November 21, 2014, 11:56:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2011 StarCraft EXP 237  (Read 10712 times)
baldy
Chocks-a-lot
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 269



« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2011, 08:10:10 AM »

Looked at a Roo 23SS today. Doesn't even compare, it would have to be at least $5000 less the then Starcraft for me to even consider it. I'm ruined now after getting my heart set on the 237CKS.

My advice, take it or leave, from experience, compare the specifications of the components in the trailer.  The WOW factor of the interior can be overwhelming and may not allow you to focus on the items that really matter.  Print off the specifications of each trailer and compare them side by side.  Look and the fit and finish, types of fabrics and flooring, construction techniques etc.  These will determine the longevity and resale value.

My parents are on their second Jayco and I don't understand the price difference.  We looked at the Jayco brand when we were looking and decided on the Rockwood based on price.  If you talk fit and finish, I didn't notice the increase in quality that would dictate the price jump.  I also compared the "standard" options and the Roo came with everything that I wanted for $5000 less than the Jayco.  After 63 nights of camping the first season and a couple of minor issues (normal for new mass produced) I would say that the Roo is normal quality.  It is holding up as well as the Jayco that my parents own.

Personally I feel that all interiors in RV's are cheap (except the high end manufacturers).  I have built furniture and cabinets and RV quality is not fine furniture.  I was impressed however that the Roo had pocket screw joinery for the cabinet face frames as compared to the stapled joints of other brands.  Not mortise and tenon but better than staples.  

The Roo's come with higher R value roof and walls.

Just some thoughts....

Time will tell if the decision was the right one though.
Logged

2010 Ford F150 FX4 hitched w/w EQ to a Rockwood 8306SS slowed by Ford IBC!
We and Miss D ('01) w/w the fur kid, 5 year old mutt!!
2010: 63 nights!!
2011: 65 nights!!
2012: 24 and counting
baldy
 Canada
Oz and Us
PUX is my life
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28149


Burlington, Ontario, Canada


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2011, 08:17:42 AM »

I'm just looking at the floorplan of the 2011 and it does look much more like the 237CKS.

The Roo 23SS is not only much lighter than the Starcraft 237CKS but more importantly has a significantly lower unloaded tongue weight of just 458 lbs which is much more realistic for this size of trailer and therefore makes this trailer far more suitable for towing with pretty well any current 1/2 ton vehicle.
Logged

Oz Mods Gallery

'14 Freedom Express 192RBS / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'03 Fleetwood Yuma / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'08 KZ Spree 240BH-LX / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'07 RVision TrailCruiser C21RBH / '06 Silverado 4x4
2000 Fleetwood Santa Fe / '98 Explorer 4x4
'98 Jayco Eagle 10UD / '94 Caravan
'69 Coleman CT380 / '65 Impala

"If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy!"
yorkgm
Handle Cranker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2011, 11:09:14 AM »

I tow a 23J with a 2009 Tundra with the tow package and the 5.7l V8 with no issues at all.  I have a reese dual cam with 1000lbs bars, this set up is very stable.

If you look at the floor plan, all the storage is in the rear of the camper.  The tanks start at the axles, fresh water then gray then black.  now, loading for a trip will remove weight from the tongue, as will anything in the tanks.  could this be the reason for the high dry TW?
Logged
bikendan
Back-er-in-er
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2197


Marin Redwoods "Redwoods Roo"


« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2011, 03:33:59 PM »

well, if you want to bathe a baby/toddler, then yes, the Starcraft/Jayco does have the deeper shower pan. in fact, it has a tub faucet.

but since it's just the two of us, that isn't a selling point. in fact, at our age, it could be a tripping hazard!! Shocked
also, for us, we prefer the non-fastened canvas because we like to use sheets/blankets. i stand outside and help make the bed while the DW is on the inside. having the canvas unattached makes this job go very quickly.

all these floorplans have pros and cons. the 237CKS has a lot of great features that i've been impressed with. it also has some negatives, such as its tongue and trailer weight.

