SUV's and vehicles with off-road suspension systems.

Although I recognize the benefits of stability of a tongue weight of 10 - 15% of the gross trailer weight, the higher the tongue weight the worse it is for slower speed off-road travel, especially where articulation is required. I do believe the rule of thumb you correctly quote is more appropriate for on-road trailers typically towed by trucks with the appropriate suspension.

However for off-road applications I think we should attempt to build our trailers with a lower relative tongue weight. I prefer the compromise of keeping tongue weight down [ideally between 7% and 10%] and mitigate possible sway by using anti-sway bars that I have found really help at high speeds.

The last item is that off-road tow couplers are great for off-road use in that they afford significantly greater articulation than couplers designed used for on road trailers. Our off-road couplers are another factor that help us off-road though require perhaps closer attention while driving on road especially at high speeds (80 mph plus)

New Zealand and Australia have very strict laws governing speeds of vehicles towing trailers {and as you know off-road trailers abound in Australia} and unlike some states here in the US that seem only to post speed restrictions for trailers, the speed restrictions in Australia and New Zealand are enforced with vigor so beware when towing trailers there. Good night.

 

[BajaTaco]

I'm a little late jumping in here. First off, thank you so much Mike for bringing your XJ and Kamparoo out to AZ for our testing session. It was a real pleasure to meet you and you offered a huge insight to the Kamparoo product from an owner/overlander perspective. That was great!

Thanks to everyone who came out and participated. This was my favorite equipment review for Overland Journal so far. It's good to see some impressions and feedback about the article here. And it's very cool to see the manufacturer's themselves getting in on the discussion. As with most of my equipment review articles, I always seem to compile way more data and editorial (and photos) than the page-count can contain. I could have easily made the article twice as long (or probably three or four times) but that would not make for very good balance in the publication. I tried to pack a lot of info into the 17 pages I had. My goal was to offer a well-rounded view to spark further investigation by the reader. I think Martyn summed it up nicely with the paraphrase from Churchill

The Campa is certainly very cool and I enjoyed reading about it but the review really did not speak much to how it towed with either the Campa Jeep or the JK that was on hand and that to me was a fundemental issue when I was considering a trailer.

To quote the conclusion page of the article. . . "The heft of the Campa fully loaded for a trip could be felt behind the Jeep, but not as much as we feared. The well-balanced components, low tongue weight, and wide track kept it (and the Jeep) very stable."

The factor of weight is a basic consideration for a trailer that will vary among owners. My goal was to list the weights of the trailers and allow people to decide for themselves what may or may not be suitable for their own vehicle. I pretty much agree with Tim's assessment of the Campa as we towed it through the dirt test course. We definitely knew it was there, but it wasn't difficult to pull, and it was stable. As for pulling it up steep grades on the highway, it will depend on the tow vehicle as to the performance achieved. The article was meant to be more about the trailers themselves, and not so much about tow vehicle performance or any tutorial on towing.

Thanks to Jeff for mentioning the Conquerer, KK, etc. Yes, I wanted to restrict the review to trailers that were easily obtained here in North America.

Nullifier, thanks for the comments regarding the listed weights. As Mario pointed out, I did list the weight in the specs table on page 54, and they are listed as "dry weight" and "as tested". The weights for the Adventure Trailers in the article are the base weights plus the equipment they had on them. Regarding the Campa, I'm not sure to what level various fluids/fuels may have been present in their containers, so my apologies to Campa if the number listed does not reflect the weights of empty containers. Looking back on my notes, I show the Campa base model dry weight as 1,200 lbs. with another 800-900 lbs. added for the kit. As Chris mentioned, the unit on hand for the test was really decked out with a lot of options. The weight of the Kamparoo includes the kitchen option.

While we're on the subject of technical data, I'd like to announce a correction to the specifications table on page 54: I listed the axle rating for both Adventure Trailer models as 2,500 lbs. That is actually the gross weight rating (GWR) for the trailer, not the axle rating. The correct axle rating is 3,500 lbs. My apologies to Adventure Trailers for the error.

To see the testing and evaluative criteria we used, you can visit http://www.overlandjournal.com/testing/ The trailer criteria is listed on the second half of the page.

If there's anything else I missed in this thread (that I should address), please let me know. Thanks!