Older Born Frees and Weight

[TwoShihtzus]

After a year and a half of looking, we finally found a Born Free in our price range that was in great shape. We bought a 1991 26' President RSB. On the way home from the factory, we stopped and got weighed. The holding tanks were empty, the propane was full, the fuel was 1/2 full, there was no cargo, and only my wife and two young kids.

Front 3860 lbs (within the 4600 GAWR)
Rear 8680 lbs (880 lbs over GAWR)
Total 12540 lbs (1540 lbs over GVWR)

I was shocked to say the least. I'm really concerned about this. When we load all our clothes and food for a week-long excursion, I'll be even further over the GVWR. Even if we store all the cargo in the cab-over bed, we're still over the total limit...

I'm considering replacing the stock Load Range D tires with Load Range E and also considering yanking out the stove (it's a 4 burner stove/oven combo). I figure I can mount a two-burner stove in the opening and save a lot of weight. I was also considering losing the generator - although we would definately miss it.

It's over 16 yrs old with 84,000 miles, so the original owner must not have cared/known it was so far overweight.

Before I go making radical changes, I figured I would see what other owners of E350 based BF's have encountered and how they dealt with this weight issue. What did y'all do about weight on these older models?

[whemme]

I am not sure that you can really do much about your overweight condition othen than to just live with it.

You might learn something from a discussion on this topic on the RV.net forum that currently contains 51 postings at this website link: http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fusea ... 602208.cfm

[bcope01]

What exactly is the significance of the GAWR and GVWR numbers? Aren't these just subjective numbers, guesses at best? And no doubt artificially low for added safety? IMHO, a vehicle with 84K miles speaks for itself. The Ford E350 chassis may not be optimum for the weight of the 26 footer, but it is proven, as evidenced by the many owners that have happily owned one.

Bill

[whemme]

GAWR - Gross Axle Weight Rating
GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

1) GAWR for the front axle for all E-350 and E-450 chassis has been 4600 lbs maximum
2) GAWR for the rear axle for the later model chassis are as follows:
E-350s with 138" wheel base - 7800 lbs maximum
E-350s with 158" & 176" wheel base - 8350 lbs maximum
E-450s - 9450 lbs maximum
3) GVWR for early model E-350s - 11,000 lbs maximum
GVWR for later model E-350s - 11,500 lbs maximum
GVWR for all model E-450s - 14,050 lbs maximum

So what do these maximum gross weight ratings really mean? It means that the chassis design engineers at Ford put together a design for E-350 and E-450 chassis that involves the chosen frame members, springs, axles, tires, brakes, etc that will support the maximum permitted weights listed above. Of course there is a degree of safety factor included in the design of any vehicle, but any vehicle operated over its design limits is being operated with a reduced margin of safety.

That reduced margin means increased stopping distances, reduced stability, and increased potential for wear or failure of such things as tires, brakes, axles, springs, etc.

That is just my opinion.

[bcope01]

Bill Hemme, what you say makes perfectly good sense and I respect your opinion.

I'm not suggesting that Matthew, or anyone else for that matter, ignore the gross vehicle ratings. I'm just saying what I would do. After all, safety itself is relative, and I would not feel unsafe loading his coach up and going camping.

I'm amused, however, when you say that the gross weight ratings were developed by the Ford chassis design engineers based on the chassis parts used. If these ratings are correct, then that would be one of the few things those engineers got right on the E-series chassis over the years.

I guess the proof is in the pudding. What would be useful is a survey from owners of the 26' Born Free on the E350 chassis detailing the "increased stopping distances, reduced stability, and increased potential for wear or failure of such things as tires, brakes, axles, springs, etc." My guess is that most would say that they got good service from their rigs.

Any Born Free 26' E350 chassis owners want to chime in?

Bill

[TwoShihtzus]

Thanks for the link Bill. Very interesting reading...

Given that the vehicle is 16 yrs old, with 84,000 miles on it, is in great condition, and has had only routine maintenance items required over the years, it would seem I should not worry too much about the overweight situation. However, as my wife will testify, I'm bonefide engineer - specs are something I don't easily ignore (as hard as I try)...

:)

I don't think I'll do anything drastic, but I definately am going to go to a heavier load range tire (the stock tire in 1991 was Load Range D, which is what is on the vehicle now). I'm going to go to a Load Range E and keep the tanks as dry as possible.

I would be curious to hear comments from anybody who used to own the 26' models on the E350 chasis - What kinds of weight issues did you have, and how did you deal with them?

[George Boley]

Matthew & Teri,
You just gave yourself the best advice, get E-rated tire right away and stay away from Fireston Products. We (BF) have lost a ton of them to sidewall failure especially the D-rated ones. George B

[TwoShihtzus]

Thanks George. Interestingly, the spare tire is a Dunlop "Radial Rover" - Load Range E...

A quick Internet search reveals good reviews for this tire and the price on-line is pretty good, so I'll probably go with 6 of these and travel with as little propane/gas/water as practicle.

I also plan on having the spare removed from the rim and just carrying the tire. That should help lose about 70 lbs (It happens to be mounted on the rear bumber).

[Dave&JanPotter]

You mentioned something in your post that is worth more discussion/thought. You were considering removing the propane stove and using a Coleman stove in its place. While both obviously have issues of ventilation, I would be very wary of using a Coleman stove inside an RV. They are meant ofr outside use. My experience with those is that they are a pain to disassemble for filling and the temptation is to fill them in place without taking the tank off or taking the whole unit outside, especially on a rainy day. I would think twice about bringing gasoline inside an RV. If you feel you must take the propane stove out, I suggest visiting a marine hardware store/website and checking out alcohol stoves. There are several types, pressurized and non-pressurized. and they are made for this type of inside installation on a boat. I have always felt much safer refueling them on my boats.

[TwoShihtzus]

I appreciate the safety tip Dave - I didn't do a good job of explaining my intentions.

My coach has the 4 burner stove and an oven. I was contemplating replacing this with a 2 burner stove like BF uses in the other coaches I've seen - not really with the portable "coleman" stove.

I wasn't aware of the safety issue with the portable stove indoors though, so I learned something from your response anyway.

Thanks,
Matthew

[hrgermany]

I also have an older Born Free 1995 BF 26 ft RSB.My semi loaded weight is
@ 12500#.The previous owner added an additional spring leaf.My tires are E rated with Billstein Heavy Duty shocks and rear airbags.I added a heavy duty swaybar to the front end.I try not to carry any excess idems or full water or waste water tanks.Sofar no problems.

Hans Rueckert

[TwoShihtzus]

Thanks for the information Hans.

Extra leaves must've been a popular add-on to the E350 chasis. I've seen quite a few posts on various internet forums indicating they've done this as well. I was digging through the maintenance records of my 91 and discovered that the previous owner had a full leaf added to the rear and "super duty" (whatever that is) coil springs added to the front. He also added a sway bar and bilstein shocks. The ride and handling are exceptional. The rear tires are still load range D, but they're only a year old, so I decided to delay purchase of load range E tires for now.

Matthew