Logged

Dan-Firefighter
Shawn-Musician/Entrepreneur
Zoe-The Golden Fetching Machine(RIP)
Hybrid Orange 2007 Roo 23SS
Chevrolet 2007 Avalanche
California Napa, Cal.
Washington Camano Island, Wa.
Oz and Us
PUX is my life
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28149


Burlington, Ontario, Canada


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2011, 03:35:53 PM »

I tow a 23J with a 2009 Tundra with the tow package and the 5.7l V8 with no issues at all.  I have a reese dual cam with 1000lbs bars, this set up is very stable.

I'm sure with the grunt under the hood your 5.7L provides that's no doubt the case but that's not the issue ... it's whether one might be exceeding one or several of a 1/2 ton truck's various ratings when towing a trailer with such a high tongue weight while also accommodating the weight of all people and cargo in the truck.  There's only one way to know for sure and that's to go weigh the truck with a full tank of gas and all hitch equipment mounted ... once we do we then have it's real world curb weight, not some fanciful number printed in a glossy brochure, and by subtracting that number from the truck's GCWR and GVWR we can then determine how much additional weight the truck can safely deal with, including that of a fully loaded trailer, and how much real world payload capacity we have remaining to account for the weight of all people and cargo in the truck, plus any tongue weight transferred to the truck from the trailer.  Until we do this we're just guessing whether it's a safe towing combination that remains within all the various specifications for that vehicle, regardless of how well the truck may otherwise seem to tow.

Quote
If you look at the floor plan, all the storage is in the rear of the camper.  The tanks start at the axles, fresh water then gray then black.  now, loading for a trip will remove weight from the tongue, as will anything in the tanks.  could this be the reason for the high dry TW?

Perhaps.  My own 24' Spree has a similar tank arrangement with the fresh water tank being located directly over the axles as it's the one the manufacturer would consider to most likely have water in it when the trailer is under tow.  Aft of the axle and next to the FW tank is the grey water tank ... I'd have preferred it if that was where the BW tank was located as I often travel with content in the BW tank but rarely with much of any in the GW tank.  However, the BW tank is located at the rear because that's where the (bathroom) toilet is located.  Despite this, the reason I'm able to make this work for me is that I invested in a Sherline Tongue Weight Scale with which I can periodically check my trailer's gross tongue weight and thereby ensure it remains within an acceptable range no matter what content may be in my three tanks, especially the BW tank.  Although towing with content in the FW tank obviously increases my trailer's GVW the tongue weight scale confirms it doesn't affect the trailer's front to rear weight bias because the tank is centered over the axles.  The GW tank is a non-issue so that leaves the BW tank, so when I do travel with black water in the tank the trailer's GVW not only increases but so too does the front to rear weight bias change, with more weight shifting aft of the axle.  Unloading the tongue in this manner would normally be considered a bad thing so the trick is to manage this weight shift, which I do by carrying most of my heavy items including the spare tire in the trailer's front storage compartment and thereby increasing it's gross tongue weight beyond what it would otherwise be.  Through a lot of experimentation and using my tongue weight scale to confirm the results I've managed to achieve a 13.6% average ratio which has proven to be just about ideal as it results in a well mannered towing combination that allows for both a temporary increase or decrease in gross tongue weight while also remaining well within the recommended range of gross tongue to gross trailer weight.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 03:39:42 PM by Oz and Us » Logged

Oz Mods Gallery

'14 Freedom Express 192RBS / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'03 Fleetwood Yuma / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'08 KZ Spree 240BH-LX / '05 Avalanche 4x2
'07 RVision TrailCruiser C21RBH / '06 Silverado 4x4
2000 Fleetwood Santa Fe / '98 Explorer 4x4
'98 Jayco Eagle 10UD / '94 Caravan
'69 Coleman CT380 / '65 Impala

"If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy!"
Pais
Wheel Chocker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2011, 03:28:44 PM »

Oz's advice is sound.  Our dealership had both the Roo and the Starcraft.  We fell in love with layout of the Starcraft and the easy of the tents.  I'm still comfortable in the decision we made but the weight problem is a legitimate concern.  My 2005 Tundra just didn't have what this thing really needed.  I never felt safe driving it.  All of the weight ratings were right at the max.

Tundra w/ Starcraft 237cks
https://picasaweb.google.com/joshua.leone/HybridTrailerStuff02#5571428920671577170

We eventually decided to bail on the Tundra (I miss my little monster truck) and went with a Nissan Armada.  It is worlds apart for the quality of towing.  The auto leveling rear springs level off the trailer nicely and it has a huge amount of power. 

