Hornnumb2
Baytown, TX
Senior Member
Joined: 07/22/2005
View Profile
 Offline
|
I have the 233 but with the only outside accessible storage being the front pass through, it can get tongue heavy real quick. Just something to keep in mind if tow vehicle is marginal.
|
mountainkowboy
Socal/NE Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 09/20/2004
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
I also just looked at the Lance trailers...they are a true 4 season unit as is there cabovers. A new wrinkle
Chuck & Ruth with 4-legged Molly
2007 Tiffin Allegro 30DA
2011 Ford Ranger
1987 HD FLHTP
|
mountainkowboy
Socal/NE Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 09/20/2004
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
WOW are the Lance units EXPENSIVE!!!! For us and what we will use it for there not worth the 20K more.
|
TheHound
Toronto
Full Member
Joined: 08/31/2017
View Profile
Offline
|
mountainkowboy wrote:WOW are the Lance units EXPENSIVE!!!! For us and what we will use it for there not worth the 20K more.
Yeah, I noticed that too. A little too rich for this guy. I just saw a new model from Palomino that is intriguing as well. Very similar to the 192rbs as it also has the full size queen but I like the bigger tank capacity among a few other features. It has been added to my short list for further research.
http://www.palominorv.com/product-detail........LineID=372&Image=15371&ModelID=3926#Main
|
babock
Los Angeles, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Hornnumb2 wrote:I have the 233 but with the only outside accessible storage being the front pass through, it can get tongue heavy real quick. Just something to keep in mind if tow vehicle is marginal. I have the 233 as well. We were looking at the 192 but decided on the 233 as it has way more room with both slides out. Disadvantage is that it is also quite heavy.
Not sure if you knew this but 2018 is the last year for the 233.
One thing that the 192 and 233 share is having the converter in the back of the trailer about as far away from the batteries that is possible. One of my first mods is yanking the converter and mounting a new one in the front pass through storage area. Keep voltage drops to a minimum to allow batteries to charge as fast as possible.
|
|
|
SoundGuy
S Ontario
Senior Member
Joined: 02/11/2015
View Profile
|
JMO, but downsides to the Palomino are a low GVWR and high UVW which leads to a rather slim CCC, the awning is only 12' and is a Carefree of Colorado, and the coupler to bumper length is 2' longer than the FE 192RBS. For those looking for an alternative to the 192RBS another model might be the Starcraft Launch 21FBS ... friends of ours have one that they're quite happy with, 'though it too has a pretty short Carefree awning and a CCC similar to the Palomino.
* This post was
edited 12/01/17 09:07pm by SoundGuy *
|
SoundGuy
S Ontario
Senior Member
Joined: 02/11/2015
View Profile
|
Hornnumb2 wrote:I have the 233 but with the only outside accessible storage being the front pass through, it can get tongue heavy real quick. Just something to keep in mind if tow vehicle is marginal.
babock wrote:I have the 233 as well. We were looking at the 192 but decided on the 233 as it has way more room with both slides out. Disadvantage is that it is also quite heavy.
Along with really limited interior access with both slides in ... perhaps not an issue for some but a definite non-starter for us as we often use our trailer without the slide deployed but insist on full interior access.
babock wrote:One thing that the 192 and 233 share is having the converter in the back of the trailer about as far away from the batteries that is possible. One of my first mods is yanking the converter and mounting a new one in the front pass through storage area. Keep voltage drops to a minimum to allow batteries to charge as fast as possible.
Yeah I did the same with our 192RBS, 'though I left the stock WFCO where it is, simply turned it off, and mounted a CTEK charger in the front pass through storage compartment.
|
babock
Los Angeles, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Yep definitely trade offs. We were willing to go 2.5' longer to get a little bigger area inside. What is nice though is that it's still a smidge shorter than 25' which was our limit and the size of most of the smallest camp sites.
I saw your new mount for the fresh water tank. The 233 has a couple crossbars which I think need to be changed out to thicker metal bars.
|
SoundGuy
S Ontario
Senior Member
Joined: 02/11/2015
View Profile
|
babock wrote:Yep definitely trade offs. We were willing to go 2.5' longer to get a little bigger area inside. What is nice though is that it's still a smidge shorter than 25' which was our limit and the size of most of the smallest camp sites.
Our previous K-Z Spree 240BH-LX was 26' 9" coupler to bumper which I always felt was just a touch too long so although I never had any issues parking it wherever we went a couple of feet shorter would have been just about perfect. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile") In the Freedom Express series we also really like the 231RBS except it's just as long as our Spree was ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/frown.gif "frown") ... had it been about the length of your of your 233RBS we'd have been really tempted to move up. Coachmen now has the new non-slide 204RD model in the lineup that's under 25' but I fear we've been spoiled by the slide in our 192RBS which really opens up the floor space even though it's just a shallow sofa slide. As it is, we think we'll stick with the 192RBS as it's proven to be "almost perfect" for us. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/wink.gif "wink")
Coachmen Freedom Express Models
|
mountainkowboy
Socal/NE Oregon
Senior Member
Joined: 09/20/2004
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
We started in a 1986 12' Weekender Cab-over camper then upgraded to an Arctic Fox 1140 with a slide. Then a 5er, a Moho, then a Cab-over and a 5er. We ended up using the Camper more than anything else though. We did a 4.5 week 3,250 mile in it, and learned that we don't need a big RV since most of the time we're outdoors...camping. We like solitude and tend to boondock or rural camp for a base camp and go from there. So the 192 is almost perfect for our needs. This was our last rig about mid way into the big trip.
![[image]](http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x121/mountainkowboy/Photo08231325.jpg)
|
|
|
