# Why Is The Cargo Capacity Of The 301Bq So Low?



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

I just realized that the 301BQ has the lowest cargo carrying capacity of ALL of the Outback bumper-pull TT's at 1,040 pounds. What's up with that? The 301 has a GVWR of 8,200 pounds while the 298RE and the 312BH have GVWR of 9,000 pounds. Looking at the GAWR, all three models have the same rating of 4,400 pounds per axle. The tires are the same, but the 298RE has a CCC of 1,615 pounds while the 312BH has a CCC of 1,415 pounds. The 301BQ has a dry weight that's a few hundred pounds less than the 298 or 312, so I don't understand the lower cargo capacity. Am I missing something here?


----------



## outback loft (Sep 22, 2008)

The discontinued 27L actually has the lowest CCC, it was rated at 900 pounds of cargo capacity. I could easily exceed that and am going to change out my axles and spring this winter. I did however scale the TT and it actually weighs less than what they claim, With a full tank of water, full propane, and only 2 group 31 batteries I weigh in at ~6450 pounds. I am under 6000 when I don't have water(which is all the time) My trailer has a GVWR of 7985, so I actually have more of a cargo capacity than they have calculated, but I am still going to change out the axles and springs.


----------



## luverofpeanuts (Mar 9, 2010)

Cargo capacity in both the trailer and the tow vehicle is important to us, since we are bigger people ;-) and we carry so much junk. Our Sydney 290RLS is rated at 2570 ;-)


----------



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

So, any ideas on the low payload for the 301? Is it for real or did Gilligan make a typo?


----------



## willingtonpaul (Apr 16, 2010)

i have wondering this as well, so i am right with you. as you said it seems to be the same chassis, so that most likely is not it. i chalk it up to layout. all i can think of is that the floorplan and holding tank positioning dictates it.


----------



## cdnbayside (Jul 16, 2009)

The 8200 lb GVWR is marketing so that the trailer is half ton towable. All Outbacks from the 210RS to the 312BH have 8800 lb axles and 225/75/15D tires which have a capacity of 2540 lbs each (10,160 total). Really a 301BQ has a cargo capacity of 3000 lbs.


----------



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

cdnbayside said:


> The 8200 lb GVWR is marketing so that the trailer is half ton towable. All Outbacks from the 210RS to the 312BH have 8800 lb axles and 225/75/15D tires which have a capacity of 2540 lbs each (10,160 total). Really a 301BQ has a cargo capacity of 3000 lbs.


I don't think Keystone would take on the DOT with deceptive advertising just to sell a few more trailers. Besides, all of the Outbacks are marketed as being "1/2 ton towable" all the way up to the 312BH, so why not just list the GVWR of the 301BQ as 9,000lb?


----------



## cdnbayside (Jul 16, 2009)

Insomniak said:


> The 8200 lb GVWR is marketing so that the trailer is half ton towable. All Outbacks from the 210RS to the 312BH have 8800 lb axles and 225/75/15D tires which have a capacity of 2540 lbs each (10,160 total). Really a 301BQ has a cargo capacity of 3000 lbs.


I don't think Keystone would take on the DOT with deceptive advertising just to sell a few more trailers. Besides, all of the Outbacks are marketed as being "1/2 ton towable" all the way up to the 312BH, so why not just list the GVWR of the 301BQ as 9,000lb?
[/quote]
Why not list the GVWR of the 210RS as 9000 lbs instead of the 7550 that is on the sticker. Same 8800 lb axles and 10,160 lb tires? I really think it is just marketing. It's OK to under rate the capacity rather than over rate which is a safety issue. They are all really capable of 10,000 lb GVWR.


----------



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

cdnbayside said:


> The 8200 lb GVWR is marketing so that the trailer is half ton towable. All Outbacks from the 210RS to the 312BH have 8800 lb axles and 225/75/15D tires which have a capacity of 2540 lbs each (10,160 total). Really a 301BQ has a cargo capacity of 3000 lbs.


I don't think Keystone would take on the DOT with deceptive advertising just to sell a few more trailers. Besides, all of the Outbacks are marketed as being "1/2 ton towable" all the way up to the 312BH, so why not just list the GVWR of the 301BQ as 9,000lb?
[/quote]
Why not list the GVWR of the 210RS as 9000 lbs instead of the 7550 that is on the sticker. Same 8800 lb axles and 10,160 lb tires? I really think it is just marketing. It's OK to under rate the capacity rather than over rate which is a safety issue. They are all really capable of 10,000 lb GVWR.
[/quote]
Obviously there is something else behind determining the GVWR than just axles and tires. Square or cubic footage? Length of the trailer?


