Late 2015 Ford Everest Rear Suspension Upgrade

thalls01 · Veteran Member

Late 2015 Ford Everest Rear Suspension Upgrade

watsea · Guru

So Tim, I am presuming that you did a drive to test the stability of the rig while towing in the conditions that caused your concerns recently? Has the van's towing stability improved?

-- Edited by watsea on Thursday 24th of March 2022 08:38:23 PM

thalls01 · Veteran Member

Watsea - In short, 'no', not as yet. Time has prevented that. The last time I was on the road was at the time of the first weighbridge when the van nose was slightly high, the shank-receiver was longer, and the caravan tyre was mounted on the bumper with full potable tanks. At 65km down the main road it seemed more stable. However, I take your point, the real test of that is getting on the highway here with a higher speed upwards to 90km/h where I experienced sway previously when a quarry truck passed.

A lot has changed since then and because I am distributing weight off the back vehicle axle to avoid being over, it is necessary to consider what other items could be under load. The obvious is the back coil springs and suspension and I am tending towards having the entire rear suspension upgraded.

This is unrelated to the rear axle rating since I am confident the WDH will see that I am under capacity. However, the suspension at near axle load limits will receive a hiding no doubt too. A suspension upgrade to heavy duty coils, dampers and air bags will not only reduce sway but also ensure the rear tyres remain aligned with all that weight to avoid uneven wear.

Cheers, Tim

-- Edited by thalls01 on Thursday 24th of March 2022 09:47:40 PM

watsea · Guru

Tim,

I suspect the sway test will show an improvement. Good luck.
Also, it might be useful to shop around for GVM upgrade prices, if you thinking of going that route. There is likely to be a Ford Everest user group where a question can be asked. My Prado's GVM upgrade gave an extra 10% overall, though less percentage than 10% on the max for the rear axle. The price was about $2,800 all up with certification. The suspension work also included rear airbags. This work was done by a suspension technician recommended by many positive reports on a Prado user website.

Just thinking. If you have overcome the maximum limit on the rear axle, maybe you could manage the legal weight with your learnings, and get a suspension upgrade, but not go through the process of getting certification. Just need to get an adequate suspension system fitted.

thalls01 · Veteran Member

Watsea, KevinJ and Others - I have had the nagging thought overnight that upgrading the rear suspension may interfere with the Weight Distribution Hitch I am using. I require the WDH to transfer weight off the back axle.

That nagging thought arises from the fact that currently with a 42mm+ sink in the rear of the car with the caravan hitched, once adding the WDH this displacement is approx. halved. Is the WDH reliant on a sagging rear to operate in this fashion?

With a rear suspension upgrade the rear will not sag. Therefore I am assuming the WDH in this situation will raise the rear beyond its usual unladen position. Would I be right? If so, will it transfer the same weight as currently off the back axle?

Ideally, I require someone with real life experience that has (i) added a WDH and (ii) then upgraded their rear suspension + used hitch, to advise of their findings. Or maybe the answer can be established from physics, but that is beyond me.

All advice welcome - Tim

-- Edited by thalls01 on Friday 25th of March 2022 09:01:10 AM

KevinJ · Senior Member

Hi Tim, The results in the spreadsheet are indicative of what I have seen with other setups. Invariably there is scope to add more payload to both the vehicle and van as in your case but the rear axle weight is the deal breaker, hence a calculator which does not include rear axle calculations could get you in a lot of trouble as you would think you could add more payload without realising what is happening to the rear axle. If I can figure out how to include WDH as a parameter, I will add it though at this stage I am not sure if it is possible as they can be tensioned differently even on the same vehicle.

The attached shows the rear axle weight over by 260 KGs if we were to simply load the vehicle and van to their maximums and ignore axle weight.

-- Edited by KevinJ on Friday 25th of March 2022 10:25:16 AM

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

If only the axles could be moved a few 100mm to assist in good balance . Seems due to fact we dont have too many larger towing vehicles like the old F series Fords and GM C10s etc . The light trucks or Duel cab utes are just up there weight wise, getting close to load limits !! Depending weight of van . Im not sure a larger Jap truck would be worse on fuel also ?

watsea · Guru

I am not loaded with money and it was mine, I would running with the legal setup as recently adjusted, provided it gives stable towing. Wearing the suspension, maybe? At a later time renew/upgrade the suspension and play with the systems again.
You don't tow all the time either, I suspect.

thalls01 · Veteran Member

KevinJ - adding the maximum weights to vehicle and van to see how far I am over the rear axle limit provides a useful reference also. I will bear that in mind.

