Kerb Weight Distribution across front and rear axles
BDE said
08:03 PM Sep 27, 2022
I am trying to find out the percentage distribution of kerb weight across front and rear axles for a 2016 Ford Everest Trend 3.2L (or any other tow vehicles for that matter - Ranger, MUX, DMax, etc)
Can anyone help? TIA
Phil S
KevinJ said
09:21 PM Sep 27, 2022
BDE wrote:
I am trying to find out the percentage distribution of kerb weight across front and rear axles for a 2016 Ford Everest Trend 3.2L (or any other tow vehicles for that matter - Ranger, MUX, DMax, etc)
Can anyone help? TIA
Phil S
Don't forget that Kerb weight includes a full tank of fuel. As you use the fuel, your axle weights will change. That is why I use Tare (Empty weight) rather than Kerb weight.
Gundog said
08:45 AM Sep 28, 2022
KevinJ wrote:
BDE wrote:
I am trying to find out the percentage distribution of kerb weight across front and rear axles for a 2016 Ford Everest Trend 3.2L (or any other tow vehicles for that matter - Ranger, MUX, DMax, etc)
Can anyone help? TIA
Phil S
Don't forget that Kerb weight includes a full tank of fuel. As you use the fuel, your axle weights will change. That is why I use Tare (Empty weight) rather than Kerb weight.
I disagree Kevin the definition of Tare is conflicted, a caravan Tare is different to reality as we all know, when I was a weighbridge operator every truck comming across the bridge would tare off before be loaded after being loaded the truck would enter the bridge again to get their Gross. Gross minus Tare equals Load, as this was a grain receival site it was the reverse from full to empty equal tonnes of grain delivered.
Kerb weight of our tow vehicle in our circumstances as caravaners in my opinion is best established as being vehicle full of fuel, with driver plus passenger/s plus normal equipment carried, ie. tools, complete WDH if used etc, and im my case everything that is normally stored in the vehicle prior to hitching up the caravan, this is my kerb weight.
Establishing that on a weighbridge, I can get my Kerb plus front and rear axle weights. The difference between my kerb and the GVM must be sufficient to take the towball weight.
The SG of diesel is between 0.82 and 0.97kg but if you 1kg = 1 ltr you cannot go wrong, remember your starting point is always a full tank as fuel is consumed its not a big concern.
Phil S you should be able to find that in your owners manual under towing information.
KevinJ said
09:47 AM Sep 28, 2022
Gundog wrote:
KevinJ wrote:
BDE wrote:
I am trying to find out the percentage distribution of kerb weight across front and rear axles for a 2016 Ford Everest Trend 3.2L (or any other tow vehicles for that matter - Ranger, MUX, DMax, etc)
Can anyone help? TIA
Phil S
Don't forget that Kerb weight includes a full tank of fuel. As you use the fuel, your axle weights will change. That is why I use Tare (Empty weight) rather than Kerb weight.
I disagree Kevin the definition of Tare is conflicted, a caravan Tare is different to reality as we all know, when I was a weighbridge operator every truck comming across the bridge would tare off before be loaded after being loaded the truck would enter the bridge again to get their Gross. Gross minus Tare equals Load, as this was a grain receival site it was the reverse from full to empty equal tonnes of grain delivered.
Kerb weight of our tow vehicle in our circumstances as caravaners in my opinion is best established as being vehicle full of fuel, with driver plus passenger/s plus normal equipment carried, ie. tools, complete WDH if used etc, and im my case everything that is normally stored in the vehicle prior to hitching up the caravan, this is my kerb weight.
Establishing that on a weighbridge, I can get my Kerb plus front and rear axle weights. The difference between my kerb and the GVM must be sufficient to take the towball weight.
The SG of diesel is between 0.82 and 0.97kg but if you 1kg = 1 ltr you cannot go wrong, remember your starting point is always a full tank as fuel is consumed its not a big concern.
Phil S you should be able to find that in your owners manual under towing information.
I really don't disagree with your definition other than the name attached to them. My research tells me that Tare is the weight when leaving the manufacturer. Did you see my other post last night where I said "Empty weight" is as per the weighbridge? Empty weight is Tare plus permanent and unremovable objects added to the vehicle. Kerb, from my research is a vehicle with full fuel but no people and no luggage, tools etc.
