How do I stay under RAWR in Dynamax REV 24RB?

I am also concerned with front wheel drive on a motorhome where the greater proportion of the weight is, of course, on the rear axle. This puts the best tires for good traction (where the most weight is) at the rear instead of the tires on the axle being powered - the front one.

I like Toyota's solution! Even though Promaster is FWD I think dual rear would help. My expert at TireMart couldn't find any higher load rating tire for Promaster. He said use 80psi instead of the door sticker 72psi.

Mark in FL wrote:
I like Toyota's solution!
Even though Promaster is FWD I think dual rear would help.

I agree. Better to offer a free-wheeling DRW axle on a FWD vehicle than what they offer today. Better to manage a properly balanced load than not having a load to balance.

i am not very automotive savvy, but i know 5 or 6 people seated in this REV 24RB rig in transit down hwy are adding more wt. to the front wheels than the rear - certainly no worse than 50/50.

to chassis experts: are the safety concerns based on tires in motion? or chassis structure? how much wiggle room (engineering safety margin) in a gwr?

to owner: how does vehicle handle on hwy in curves and crosswinds?

the ducato (PM) is a chassis that will be bringing the relevance of B+ into focus. it would be useful to do a parousal of the class B forum going back several years where scores of handling issues w/ Bs whose uber expanded sidewalls and roofs created many safety worries from owners. better still, if veterans of these B threads could share related issues.

Buyer Beware! This is an ongoing problem in the industry. Remaining cargo carrying capacity should be required to be posted and divulged to potential buyers. I saw a video last year where a couple of new B class vans were actually over weight with full tanks before a passenger sat in them.

burlmart wrote:
i am not very automotive savvy, but i know 5 or 6 people seated in this REV 24RB rig in transit down hwy are adding more wt. to the front wheels than the rear - certainly no worse than 50/50.

Looking at the floorplan, I would say that it's about 50/50. But because of the long rear overhang anything placed near the back will add weight to the rear as well as transfer weight off the front. I would also say that the rear bath model is worse than the side bath for weight distribution because of the location of the tanks. I am a little surprised at the amount of rear overhang, I would think that a FWD model would have less overhang because a weight distribution of close to 50/50 would be desirable in a FWD rig.

rjstractor wrote:

burlmart wrote:
i am not very automotive savvy, but i know 5 or 6 people seated in this REV 24RB rig in transit down hwy are adding more wt. to the front wheels than the rear - certainly no worse than 50/50.

Looking at the floorplan, I would say that it's about 50/50. But because of the long rear overhang anything placed near the back will add weight to the rear as well as transfer weight off the front. I would also say that the rear bath model is worse than the side bath for weight distribution because of the location of the tanks. I am a little surprised at the amount of rear overhang, I would think that a FWD model would have less overhang because a weight distribution of close to 50/50 would be desirable in a FWD rig.

The side bath model is the only one with a macerator toilet I suspect it might have the tanks in the rear.

That makes sense. It sure doesn't help with weight distribution!

rjstractor wrote:

burlmart wrote:
i am not very automotive savvy, but i know 5 or 6 people seated in this REV 24RB rig in transit down hwy are adding more wt. to the front wheels than the rear - certainly no worse than 50/50.

Looking at the floorplan, I would say that it's about 50/50. But because of the long rear overhang anything placed near the back will add weight to the rear as well as transfer weight off the front. I would also say that the rear bath model is worse than the side bath for weight distribution because of the location of the tanks. I am a little surprised at the amount of rear overhang, I would think that a FWD model would have less overhang because a weight distribution of close to 50/50 would be desirable in a FWD rig.

You must be a better engineer than any at Dynamax. It is a simple engineering statics calculation using high school algebra and trig. It would be much more informative if the RV cargo label showed a table of front and rear axle weights with:

1. RV dry weight + 150 lb driver + gasoline + propane + water
2. 150 lb passenger in every belted seat
3. half full holding tanks
4. all storage compartments filled lightly at 10 lb per cu.ft.

OldRadios wrote:
Buyer Beware! This is an ongoing problem in the industry. Remaining cargo carrying capacity should be required to be posted and divulged to potential buyers. I saw a video last year where a couple of new B class vans were actually over weight with full tanks before a passenger sat in them.

In theory, OCCC should solve this, but I would almost bet that if I took a PM based rig, with all three tanks full, two people, and it full of the usual RV goods... a CAT scale will show it to be overweight by a good margin.

Not that a PM is a bad chassis... but Europeans and US customers expect different things, and a generator and A/C can add 500 pounds onto a rig, so something that is OK on a rear wheel drive (or four wheel drive) Ducato overseas may be tipping the scales here on this side of the pond after the US niceties are added (black water tank as well.)