----------



## luverofpeanuts (Mar 9, 2010)

Insomniak said:


> Obviously there is something else behind determining the GVWR than just axles and tires. Square or cubic footage? Length of the trailer?


I do believe manufacturers choice plays a part. I'm not sure how it works in all states. I think, though, that for trucks anyway, cost to title could include a GVWR factor in it.

For instance, on my F250, on the list of options sheet...there is an option for the 10,000# GVWR. I can't remember if it cost anything...but if I didn't have it, my "legal" payload limit would be less, I'm sure.

Any outstanding question to pose to Keystone reps, if there happens to be anytime when some Outbackers might see some.... hmmmmm....


----------



## TwoElkhounds (Mar 11, 2007)

I noticed this as well while we were considering the purchase of the 301BQ. Could it possibly be related to weight distribution in the trailer? Maybe the axle on the slide side is loaded closer to its limits when the trailer is empty, thereby limiting the overall cargo capacity?

DAN


----------



## KTMRacer (Jun 28, 2010)

cdnbayside said:


> The 8200 lb GVWR is marketing so that the trailer is half ton towable. All Outbacks from the 210RS to the 312BH have 8800 lb axles and 225/75/15D tires which have a capacity of 2540 lbs each (10,160 total). Really a 301BQ has a cargo capacity of 3000 lbs.


I don't think Keystone would take on the DOT with deceptive advertising just to sell a few more trailers. Besides, all of the Outbacks are marketed as being "1/2 ton towable" all the way up to the 312BH, so why not just list the GVWR of the 301BQ as 9,000lb?
[/quote]
Why not list the GVWR of the 210RS as 9000 lbs instead of the 7550 that is on the sticker. Same 8800 lb axles and 10,160 lb tires? I really think it is just marketing. It's OK to under rate the capacity rather than over rate which is a safety issue. They are all really capable of 10,000 lb GVWR.
[/quote]

the new (since a few years ago) federal reg's on trailer GVWR are much more strict than the old days. The new reg's limit the max GVWR to the lower of the axle or tire ratings + empty tongue weight spec from the mfg. So for the above example, max GVWR would be 8800 + empty tongue weight, say 800lbs for a total of 9600lbs. Still well above the GVWR spec today.

One interesting comparison is my 295RE vs. the 298RE. the 298 is about 400 lbs heavier, but has the same CCC than the 295! GVWR was changed from 8600 to 9000. basically the same layout and chassis but with a bedroom wardrobe slideout added. Guess keystone didn't wan't to lower the CCC when they upgraded it!


----------



## TwoElkhounds (Mar 11, 2007)

It seems Keystone has updated the weights and measurements table on their website and the 2012 301BQ cargo capacity is now 1822 lbs, which seems to make more sense and is in line with the other Outbacks.

However, the 2011 301BQ is still listed as 1040lbs.

So, I wonder if the previous low cargo capacity was a typo or if something has changed on the newer 301BQ's? I have a 2012 301BQ that I purchased in 2011, wonder what my cargo capacity is? Since it is a 2012, I asssume it must be 1822lbs?

Such a huge difference, you have to wonder why?

DAN


----------



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

I think Gilligan saw my post and got out the Liquid Paper....


----------



## TwoElkhounds (Mar 11, 2007)

Insomniak said:


> I think Gilligan saw my post and got out the Liquid Paper....


Yes, but if it was a typo, why would he leave 2011 at 1040lbs?

DAN


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

what is in print doesn't really mean a whole lot........

It is in your best interest to weigh your unit, and then look at what your wheel/lug rating is, what your tire sidewall rating is and what your axles are rated at. Generally speaking your axles will be rated for more than your wheels and tires ....... in some cases significantly more ..... like 400 - 1000 lbs more.... based on what the axle company is offering......

If you can get weight measurements for the whole unit, each axle, and then each wheel - this will tell you how or where adding weight affects your distribution ............


----------



## Insomniak (Jul 7, 2006)

TwoElkhounds said:


> I think Gilligan saw my post and got out the Liquid Paper....


Yes, but if it was a typo, why would he leave 2011 at 1040lbs?

DAN
[/quote]
I've been crawling around and under the trailer all day as I added two electrical outlets to the living area. I noticed a sticker on the axles that didn't really have any specs on it, but they're "Al-Ko Advantage part #402268". That number doesn't seem to match anything on the Al-Ko web site though. Maybe the specs are somewhere else on the axle and I'm just not looking in the right place?


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

I have dexter axles - my part# is stamped on the Tube and can easily be looked up.........

I tried looking and couldn't find the part# either - It may be a discontinued part# But there has to be a way to find it out............. there must be another number - i would find someone that sells axles near you and give them a call - you can use the approach of wanting to find out the axle rating of what you have as you are looking at possibly getting new ones to replace ..........


----------

