Cargo carrying capacity

Very good dialog, thanks to the responders. Headed north tomorrow thru tornado alley but it looks like the storms have moved east. Will weigh my van at a truck stop somewhere. We are loaded the same as we have been for 7 seasons travel all over the US and Canada so I'm not overly concerned, but will check anyway for peace of mind.

Jim

jjson775 wrote:
retraite, what you say is correct, the Ford has a short wheelbase and a long overhang at the rear. However, this would be considered in determining the allowable load on the rear axle, so presumably the Chevy would have a higher allowable rear axle load. wsfurrie says he is very close to the factory allowable on his van so I am still interested in hearing from him. Thanks

Jim

While I don't know the Ford's rear axle limit, the Chevrolet is 6,000 lbs. 4,300 lbs. for the front.

I believe the rear axle limit is constrained not by the axle itself, but by the tires. Load range E tires in the Chevrolet size are rated at 3,042 lbs. each (when in single not dual configuration) and they are inflated to 80 psi. Since the Ford runs load range E, I'd guess it's 6,000 lbs. as well.

But, Wayne is surely right. If one had 6,000 lbs. on the rear axle with, say, 3,500 lbs. on one side and 2,500 lbs. on the other - well they are an accident waiting to happen. Gotta move something around.

Wayne is also very correct to say that one should weigh their vehicle, individual axles and individual wheels to be SURE they are all within limits when the vehicle is loaded for the road - fuel, water, propane, people, pets, stuff, more stuff and finally that other stuff. Everything. I.e., fully loaded with ACTUAL weights, not estimated weights.

And then, keep a close eye on tire pressures throughout one's trip.

'Tis all about stayin' safe and gettin' there and home in one piece.

Cheers.

Jim, my weight is with full water, fuel and propane and empty holding tanks. Also it is loaded for travel and has my wife and I in it. This is, I believe typical for an Excel. The point I was trying to make is that even though an axle may be under the max weight an individual wheel may not be.
Wayne

retraite, what you say is correct, the Ford has a short wheelbase and a long overhang at the rear. However, this would be considered in determining the allowable load on the rear axle, so presumably the Chevy would have a higher allowable rear axle load. wsfurrie says he is very close to the factory allowable on his van so I am still interested in hearing from him. Thanks

Jim

jjson775 wrote:
wsfurrie, is there any reason why your PW is so heavy in the back? Do you pack a lot of heavy stuff there? Also, here is a link to this topic:

http://www.funroads.com/rv-travel/safety/overloaded/

While I'm not wsfurrie, I may be able to answer your question.

His rig is a PW Excel - built on a Ford chassis. The Ford wheelbase is 15" shorter than the "comparable" Chevrolet based PW - the Lexor.

RT, of course, doesn't build on Fords - so a non issue with RTs.

And, I'm ignoring the Sprinter based rigs whether 2500 or 3500.

Yes the PW Ford Excel is "wide body" and the PW Chevrolet Lexor is not. But, the shorter the wheelbase, the more of the total weight of the vehicle is carried by the rear axle (which means less on the front) as compared to a longer wheelbase vehicle.

Cheers.

wsfurrie, is there any reason why your PW is so heavy in the back? Do you pack a lot of heavy stuff there? Also, here is a link to this topic:

http://www.funroads.com/rv-travel/safety/overloaded/

Please weigh your unit, each wheel. My 05 PW Excel has always been under in the back but just barely. I usually have about 25lb to spare on one tire, a few hundred on the other. You could easily be under for the whole axle but over on one side.

This was a problem when RV makers used the Toyota truck (this was before the Tacoma, so technically a Hilux chassis.) The rear axle usually got overloaded.

Toyota ended up recalling these, sticking a beefier axle on it, then bowed out of the chassis market altogether. However, the motorhomes could easily get 20+ MPG without any special technology on a gasoline engine.

jjson775 wrote:
This is an important safety issue. Bigger RVs, especially Class Cs routinely run overweight. I suspect this is less of a problem with our Class Bs but am not sure. In case of a major insurance claim over an accident, I wonder if the insurance company might evade responsibility if the unit was overloaded. Not easy to determine this, but with a lot of money involved it can be done.

I may stop at a truck scale on this trip just to satisfy myself that we are OK.

It was a bigger problem than you might think for B's when the RV manufacturers were using the 2500 Sprinter's. I did a little checking and found that in 2007 a RT 210 had a GVWR of 9,600 lbs and a unloaded vehicle weight of 8,300 lbs. A RT RS Sprinter's (2500 chassis)GVWR was 8,550 lbs and unloaded weight was 7,300 lbs. That's 1,250 lbs of CCC in the case of the Sprinter and 1,300 lbs in the case of the RT 210 wide body. Checking a little closer you will find that the unloaded weight includes only the base vehicle and fuel, not included is a driver, any passengers, water, propane, generator, optional equipment and your stuff. Not hard to overload either of these two RVs and likely the reason that most are now only using the 3500 Sprinter chassis and not the 2500.

This is an important safety issue. Bigger RVs, especially Class Cs routinely run overweight. I suspect this is less of a problem with our Class Bs but am not sure. In case of a major insurance claim over an accident, I wonder if the insurance company might evade responsibility if the unit was overloaded. Not easy to determine this, but with a lot of money involved it can be done.

I may stop at a truck scale on this trip just to satisfy myself that we are OK.