Aus-Kiwi - yep, the rear axle rating is a frustrating issue when both the car and van are nowhere near their full payload. As you say, there are a limited number of vehicles where this is not an issue. I expect after the Ford Everest a F100 or likes would be the next upgrade, or possibly the new Ford Everest to be released later this year with a GVM of 3500kg.

I expect many of the vans 19.5' or greater in length on the road are also approaching the axle limit or over, potentially out of ignorance. The so-called suspension experts out there are also very happy to sell you a rear suspension upgrade without a mention of the axle load rating. This only perpetuates the problem of customers being over limit.

Watsea, I may do as you suggest and hold-off upgrading the suspension. More driving with the van with re-distributed weight will tell.

Thanks all, Tim

KevinJ · Senior Member

I just noted that Tim is in trouble with his van only having an ATM of 3200KG. It's just as well he doesn't have one of the always quoted 3500KG vans. biggrin

Lakers · Member

A lot of overly technical information in this thread, which is not a bad thing. This is my experience with my 2017 Everest Trend 4WD, towing 2.5t with 210kg on the ball. To start with, I was having similar handling problems with the Everest, and at times it felt like the van was pushing it around. Long story short, what solved my handling issues was... (1) fitted air bags to the rear of the Ford (running at 20-25psi), and (2).. this is the main one... I replaced the Bridgestone HT tyres with AT tyres. The HT tyres were fine for people comfort, but had too much sidewall flex when loaded for towing. This sidewall flex manifested into overall handling problems when towing. The ATs are more rigid, and sidewall flex is eliminated. I run 38F, 42R and 45F&R in the van. Cheers to all... Greg

Are We Lost · Guru

That's an interesting point Lakers. It makes sense that stiffer sidewalls will flex less. Maybe Light Truck tyres would be of more benefit. However I'm surprised that the change to AT tread pattern alone would help as it has less grip on the highway than HT tyres. MT tyres of course would be worse.

The typical 4WD has highish profile tyres which is the exact opposite of the trend for most vehicle to lower profile tyres which have even less sideways flex.

Radar · Guru

Lakers wrote:
A lot of overly technical information in this thread, which is not a bad thing. This is my experience with my 2017 Everest Trend 4WD, towing 2.5t with 210kg on the ball. To start with, I was having similar handling problems with the Everest, and at times it felt like the van was pushing it around. Long story short, what solved my handling issues was... (1) fitted air bags to the rear of the Ford (running at 20-25psi), and (2).. this is the main one... I replaced the Bridgestone HT tyres with AT tyres. The HT tyres were fine for people comfort, but had too much sidewall flex when loaded for towing. This sidewall flex manifested into overall handling problems when towing. The ATs are more rigid, and sidewall flex is eliminated. I run 38F, 42R and 45F&R in the van. Cheers to all... Greg

Way yo high if the manufacturers tyre placard reads 32psi when loaded.

Maybe 4 psi extra but not 42psi in the rear on the Ford Everest.

With 20 to 25psi in the airbags it would ride like a billy cart and all this I believe would nothing for the over all handling of the car.

Are We Lost · Guru

Tim,

You said you are now ready to go, but I really think you have more to address.

Back in my first post on this thread I pointed out that you were approaching the Everest limits. But what took it to the point that I felt it was going too far is when you published the rear axle to towball distance. That longish distance combined with the Everest shortish wheelbase has multiple undesirable effects. First, as you have discovered, it increases the rear axle load. Second it reduces the weight on the front wheels (less grip). But to my mind, what is more important is the leverage effect if the van starts to sway and tends to rotate the Everest back and forth with the rear axle as a fulcrum.

