question about placement of hitch

Shepherd wrote:
This time I bought a truck with the fifth wheel package. :)

NICE! You may want to put "DRW" in your public signature.

I am late in chiming in on this. My take is these new diesel trucks have so much weight on the front axle that is really does not matter. Mine weighs 5140 on the front axle read to tow. + or - a couple hundred pounds is not going to change the handling of the setup. I towed a friend 5th wheel into and out of winter storage here in Arizona for number of years with the manual slide back(10") so his pin box would clear my from box and noticed no difference in handling.

When I put a pallet of wall blocks(3K+) between the tail gate and rear axle, the front only feels slightly light!

So placement of the 5th wheel hitch could be driven by clearance issue, but weight is not an issue to be concerned about.

This time I bought a truck with the fifth wheel package. :)

Aka the breeze wrote:
op here... thanks for all the replies. It was / is a B&W and he put it on the closet to the cab setting..

Thats again for all the advise

NICE!!!

op here... thanks for all the replies. It was / is a B&W and he put it on the closet to the cab setting..

Thats again for all the advise

I agree not a big difference. If you can it’s better to be full forward.

I just went through this with my new truck, 2019 f450. I started with the b&w hitch in the 3” forward position. After doing my measurements to adjust the height of the hitch, I ended up changing the position to 1” forward to gain a little more wiggle room between the tailgate and front of the Rv. I didn’t feel a difference in towing stability but for the he’ll of it, I called b&w. They informed me that it is a negligible difference between the two.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
4 divided by 170 is .0235, or .0235 x 170 is 4. Take 6000x.0235 = 141.

Better?

Put numbers in a calculator that's how it looks. NOT a math guru but this sure looks fine to me.

Anyway thanks for confirming my answer is correct.

Yep.

Lots of modern calculators allow you to include the "%" and then the calculator makes the adjustment automatically, so if you make the conversion from percentage in your head and then include the %...it winds up doing it twice and you are off by a factor of 100.

4 divided by 170 is .0235, or .0235 x 170 is 4. Take 6000x.0235 = 141.

Better?

Put numbers in a calculator that's how it looks. NOT a math guru but this sure looks fine to me.

Anyway thanks for confirming my answer is correct.

Cummins12V98 wrote:


Picky, Picky! :B

4 divided by 170 is .0235%, or .0235 x 170 is 4. Take 6000x.0235 = 141.

Sure does work and I do believe my math is correct.

Your answer is correct but the work you showed to get there is incorrect.

.0235% =/= .0235

.0235% = .000235

When used as an example, it matters because some people will follow your work and get the wrong answer.