Tongue Jack Upgrade - Maybe

rmbrowder said:
Well, we are a few hours out of sync. I found that if the mounting plate on the ARC jack is removed it is a direct replacement on the existing mounting plate from Campinn. The Campinn jack can be removed by the snap ring, the ARC jack, sans the mounting plate, can be slipped on and the snap ring replaced. The coupler height rises to a max of 19” with a front to back slope of 2”. There may be a difference between the model I used and the model you used. The non-rachet model weighs 25 lbs.
Click to expand...

For anyone thinking of trying this upgrade, I can confirm that the ARK 350 will fit without having to change the mounting hardware. Merely, remove the snap ring and swap them out. Easy peasy. It is a very nice upgrade as the ARK is MUCH more heavy-duty and it has dual wheels for reduced resistance.
 
Here is a photo of it. I believe that the 350 fits the scale of the 560.
A52FV5G.jpg
 
SLO Camper said:
I believe that the 350 fits the scale of the 560
Click to expand...

Yes, I would agree that yours "fits" the trailer better than my beefy boy ARK500.

I considered the 350, but we went with the 500 for a few reasons
1.) Cary recommended we avoid dropping down below the static weight rating of the stock tongue jack due to our heavy camper with the roof top tent on top and 5 humans (2 adults and 3 teenagers no less/and two dogs) sleeping inside the camper. We end up putting a lot of weight on the tongue jack for that reason.
2.) When we made our purchase, the 2 wheel 350 that you have did not exist. There was only a single wheel 350. I hoped the dual wheels would help us avoid the wheel digging into the soft ground by spreading the weight out over more surface area.
3.) I was enamored with the ratcheting ARK tongue jack versions as an easier way to steer and control the camper.

If I had to do it again tomorrow I'd probably still go with the ARK500 and deal with the overkill factor ... but when we grow up and launch the kids and take the roof top tent off the camper, my tune might change.

FWIW, the stock tongue jack's static rating is 1000lb (I believe); the ARK500 is 1100lbs and the ARK350 is 770lb.
 
I am a firm believer in the Fulton jack Randy posted about earlier. Ours now has The Fulton Double Wheel. My issue with the “stock jack” CI supplies with the 560 is it is too light. What changed my mind was the “snap ring” popped out and the tongue of the trailer crashed to the pavement narrowly missing my foot. Took my neighbor and I both to lift the tongue up to block it up…R
 
SLO Camper said:
Merely, remove the snap ring and swap them out….
Click to expand...
Hello, we are looking at the ARK 350 and you mentioned the snap ring. I’m a rookie. Nearest I can tell the snap ring is the rusted circular area on our CI jack. Correct? Will the ARK 350 come with a snap ring or, given the current state of ours, would we need to order/purchase one?
 

Attachments

Midwest Duo said:
Hello, we are looking at the ARK 350 and you mentioned the snap ring. I’m a rookie. Nearest I can tell the snap ring is the rusted circular area on our CI jack. Correct? Will the ARK 350 come with a snap ring or, given the current state of ours, would we need to order/purchase one?
Click to expand...
It does not. Here is a picture of mine (that I've since then replaced). It is held in place with a cover plate and 4 very beefy bolts.
View attachment 1757976229575.png
Rutger
 
FWIW, we still have our ARK on the trailer. It is:

- Still certainly overkill for the size of the camper
- a little dicey when backing up the camper to make sure the jack handle point doesn’t punch a hole in the tow vehicle bumper
- Tow vehicle 1 (Nissan Pathfinder) had a handful of holes in the bumper from this problem. Once I punched one in there, I stopped caring. Thankfully, the puncture point was very well disguised on the bumper because it happened in a spot where the material was more rubbery and concealed the damage
- Tow vehicle 2 (Jeep Grand Cherokee) has so far survived multiple camping seasons and excursions with no such damage
- A little bit of a PITA to stow and deploy from the lateral position (aka the “in-tow” position) because it has to extend a half inch before it can swivel to the deployed position, but it can’t extend more than half an inch because then wheels will run into the 560 utility storage box on the way down. Likewise, when stowing, the wheel has to be cranked to a half-inch shy of stowed, then swiveled, then cranked a little more to fully stow the wheel. This is small potatoes.
- The magnetic detachable swivel hand crank was misplaced and left on the ground on the very first camping trip we took after installing the ARK. We had to buy a replacement and I was worried I’d keep making that mistake. Happy to report, we haven’t lost another since the first one.
- The ratcheting function is not as useful as I hoped it would be, because it doesn’t produce much torque per ratchet. But, it is helpful (minimally)
- The ratchet is quite helpful as a poor man’s parking brake. I don’t trust it like a real parking brake. But it is a nice catch to help ensure the camper doesn’t run me over.
- The beefy dual wheels on our ARK don’t exactly glide over pavement and dirt, but they sure do work a lot better than the original tongue jack. This is partly a problem we created for ourselves by putting so much weight (roof top tent and camping gear for 5) on our camper.
- The steering handle of the ARK is immensely useful when pushing the trailer around. I can control the direction of the wheel a thousand times better than the original tongue jack, and it provides a useful pushing/pulling lever and hand grip point when maneuvering the trailer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top