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

It is stories like the original post that reminds me of our first motor home that originally had single rear wheels, later converted to DRW.

There should be laws in place to protect the consumer, and huge penalties when the law is broken, to prevent RV manufactures to supply such motor homes that cannot handle the weight as it is expected to be used. I feel for Mark in FL. It is ridiculous to work within the remaining load range.

The Promaster SRW cut-away chassis is so limited, I am quite surprised any RV manufacture would invest in a motor home design to utilize it. For that matter, why would Chrysler offer such a misfit SRW cut-away chassis in the first place? It doesn't take much of an IQ to see such trouble on the horizon.

This thread pushed my buttons because I lived through this myself with our Toyota Mirage. We got lucky in year 12 of 24 when Toyota offered a free DRW axle shown here. We had to pay for installation, 4 new rear tires, and some retro-fit components. Lucky....Very Lucky indeed.

Mark in FL wrote:
The main reason I posted is because I searched the forums for info on cargo weight before buying because the manufacturers don't post that info because buyers wouldn't understand it. I would have understood front/rear dry weight and it would have saved me a $62000 mistake and potential lawsuit.

I bought the REV to use as a van with a kitchen sink and bath. We all love it. It suits our needs better than anything else I looked at. If we camp it will be 2 and lightweight cargo except maybe a scooter on rear hitch which would make rear axle over weight. If we dry camp 40gal+40gal holding tanks 1/2 full adds 350 lb to rear axle. If we do a family outing to the beach 6 passengers and light beach gear overloads rear axle.

I don't endorse overloading or anything. But there are varying degrees of offense here. Pack the family in for a short trip to the beach in Florida-probably at lower speeds-is a pretty benign trip for an RV. Make up your margins with lower speeds, attentive driving, and fastidious tire care. Be especially pro active in keeping the tires fresh..not let them get old and rotten. Be proactive about any scheduled maintenance of the rear wheel bearings (if any). Travel with as limited water aboard as possible.

I'd think twice about scooter on rear hitch. I don't even do that with lots of extra capacity. Maybe best to pull the scooter on a small trailer. You do have some extra capacity there.

Take a look at This Picture. I can't show it because sharing is restricted, but you can pull it up. Perfectly illustrates my contention about floor plan vs. wheelbase. Problems seem to arise when the "house" (not counting cab-over portion) looks like it's balanced on the rear axle. I went to the Dynamax site and REV has that balanced look.
I looked at that RAM .pdf and it seems the wheelbase may not be extended. Only way the RV builder could go to get what the design called for was with overhang. I haven't verified Sprinter, but my belief is that Mercedes doesn't allow stretching of Wheelbase OR Overhang.
Many RV builders violate simple weight and balance requirements, including outfits that should know better like Winnebago. Now apparently the respected Dynamax. In today's world it seems form trumps function.

j-d wrote:
From your scale weights, it seems you have a few hundred pounds remaining capacity on the front axle. I don't know if this chassis was "stretched" (cut in two and reassembled with an extender section) but if so they should have stretched a little more than they did. You wouldn't have any more capacity in total, but it would be a little more useful.
Many Many Class C's have this issue as was mentioned above. In the bigger ones, based on Ford and Chevy cutaway van chassis, I blame the floor plan. Designers want a certain "room" at the rear, usually a walk around queen bed arrangement. But they don't want wheel wells in the bedroom, so they design it as all overhang. If the coach isn't 29-32-feet, the wheelbase isn't long enough to shift enough weight to the front. Rear axle is near, at, or over its rating, and the front isn't heavy enough for directional stability (tracking) on the road. Your chassis is FWD, so tracking probably won't be an issue.

They added 4' behind the Promaster frame.

http://www.rambodybuilder.com/2014/van/docs/vf/far.pdf
PROMASTER CHASSIS STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS MODIFYING REAR OVERHANG
Modifying the rear overhang causes a significant change in the weight distribution on the axles. Final stage manufacturers must take this into account, checking that the GVW and GAWRS are not exceeded.

((At least not exceeded as dry weight when leaving factory. "No es mi problema - es su problema."))

The main reason I posted is because I searched the forums for info on cargo weight before buying because the manufacturers don't post that info because buyers wouldn't understand it. I would have understood front/rear dry weight and it would have saved me a $62000 mistake and potential lawsuit.

I bought the REV to use as a van with a kitchen sink and bath. We all love it. It suits our needs better than anything else I looked at. If we camp it will be 2 and lightweight cargo except maybe a scooter on rear hitch which would make rear axle over weight. If we dry camp 40gal+40gal holding tanks 1/2 full adds 350 lb to rear axle. If we do a family outing to the beach 6 passengers and light beach gear overloads rear axle.

From your scale weights, it seems you have a few hundred pounds remaining capacity on the front axle. I don't know if this chassis was "stretched" (cut in two and reassembled with an extender section) but if so they should have stretched a little more than they did. You wouldn't have any more capacity in total, but it would be a little more useful.
Many Many Class C's have this issue as was mentioned above. In the bigger ones, based on Ford and Chevy cutaway van chassis, I blame the floor plan. Designers want a certain "room" at the rear, usually a walk around queen bed arrangement. But they don't want wheel wells in the bedroom, so they design it as all overhang. If the coach isn't 29-32-feet, the wheelbase isn't long enough to shift enough weight to the front. Rear axle is near, at, or over its rating, and the front isn't heavy enough for directional stability (tracking) on the road. Your chassis is FWD, so tracking probably won't be an issue.

What Dave said. The Promaster just doesn't have the capacity, plain and simple.

I looked at the pro master chassis based C's and was turned off by the towing and carrying capacity. They are basically for just light duty uses. They only tow a maximum of 2000lb. and I don't like the fact that you would carry your whole family and your house on single rear wheels, to nerve racking for me. There are no dealers in my state that want to stock the pro master MH's due to its limitations. Maybe that will change for the future.

Quite likely, you won't. You'll be running somewhat heavy on the rear axle. Try to keep loads forward of the rear axle, so the weight is at least shared by both axles and doesn't serve to lift the front end. With the seating up front, a good part of the load will divide between the two axles, but the rear is going to be overloaded as soon as the first two people get in the vehicle.

This is an engineering problem that's been common to C's, and to a lesser extent even larger class A motorhomes, for at least the past twenty years as consumers have chosen to buy the largest, best equipped RVs over the smaller designs that better fit chassis capacity.

Mine has the additional problem that all of the waste tankage, and most of the storage space inside and outside, is behind the rear axle, making it more tempting to load the few hundred pounds of cargo allowed in the wrong place.

Is there any of your other camping supplies, food, gear etc. loaded into the motorhome? Are you dealing with just passengers or passengers+supplies you need for your vacations?