My current spreadsheet calculator includes these terms (Tare, Kerb) etc because when I started researching towing weights, I knew nothing about the acronyms used in towing. As a result of feedback from a number of people on this forum, I will be removing the terms Tare, Kerb and a few others and replacing them with more meaningful terms to cater for what you have highlighted.
From the calculators perspective, it is important that the initial vehicle weights are with an empty vehicle with 10 litres of fuel. This means anything that is not bolted to the vehicle is removed first as it will later form part of the payload. The same with the caravan, no gas and no water and everything inside not bolted down to be removed.
The calculator already takes the specific gravity of both diesel and petrol into account for its calculations. Assuming you always leave at least 10 litres of fuel in the tank, a 65 litre tank will use 55 litres times 0.832 SG equaling 45 kgs. A 120 litre tank will use 110 litres times 0.832 SG equaling 91 kgs. There can be a significant weight reduction made. Depending where the fuel tank is in the vehicle, the change to front and rear axle weights may or may not be important. This is the reason the calculator needs empty weights as a starting point i.e. only 10 litres of fuel, not full fuel. Armed with that, it can give results for a fully loaded vehicle and then if you change the fuel amount and/or payloads in the calculator, it will give you the new results.
Are We Lost said
10:46 AM Sep 28, 2022
The trouble with using terms that have fairly consistent definitions to mean something else tends to confuse the situation. The brochure for my Ford Ranger defines Kerb Weight as described by Kevin ... full fuel tank but nothing else. Surprisingly, Tare is not mentioned.
For the spreadsheet, I think Empty Weight is a reasonable approach because that takes into account the way the vehicle (or van) is now set up. For example, if bullbar, canopy, roofracks and fridge are usual fitments for travelling then maybe that is a good starting point. It is easy enough to empty the vehicle of everything else for weighing. But I would not eliminate Kerb Weight from the spreadsheet because it is a specification that can be used to validate measured weights.
A van is a bit harder because there are usually so many different items stored in various compartments.
KevinJ said
10:57 AM Sep 28, 2022
Are We Lost wrote:
The trouble with using terms that have fairly consistent definitions to mean something else tends to confuse the situation. The brochure for my Ford Ranger defines Kerb Weight as described by Kevin ... full fuel tank but nothing else. Surprisingly, Tare is not mentioned.
For the spreadsheet, I think Empty Weight is a reasonable approach because that takes into account the way the vehicle (or van) is now set up. For example, if bullbar, canopy, roofracks and fridge are usual fitments for travelling then maybe that is a good starting point. It is easy enough to empty the vehicle of everything else for weighing. But I would not eliminate Kerb Weight from the spreadsheet because it is a specification that can be used to validate measured weights.
A van is a bit harder because there are usually so many different items stored in various compartments.
Ok, I'll leave Kerb weight as it is. It is not used in any calculation so really does not matter. I just need to get off my butt and do the changes.
-- Edited by KevinJ on Wednesday 28th of September 2022 10:59:50 AM
BDE said
08:17 PM Sep 28, 2022
A quick update:
I took my Ford Everest to a weighbridge today (full tank of fuel, driver but no passengers, nothing much else).
Results were 1320kg on the front axle and 1300kg on the rear axle - close enough to 50:50 distribution across axles
I appreciate that this does not represent "kerb weight" but it does provide the baseline I need for further weight calculations.
Thanks for all the comments.
Phil S
KevinJ said
08:58 AM Sep 29, 2022
BDE wrote:
A quick update:
I took my Ford Everest to a weighbridge today (full tank of fuel, driver but no passengers, nothing much else).
Results were 1320kg on the front axle and 1300kg on the rear axle - close enough to 50:50 distribution across axles
I appreciate that this does not represent "kerb weight" but it does provide the baseline I need for further weight calculations.
Thanks for all the comments.
Phil S
That's 274 kgs different to the kerb weight shown online for this vehicle. Even taking into account the weight of the driver plus the extra 70 litres of fuel in the tank, that's a big difference.
Are We Lost said
12:44 PM Sep 29, 2022
Well spotted Kevin but maybe not quite that large a difference. The 2016 model could be different, but the current Everest brochure shows the Trend 3.2L 4WD to have a kerb weight of 2437kg. If you got your figure from Carsguide I think it is wrong because they quote the 2WD as 2346kg, and the 4WD should be at least 100kg heavier.
Assuming BDE's Everest is a 4WD and using the 2022 brochure weight, the weighbridge result of 2620kg is 183kg more than the specced kerb weight, which already includes a full tank of fuel.
BDE if you have the Ford brochure for your specific model you could verify this. 20kg weighing incrememnts of the weighbridge may affect the accuracy. Also if it is not a registered weighbridge there could be room for error. The weighbridge at my local waste disposal has given some erratic results in the past.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 29th of September 2022 12:45:53 PM
BDE said
02:28 PM Sep 30, 2022
The Kerb Weight of the 2016 Ford Everest 3.2L Trend is 2,407kg (www.redbook.com.au) and is defined by Ford as "with a full tank of fuel, without occupants, luggage or cargo and with all standard equipment"
Annoyingly, Ford does NOT include vehicle weights in the owner's manual.
The weighbridge reading was 2,620kg which exceeds Kerb Weight by 213kg
Additional loads in car as weighed on weighbridge include driver (100kg), WDH Tow Hitch (16kg), Tow Pack (guess 50Kg?), UHF Radio and aerial, Brake controller, wiring for dual battery system (battery not included), sundry other bits and pieces in glovebox/console/doors/cargo area - not hard to get close to 213kg allowing for up to 20kg accuracy limit on weighbridge.
KevinJ said
04:28 PM Sep 30, 2022
Based on what's been posted so far, my calculations show the following:
Kerb = 2407 as advised above
Tare = 2349
Empty weight = 2462
Accessories = 113 (Difference between Empty and Tare)
Empty Rear axle = 1205
Empty Front axle = 1257
BDE said
07:30 PM Sep 30, 2022
This sort of gets back to my original question - how did you work out the distribution of the Empty Weight (2462) between the front and rear axles (1205/1257)
For that matter, where did the 2462 Empty Weight figure come from? Am I missing something?
Cheers
Phil S
KevinJ said
10:42 AM Oct 1, 2022
BDE wrote:
This sort of gets back to my original question - how did you work out the distribution of the Empty Weight (2462) between the front and rear axles (1205/1257)
For that matter, where did the 2462 Empty Weight figure come from? Am I missing something?
Cheers
Phil S
I could not have worked this out using the info in your original post as there was not enough info.
I calculated the Empty Weight starting with your Kerb weight of 2620 kg which included a driver of 100 kg and a full fuel tank. I have assumed that the Everest fuel tank is 80 litres of diesel so leaving 10 litres in the tank as part of the Empty weight, I removed 70 litres at 0.832 specific gravity which is 58 kgs (rounded). 2620 less (100 + 58) equals 2462 kgs.
To calculate Rear axle weight, I used the Load Calculator spreadsheet (new version) though had to make a number of assumptions.
Assumptions:
Wheelbase = 2845
Distance from Front axle to Front seat = 1330
Distance from Front axle to Fuel tank = 2095
In the Tugs and Vans TAB, I added a vehicle with the above assumptions as well as Empty weight of 2462, Empty Front axle of 1320 and Empty Rear axle of 1300 knowing the axle weights were over stated.
In the Load calculator TAB, in Option 3, I selected the Test vehicle and made the Caravan TBW equal to 0 so it would not affect the vehicle. I then added 100 to the Front people cell and 80 to the Fuel cell in the vehicle section. This gave a Rear axle weight of 1389 (89 kgs over) which needed to 1300. I then went to the Tugs and Vans TAX and reduced the Rear axle weight by 89 kgs to 1211 and the Front axle to 2462 less 1211 equals 1251. Going back to the Load calculator TAB and refreshing it, gave me a Rear axle weight of 1300 which was what you gave me with a driver and full fuel. I then removed the driver and the fuel from the calculator and it gave me a Rear axle weight of 1205 which is the empty value in this case. The empty Front axle weight therefore is 2462 less 1205 equaling 1257. This said, I made an error on Rear axle weight. Instead of removing all the fuel, I should have left 10 litres behind. The new empty Rear axle weight should be 1211 and the empty Front axle weight should be 1251.
I could have and should have cross checked all these calculations using first principles but I did not have time. I'll do it if you really need it but in reality you should have the vehicle weighed with no passengers, only 10 litres of fuel and all loose items in the vehicle removed.
If you find any flaws in my logic, please feel free to raise them.
I am trying to find out the percentage distribution of kerb weight across front and rear axles for a 2016 Ford Everest Trend 3.2L (or any other tow vehicles for that matter - Ranger, MUX, DMax, etc)
Can anyone help? TIA
Phil S
Don't forget that Kerb weight includes a full tank of fuel. As you use the fuel, your axle weights will change. That is why I use Tare (Empty weight) rather than Kerb weight.
I disagree Kevin the definition of Tare is conflicted, a caravan Tare is different to reality as we all know, when I was a weighbridge operator every truck comming across the bridge would tare off before be loaded after being loaded the truck would enter the bridge again to get their Gross. Gross minus Tare equals Load, as this was a grain receival site it was the reverse from full to empty equal tonnes of grain delivered.
Kerb weight of our tow vehicle in our circumstances as caravaners in my opinion is best established as being vehicle full of fuel, with driver plus passenger/s plus normal equipment carried, ie. tools, complete WDH if used etc, and im my case everything that is normally stored in the vehicle prior to hitching up the caravan, this is my kerb weight.
Establishing that on a weighbridge, I can get my Kerb plus front and rear axle weights. The difference between my kerb and the GVM must be sufficient to take the towball weight.
The SG of diesel is between 0.82 and 0.97kg but if you 1kg = 1 ltr you cannot go wrong, remember your starting point is always a full tank as fuel is consumed its not a big concern.
Phil S you should be able to find that in your owners manual under towing information.
I really don't disagree with your definition other than the name attached to them. My research tells me that Tare is the weight when leaving the manufacturer. Did you see my other post last night where I said "Empty weight" is as per the weighbridge? Empty weight is Tare plus permanent and unremovable objects added to the vehicle. Kerb, from my research is a vehicle with full fuel but no people and no luggage, tools etc.
My current spreadsheet calculator includes these terms (Tare, Kerb) etc because when I started researching towing weights, I knew nothing about the acronyms used in towing. As a result of feedback from a number of people on this forum, I will be removing the terms Tare, Kerb and a few others and replacing them with more meaningful terms to cater for what you have highlighted.
From the calculators perspective, it is important that the initial vehicle weights are with an empty vehicle with 10 litres of fuel. This means anything that is not bolted to the vehicle is removed first as it will later form part of the payload. The same with the caravan, no gas and no water and everything inside not bolted down to be removed.
The calculator already takes the specific gravity of both diesel and petrol into account for its calculations. Assuming you always leave at least 10 litres of fuel in the tank, a 65 litre tank will use 55 litres times 0.832 SG equaling 45 kgs. A 120 litre tank will use 110 litres times 0.832 SG equaling 91 kgs. There can be a significant weight reduction made. Depending where the fuel tank is in the vehicle, the change to front and rear axle weights may or may not be important. This is the reason the calculator needs empty weights as a starting point i.e. only 10 litres of fuel, not full fuel. Armed with that, it can give results for a fully loaded vehicle and then if you change the fuel amount and/or payloads in the calculator, it will give you the new results.
For the spreadsheet, I think Empty Weight is a reasonable approach because that takes into account the way the vehicle (or van) is now set up. For example, if bullbar, canopy, roofracks and fridge are usual fitments for travelling then maybe that is a good starting point. It is easy enough to empty the vehicle of everything else for weighing. But I would not eliminate Kerb Weight from the spreadsheet because it is a specification that can be used to validate measured weights.
A van is a bit harder because there are usually so many different items stored in various compartments.
Ok, I'll leave Kerb weight as it is. It is not used in any calculation so really does not matter. I just need to get off my butt and do the changes.
-- Edited by KevinJ on Wednesday 28th of September 2022 10:59:50 AM
I took my Ford Everest to a weighbridge today (full tank of fuel, driver but no passengers, nothing much else).
Results were 1320kg on the front axle and 1300kg on the rear axle - close enough to 50:50 distribution across axles
I appreciate that this does not represent "kerb weight" but it does provide the baseline I need for further weight calculations.
Thanks for all the comments.
Phil S
That's 274 kgs different to the kerb weight shown online for this vehicle. Even taking into account the weight of the driver plus the extra 70 litres of fuel in the tank, that's a big difference.
Well spotted Kevin but maybe not quite that large a difference. The 2016 model could be different, but the current Everest brochure shows the Trend 3.2L 4WD to have a kerb weight of 2437kg. If you got your figure from Carsguide I think it is wrong because they quote the 2WD as 2346kg, and the 4WD should be at least 100kg heavier.
Assuming BDE's Everest is a 4WD and using the 2022 brochure weight, the weighbridge result of 2620kg is 183kg more than the specced kerb weight, which already includes a full tank of fuel.
BDE if you have the Ford brochure for your specific model you could verify this. 20kg weighing incrememnts of the weighbridge may affect the accuracy. Also if it is not a registered weighbridge there could be room for error. The weighbridge at my local waste disposal has given some erratic results in the past.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 29th of September 2022 12:45:53 PM
The Kerb Weight of the 2016 Ford Everest 3.2L Trend is 2,407kg (www.redbook.com.au) and is defined by Ford as "with a full tank of fuel, without occupants, luggage or cargo and with all standard equipment"
Annoyingly, Ford does NOT include vehicle weights in the owner's manual.
The weighbridge reading was 2,620kg which exceeds Kerb Weight by 213kg
Additional loads in car as weighed on weighbridge include driver (100kg), WDH Tow Hitch (16kg), Tow Pack (guess 50Kg?), UHF Radio and aerial, Brake controller, wiring for dual battery system (battery not included), sundry other bits and pieces in glovebox/console/doors/cargo area - not hard to get close to 213kg allowing for up to 20kg accuracy limit on weighbridge.
Based on what's been posted so far, my calculations show the following:
Kerb = 2407 as advised above
Tare = 2349
Empty weight = 2462
Accessories = 113 (Difference between Empty and Tare)
Empty Rear axle = 1205
Empty Front axle = 1257
For that matter, where did the 2462 Empty Weight figure come from? Am I missing something?
Cheers
Phil S
I could not have worked this out using the info in your original post as there was not enough info.
I calculated the Empty Weight starting with your Kerb weight of 2620 kg which included a driver of 100 kg and a full fuel tank. I have assumed that the Everest fuel tank is 80 litres of diesel so leaving 10 litres in the tank as part of the Empty weight, I removed 70 litres at 0.832 specific gravity which is 58 kgs (rounded). 2620 less (100 + 58) equals 2462 kgs.
To calculate Rear axle weight, I used the Load Calculator spreadsheet (new version) though had to make a number of assumptions.
Assumptions:
Wheelbase = 2845
Distance from Front axle to Front seat = 1330
Distance from Front axle to Fuel tank = 2095
In the Tugs and Vans TAB, I added a vehicle with the above assumptions as well as Empty weight of 2462, Empty Front axle of 1320 and Empty Rear axle of 1300 knowing the axle weights were over stated.
In the Load calculator TAB, in Option 3, I selected the Test vehicle and made the Caravan TBW equal to 0 so it would not affect the vehicle. I then added 100 to the Front people cell and 80 to the Fuel cell in the vehicle section. This gave a Rear axle weight of 1389 (89 kgs over) which needed to 1300. I then went to the Tugs and Vans TAX and reduced the Rear axle weight by 89 kgs to 1211 and the Front axle to 2462 less 1211 equals 1251. Going back to the Load calculator TAB and refreshing it, gave me a Rear axle weight of 1300 which was what you gave me with a driver and full fuel. I then removed the driver and the fuel from the calculator and it gave me a Rear axle weight of 1205 which is the empty value in this case. The empty Front axle weight therefore is 2462 less 1205 equaling 1257. This said, I made an error on Rear axle weight. Instead of removing all the fuel, I should have left 10 litres behind. The new empty Rear axle weight should be 1211 and the empty Front axle weight should be 1251.
I could have and should have cross checked all these calculations using first principles but I did not have time. I'll do it if you really need it but in reality you should have the vehicle weighed with no passengers, only 10 litres of fuel and all loose items in the vehicle removed.
If you find any flaws in my logic, please feel free to raise them.