There are three things you have that reduce the resistance to that rotation motion:

· Longish axle to towball distance increases leverage
· shortish wheelbase increases leverage effect
· reduced weight on the front wheels reduces grip to resist that rotation

So with that ratio not being very favourable, it's a triple whammy to the safety. By themselves it's still manageable as long as the rest of the setup is fine. But you have more. You also have:

· overloaded rear axle mandating a WDH to remain within limits
· laden tow vehicle not heavier than the van (may actuallt be 100kg lighter ? see below)
· weight at both ends of the van: washing machine at the rear and over 120kg on drawbar or front boot

I see it as the cumulative effect of factors being undesirable or right at the limits. That is 6 points I have listed. I did not include the towball weight. More would be desirable but doing so would make other factors worse.

Moving on, there seems to be a discrepancy between the Ford specs for kerb weight you quoted (2407kg) vs the kerb weight you measured (2515kg). Also, how did you determine the rear axle weight was 1235kq when the weighbridge increments are 20kg?

Next, I don?t understand how a towball weight of 256kg can result in 1831kg rear axle load. Last night you said:

"The spreadsheet arrived at the axle limit of 1831kgs using these new weights for ATM and TBW."

The formula for 256kg towball load results in 388kg additional rear axle load. You listed 220kg in payload, mostly passengers in the front seat. So, assuming that equates to 100kg on the rear axle, and using your measured rear axle load we get:

1235 + 100 + 388 = 1723 (or 108kg less than your quoted 1831kg).

If you use kerb weight from Ford specs it is even less. Maybe there is an error somewhere and rear axle load is not so bad after all.

I believe it is still resolvable, but suggest you take some things off your inventory. You said you were going to travel with half water to achieve enough towball weight. If you removed the washing machine you would not need to water to counter balance it .... saving over 100kg.

I am sending a PM with further thoughts I have on your setup.

Kevin, I can see the great value in your spreadsheet if someone takes the time to input their actual figures. I have a couple of suggestions on things that may enhance it, if you still have the enthusiasm to put in the effort. I will send you a PM rather than post them here.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 25th of March 2022 07:09:01 PM

Lakers · Member

"Way yo high if the manufacturers tyre placard reads 32psi when loaded."

The OEM tyres provided on the Ford are rated for personnel comfort and (IMO) are not the best option for towing. As I mentioned, I replaced these with AT Tyres (Falken) and run them 38/42 as per the supplier recommendation. I monitor all 8 tyres on the vehicle and van with a TPMS and the current pressures are optimal for my configuration. It handles well and is a vast improvement over the standard offering. If these tyres were at 32-ish as you suggest, the configuration would handle like a marshmallow and the tyres would in all likelihood overheat, leading to other problems.

Are We Lost · Guru

I agree. 32 psi is way off mark.

The placard for my Ranger is 44psi on the rear when laden. The factory fitted tyres specify maximum 44psi, so they match. When towing I run my rears at that maximum. The rear axle load is approaching 1750kg (limit 1850kg) and I find the tyres get slightly warmer than I would like. I would try 46-48 if it did not exceed the tyre rating.

With slighly less axle load on your Everest, I believe 42-44psi would probably be right. If your rear axle is loaded less then maybe a little lower, but not much.

As for your comments on changes to handling characteristics, maybe the change is not due to the tread pattern (the opposit of what I would suggest), but to the choice of tyre. The Falken Wildpeak gets excellent reviews and I intend to get a set when buying tyres.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 25th of March 2022 07:25:04 PM

KevinJ · Senior Member

Are We Lost wrote:
Tim,
You said you are now ready to go, but I really think you have more to address.
Back in my first post on this thread I pointed out that you were approaching the Everest limits. But what took it to the point that I felt it was going too far is when you published the rear axle to towball distance. That longish distance combined with the Everest shortish wheelbase has multiple undesirable effects. First, as you have discovered, it increases the rear axle load. Second it reduces the weight on the front wheels (less grip). But to my mind, what is more important is the leverage effect if the van starts to sway and tends to rotate the Everest back and forth with the rear axle as a fulcrum.
There are three things you have that reduce the resistance to that rotation motion:
·         Longish axle to towball distance increases leverage
·         shortish wheelbase increases leverage effect
·         reduced weight on the front wheels reduces grip to resist that rotation
So with that ratio not being very favourable, it's a triple whammy to the safety. By themselves it's still manageable as long as the rest of the setup is fine. But you have more. You also have:
·         overloaded rear axle mandating a WDH to remain within limits
·         laden tow vehicle not heavier than the van (may actuallt be 100kg lighter ? see below)
·         weight at both ends of the van: washing machine at the rear and over 120kg on drawbar or front boot
I see it as the cumulative effect of factors being undesirable or right at the limits. That is 6 points I have listed. I did not include the towball weight. More would be desirable but doing so would make other factors worse.
Moving on, there seems to be a discrepancy between the Ford specs for kerb weight you quoted (2407kg) vs the kerb weight you measured (2515kg). Also, how did you determine the rear axle weight was 1235kq when the weighbridge increments are 20kg?
Next, I don?t understand how a towball weight of 256kg can result in 1831kg rear axle load. Last night you said:
"The spreadsheet arrived at the axle limit of 1831kgs using these new weights for ATM and TBW."
The formula for 256kg towball load results in 388kg additional rear axle load. You listed 220kg in payload, mostly passengers in the front seat. So, assuming that equates to 100kg on the rear axle, and using your measured rear axle load we get:
1235 + 100 + 388 = 1723 (or 108kg less than your quoted 1831kg).
If you use kerb weight from Ford specs it is even less. Maybe there is an error somewhere and rear axle load is not so bad after all.
I believe it is still resolvable, but suggest you take some things off your inventory. You said you were going to travel with half water to achieve enough towball weight. If you removed the washing machine you would not need to water to counter balance it .... saving over 100kg.
I am sending a PM with further thoughts I have on your setup.

Kevin, I can see the great value in your spreadsheet if someone takes the time to input their actual figures. I have a couple of suggestions on things that may enhance it, if you still have the enthusiasm to put in the effort. I will send you a PM rather than post them here.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 25th of March 2022 07:09:01 PM

Just a comment on how the spreadsheet calculates rear axle weight.

You will notice on the "Load calculator" TAB, the ability to add weight to either the Front seat, Rear seat, Boot and/or Bumper. On the "Tug and Vans" TAB, there are parameters for distance beween front axle and each of these points as well as for the tow ball. The formula therefore uses each of these combinations, not just a single weight times distance. I hope this explains the calculations a bit more.

As for suggestions for improving the calculator, please bring them to my attention. I don't have all the answers so I'm happy for yours.

Aus-Kiwi · Guru

Keep in mind temp rises and tyre pressure also increases if filled when cold ? My guess 40lb cold would be about right ? My 19.5 tyres go up about 5lb from
Cold to being run ! 90lb to 95 hot .

-- Edited by Aus-Kiwi on Friday 25th of March 2022 07:37:59 PM

thalls01 · Veteran Member

Are We Lost wrote:
Tim,
You said you are now ready to go, but I really think you have more to address.
Back in my first post on this thread I pointed out that you were approaching the Everest limits. But what took it to the point that I felt it was going too far is when you published the rear axle to towball distance. That longish distance combined with the Everest shortish wheelbase has multiple undesirable effects. First, as you have discovered, it increases the rear axle load. Second it reduces the weight on the front wheels (less grip). But to my mind, what is more important is the leverage effect if the van starts to sway and tends to rotate the Everest back and forth with the rear axle as a fulcrum.
There are three things you have that reduce the resistance to that rotation motion:
·         Longish axle to towball distance increases leverage
·         shortish wheelbase increases leverage effect
·         reduced weight on the front wheels reduces grip to resist that rotation
So with that ratio not being very favourable, it's a triple whammy to the safety. By themselves it's still manageable as long as the rest of the setup is fine. But you have more. You also have:
·         overloaded rear axle mandating a WDH to remain within limits
·         laden tow vehicle not heavier than the van (may actuallt be 100kg lighter ? see below)
·         weight at both ends of the van: washing machine at the rear and over 120kg on drawbar or front boot
I see it as the cumulative effect of factors being undesirable or right at the limits. That is 6 points I have listed. I did not include the towball weight. More would be desirable but doing so would make other factors worse.
Moving on, there seems to be a discrepancy between the Ford specs for kerb weight you quoted (2407kg) vs the kerb weight you measured (2515kg). Also, how did you determine the rear axle weight was 1235kq when the weighbridge increments are 20kg?
Next, I don?t understand how a towball weight of 256kg can result in 1831kg rear axle load. Last night you said:
"The spreadsheet arrived at the axle limit of 1831kgs using these new weights for ATM and TBW."
The formula for 256kg towball load results in 388kg additional rear axle load. You listed 220kg in payload, mostly passengers in the front seat. So, assuming that equates to 100kg on the rear axle, and using your measured rear axle load we get:
1235 + 100 + 388 = 1723 (or 108kg less than your quoted 1831kg).
If you use kerb weight from Ford specs it is even less. Maybe there is an error somewhere and rear axle load is not so bad after all.
I believe it is still resolvable, but suggest you take some things off your inventory. You said you were going to travel with half water to achieve enough towball weight. If you removed the washing machine you would not need to water to counter balance it .... saving over 100kg.
I am sending a PM with further thoughts I have on your setup.

Kevin, I can see the great value in your spreadsheet if someone takes the time to input their actual figures. I have a couple of suggestions on things that may enhance it, if you still have the enthusiasm to put in the effort. I will send you a PM rather than post them here.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 25th of March 2022 07:09:01 PM

KevinJ - please refer to my PM for a chat about alterations to measurements entered into your 'Load Calculator' spreadsheet, and why these changes arose.

Could not attach the updated spreadsheet to PM so I attach it below.

With thanks, Tim

thalls01 · Veteran Member

New calculation of Tare and Kerb Weights for my 2015 Ford Everest - now entered into KevinJ's spreadsheet, also attached.

Vehicle at the time I weighed front and back axle (no passenger) was 2,515kg. It however had a 3/4 tank of fuel. So at 80 litres, that becomes 60 litres x 0.82 (SG) = 49.20 kg

Tare therefore is: 2,515 - 49.20 = 2,465.80kg + 8.2kg (10 litres diesel for tare) - weight of towbar (30kg) = 2,444kg

The Kerb Weight also requires alteration to add back 70 litres of fuel = full tank = 2,444 + 57.4 = 2,501.4kg

I have entered both into the spreadsheet.

With reference to the Spreadsheet attached, the GVM for the vehicle is obviously increased and 105kg under the vehicle's rated max. GVM.

Clearly, the implication is I need to monitor both the ball wt. and the weight I have in the vehicle. Removing the 3rd row of back seats remains a good option.

Kevin (KevinJ), thanks to you and Steve (AWL) for picking-up on this matter.

As we are all aware, it is a matter of attempting to make the calculator reflect accurately the real life situation in relation to weight distribution.

Cheers Tim

Are We Lost · Guru

Thanks for the upate Tim (and the PM).

I will leave it to Kevin to discuss what is in the spreadsheet, but I note it is still showing rear axle load of 1811kg (over the Ford specified maximum). Thiis figure is identical to the verision you posted on 26 March, and I believe it is overstated, based on your figures. I have discussed that with Kevin but will leave it to him.

A couple of observations/questions:

How did you arrive at 2515kg weight when the weighbridge is in 20kg increments?
If the measured weight was 2515kg with 60L of fuel, how could it be less (2501kg) with a full 80L tank?
In the spreadsheet you have 2000(mm) as the distance between front axle and fuel tank. This can't be right as that would imply the fuel tank is between the axles. I believe 3350 would be close to the mark. That will adversely affect your rear axle loading.
You referred to 30kg towbar weight. Not sure how the spreadsheet deals with this. Kevin?

KevinJ · Senior Member

Are We Lost wrote:
Thanks for the upate Tim (and the PM).

I will leave it to Kevin to discuss what is in the spreadsheet, but I note it is still showing rear axle load of 1811kg (over the Ford specified maximum). Thiis figure is identical to the verision you posted on 26 March, and I believe it is overstated, based on your figures. I have discussed that with Kevin but will leave it to him.

A couple of observations/questions:
How did you arrive at 2515kg weight when the weighbridge is in 20kg increments?
If the measured weight was 2515kg with 60L of fuel, how could it be less (2501kg) with a full 80L tank?
In the spreadsheet you have 2000(mm) as the distance between front axle and fuel tank. This can't be right as that would imply the fuel tank is between the axles. I believe 3350 would be close to the mark. That will adversely affect your rear axle loading.
You referred to 30kg towbar weight. Not sure how the spreadsheet deals with this. Kevin?

The 30kg of towball weight (for the current version of the spreadsheet) forms part of the Tare and also Kerb weights. I am updating the spreadsheet to remove ther term "Tare" as it really is a misnomer. It will be replaced with the term "Empty weight" which will more accurately express what goes into the value.

For the mathematically minded, I have attached for formula to calculate the front and rear axle weights.

thalls01 · Veteran Member

Are We Lost wrote:
Thanks for the upate Tim (and the PM).

I will leave it to Kevin to discuss what is in the spreadsheet, but I note it is still showing rear axle load of 1811kg (over the Ford specified maximum). Thiis figure is identical to the verision you posted on 26 March, and I believe it is overstated, based on your figures. I have discussed that with Kevin but will leave it to him.

A couple of observations/questions:
How did you arrive at 2515kg weight when the weighbridge is in 20kg increments?
If the measured weight was 2515kg with 60L of fuel, how could it be less (2501kg) with a full 80L tank?
In the spreadsheet you have 2000(mm) as the distance between front axle and fuel tank. This can't be right as that would imply the fuel tank is between the axles. I believe 3350 would be close to the mark. That will adversely affect your rear axle loading.
You referred to 30kg towbar weight. Not sure how the spreadsheet deals with this. Kevin?

Steve, answers to your questions below:

1. 2515kg calculated using Pedders single axle scales, not weighbridge.

2. Good point, however you have overlooked my deduction of 30kg for towbar from front + rear axle addition.

3. Steve, I took mid-point of tank which travels transversely from rear axle forward. Refer picture of fuel tank attached which extends from rear axle forward.

4. Kevin in his most recent post (3/4/22) has stated to ignore this in his spreadsheet calculation.

I realise my rear axle is still over the max. rated load however with reference to Kevin's spreadsheet, you will note I also have minimal load in the car. I am to deal with this by:

A) Use of the E2 WDH;

B) Placing all weight in the rear and back seat of car (which is a minimal payload any case with reference to Kevin's spreadsheet) on to the front part of roof rack over the front axle.

C) Ensuring that TBW does not increase beyond 150kg download by distributing weight over wheels in caravan and at point of lowest height.

Cheers, Tim

thalls01 · Veteran Member

KevinJ wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
Thanks for the upate Tim (and the PM).

I will leave it to Kevin to discuss what is in the spreadsheet, but I note it is still showing rear axle load of 1811kg (over the Ford specified maximum). Thiis figure is identical to the verision you posted on 26 March, and I believe it is overstated, based on your figures. I have discussed that with Kevin but will leave it to him.

A couple of observations/questions:
How did you arrive at 2515kg weight when the weighbridge is in 20kg increments?
If the measured weight was 2515kg with 60L of fuel, how could it be less (2501kg) with a full 80L tank?
In the spreadsheet you have 2000(mm) as the distance between front axle and fuel tank. This can't be right as that would imply the fuel tank is between the axles. I believe 3350 would be close to the mark. That will adversely affect your rear axle loading.
You referred to 30kg towbar weight. Not sure how the spreadsheet deals with this. Kevin?

The 30kg of towball weight (for the current version of the spreadsheet) forms part of the Tare and also Kerb weights. I am updating the spreadsheet to remove ther term "Tare" as it really is a misnomer. It will be replaced with the term "Empty weight" which will more accurately express what goes into the value.
For the mathematically minded, I have attached for formula to calculate the front and rear axle weights.

Kevin - I think you meant to write '30kg of towbar weight' above.

I have addressed Steve's concern with position of fuel tank by confirming the fuel tank indeed does lie in front of rear axle extending forward to front axle - refer picture in my latest reply to Steve. So my calculation of mid-tank as at 2000mm still seems correct.

I have amended spreadsheet to include the towbar weight of 30kgs at Tare. That leaves a whopping (not) 75kg of payload before max GVM for vehicle is achieved. Crazy ... How does anyone pack to tow anything?! In any case I am to adopt the measures outlined in my post to Steve to shift weight from rear axle to front axle and now more than likely will remove rear seats before the Titanic disappears in the sunset - lol!

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The majority of modern cars are not made to tow vans in excess of 19.5 feet or with an ATM exceeding 2400kg.

2. All van owners should give strong consideration to fitting an electric brake controller to their van when 19.5' or greater is exceeded to assist vehicle to pull-up and to address any sway from air turbulents on the road.

3. Rear axle weights should be front and fore in any consideration of whether the vehicle is up to carrying a given trailer load rather than just the consideration of GCM.

4. If the rear axle is overloaded to a minor extent then a weight distribution hitch can assist to a minor extent to shift some of that weight to the vehicles front wheels with a portion also to the caravan's wheels.

5. At no time should any caravan owner assume they can fill the boot area of their vehicle in tow mode without consideration of their Vehicle's GVM and Rear Axle Weights. That typically means attending a public weighbridge or Pedders etc. to get a Tare weight for vehicle.

Kevin, when I am finished entertaining guests here and re-distributing load, I will post again on this forum with my findings.

Cheers, Tim

-- Edited by thalls01 on Sunday 3rd of April 2022 11:30:00 AM

KevinJ · Senior Member

Apologies, yes, I meant the weight of the towbar hitch, not the TBW.

My only comments on empty weights is that they need to be measured for the calculator to give accurate answers. If the empty weights are derived or calculated, the calculator will only give theretical answers.

yobarr · Guru

thalls01 wrote:
KevinJ wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:
Thanks for the upate Tim (and the PM).

I will leave it to Kevin to discuss what is in the spreadsheet, but I note it is still showing rear axle load of 1811kg (over the Ford specified maximum). Thiis figure is identical to the verision you posted on 26 March, and I believe it is overstated, based on your figures. I have discussed that with Kevin but will leave it to him.

A couple of observations/questions:
How did you arrive at 2515kg weight when the weighbridge is in 20kg increments?
If the measured weight was 2515kg with 60L of fuel, how could it be less (2501kg) with a full 80L tank?
In the spreadsheet you have 2000(mm) as the distance between front axle and fuel tank. This can't be right as that would imply the fuel tank is between the axles. I believe 3350 would be close to the mark. That will adversely affect your rear axle loading.
You referred to 30kg towbar weight. Not sure how the spreadsheet deals with this. Kevin?

The 30kg of towball weight (for the current version of the spreadsheet) forms part of the Tare and also Kerb weights. I am updating the spreadsheet to remove ther term "Tare" as it really is a misnomer. It will be replaced with the term "Empty weight" which will more accurately express what goes into the value.
For the mathematically minded, I have attached for formula to calculate the front and rear axle weights.
Kevin - I think you meant to write '30kg of towbar weight' above.
I have addressed Steve's concern with position of fuel tank by confirming the fuel tank indeed does lie in front of rear axle extending forward to front axle - refer picture in my latest reply to Steve. So my calculation of mid-tank as at 2000mm still seems correct.
I have amended spreadsheet to include the towbar weight of 30kgs at Tare. That leaves a whopping (not) 75kg of payload before max GVM for vehicle is achieved. Crazy ... How does anyone pack to tow anything?! In any case I am to adopt the measures outlined in my post to Steve to shift weight from rear axle to front axle and now more than likely will remove rear seats before the Titanic disappears in the sunset - lol!
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The majority of modern cars are not made to tow vans in excess of 19.5 feet or with an ATM exceeding 2400kg.
2. All van owners should give strong consideration to fitting an electric brake controller to their van when 19.5' or greater is exceeded to assist vehicle to pull-up and to address any sway from air turbulents on the road.
3. Rear axle weights should be front and fore in any consideration of whether the vehicle is up to carrying a given trailer load rather than just the consideration of GCM.
4. If the rear axle is overloaded to a minor extent then a weight distribution hitch can assist to a minor extent to shift some of that weight to the vehicles front wheels with a portion also to the caravan's wheels.
5. At no time should any caravan owner assume they can fill the boot area of their vehicle in tow mode without consideration of their Vehicle's GVM and Rear Axle Weights. That typically means attending a public weighbridge or Pedders etc. to get a Tare weight for vehicle.
Kevin, when I am finished entertaining guests here and re-distributing load, I will post again on this forum with my findings.
Cheers, Tim

Hi Tim.Whilst I have not yet been able to find a few hours spare to trawl through all the figures that you and others have supplied, I have still been keeping a bit of an eye on developments! However, a quick glance shows that you'll be cutting it fine to get this thing all legal whilst ensuring that the weight on the car's wheels is at least 10% greater than is the weight on the van's wheels. But I will watch with interest your proceedings! Cheers