Armada w/ Starcraft 237cks
https://picasaweb.google.com/joshua.leone/HybridTrailerStuff02#5571428861207216290

I wouldn't at all be disappointed in going the Roo route when you are deciding between these two models.  I still think they are both great and the Roo is much better suited if you have any weight concerns at all.
Logged

2011 Starcraft Travel Star 237CKS
Was 2005 Toyota Tundra Quad Cab, 6" lift
Now 2010 Nissan Armada Platinum
yorkgm
Handle Cranker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2011, 12:27:48 PM »

No doubt that the 05 Tundra had problems.  The 6" lift, larger tires, and a max tow rating of about 6800lbs it should struggle pulling a 6500lb camper. 

Logged
Pais
Wheel Chocker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2011, 12:31:54 PM »

Yup, the math was sketchy.  The truck wasn't purchased for the purpose of towing.  I wouldn't have actually bought if I ever thought I was going to look into a trailer down the road that had to fit a family of four (which didn't exist at the time.)

It was an awesome truck at everything else though Smiley
Logged

2011 Starcraft Travel Star 237CKS
Was 2005 Toyota Tundra Quad Cab, 6" lift
Now 2010 Nissan Armada Platinum
CampingBuckeye
Wheel Chocker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2011, 05:19:53 PM »

Just purchased a new 23ss Roo yesterday!  To be honest, we were set to purchase the 23J.  I just could not justify the cost difference.  I also was concerned with the hitch weight.  My 03 Expedition has a hitch rating of 885.  I was just not confortable with pulling the 23J.  I didn't want to concern myself with every ounce I put in it.  As soon as, I told my local dealer he was not competitive with my RVW quote he matched it to the dollar.  Funny thing was, I did not tell him what my quote was from RVW.  He knew to the dollar before I said anymore.
Logged

2011 Roo 23ss
2004 Starcraft Centennial
2003 Expedition
bikendan
Back-er-in-er
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2197


Marin Redwoods "Redwoods Roo"


« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2011, 06:35:53 PM »

Just purchased a new 23ss Roo yesterday!  To be honest, we were set to purchase the 23J.  I just could not justify the cost difference.  I also was concerned with the hitch weight.  My 03 Expedition has a hitch rating of 885.  I was just not confortable with pulling the 23J.  I didn't want to concern myself with every ounce I put in it.  As soon as, I told my local dealer he was not competitive with my RVW quote he matched it to the dollar.  Funny thing was, I did not tell him what my quote was from RVW.  He knew to the dollar before I said anymore.

welcome to the "Roo Kroo"!! wish we had been that successful with the 3 local Roo dealers. they all told us that if we wanted RVW prices, we should drive 2200 miles to get it. all 3 basically dared us to do it.
so, we ended up doing that but bought from House of Camping in Chicago and driving back. still saved over $4000 even with adding the trip costs.
Logged

Dan-Firefighter
Shawn-Musician/Entrepreneur
Zoe-The Golden Fetching Machine(RIP)
Hybrid Orange 2007 Roo 23SS
Chevrolet 2007 Avalanche
California Napa, Cal.
Washington Camano Island, Wa.
yorkgm
Handle Cranker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2011, 01:55:30 PM »

Just purchased a new 23ss Roo yesterday!  To be honest, we were set to purchase the 23J.  I just could not justify the cost difference.  I also was concerned with the hitch weight.  My 03 Expedition has a hitch rating of 885.  I was just not confortable with pulling the 23J.  I didn't want to concern myself with every ounce I put in it.  As soon as, I told my local dealer he was not competitive with my RVW quote he matched it to the dollar.  Funny thing was, I did not tell him what my quote was from RVW.  He knew to the dollar before I said anymore.

Congrats on the new camper.  We looked at this model but chose the Jayco 23J for a couple reasons, none of which were price.  If I remember correctly they were about the same price.

1. The Jayco sat much higher off the ground
2. we really liked the u-shape dinette.

I think if Jayco didn't have a similar layout we would have bought the Roo.
Logged
rdwallace47
Wheel Chocker
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2012, 04:54:47 PM »

is anyone concerned about the tire size. i believe the Jayco is only 13 inches while the Starcraft is 14.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  




Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC