Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2022, 01:44 AM   #41
Silver Member
 
Luv2Go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 73
Default

Here's the paragraph from my post above regarding the 60S and the part number for the AC Delco rotors I was able to find. It was a perfect fit. We have put over 60k on those brakes and they work just as well as they did after I installed them and bedded them in:

"Pads were still available thru Amazon at a reasonable price. Also the 177-0928 ACDelco brand rear rotors were available from Amazon directly for less than $40 each. These are the correct ones for our 60S semi-floating rear axle and are ACDelco's top-tier offering, supposed to be exactly what came on the van from the factory."
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2006 Roadtrek 210 Versatile, 400W Solar, 320AH LiFePO4. Suspension mods: Front: Moog 81004 coil springs. Rear: SuperSteer Track Bar, AirLift airbags with integrated bump stop, 2" lift blocks, removed overload leafs. All around: Bilsteins, 265-75R16 K02's
Luv2Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 02:10 AM   #42
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: California
Posts: 44
Default

Thank you so much for the replies, I really appreciate it. I did read the thread a few times but just wanted to clarify, can't be too careful with brakes, haha.

I saw the post about how it's actually probably the pads, not the rotors, causing shuddering, but even good rotors are not that expensive, so I may just change mine while doing this.

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but most of the heavy-duty rear rotors available have those 2 "extra holes", even though they have the correct hub diameter for 60S (4.63) - would those fit? The 2 extra holes are optional, correct, for hold down bolts? My wheels are the 8-lug American Racing, if that helps. I know that the rotor height is important too, but I'm still researching, it sounds like ACDelco would be fine, but I'm somewhat preferable to other brands, like Raybestos.

Thanks again for any advice,
Dave
rhythmtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 02:45 AM   #43
Silver Member
 
Luv2Go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 73
Default

My rotors either needed turning or replacement, I decided on replacement. I do not think the "extra holes" matter, as you say they may be for retaining screws.

I like the Hawk pads, they've given us good wear and excellent performance on this heavy vehicle (we're at the GVWR). I purchased these for the front and these for the rear.
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2006 Roadtrek 210 Versatile, 400W Solar, 320AH LiFePO4. Suspension mods: Front: Moog 81004 coil springs. Rear: SuperSteer Track Bar, AirLift airbags with integrated bump stop, 2" lift blocks, removed overload leafs. All around: Bilsteins, 265-75R16 K02's
Luv2Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 04:46 AM   #44
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: California
Posts: 44
Default

I really appreciate the replies,
I think I am almost good on research, this thread has been exceptionally helpful - but if I can ask 1 more question, would these be good for the front rotors?

ACDelco 177-878 ???

It lists 10k GVW and also 12 GVW, and 14 GVW - and I seem to remember calculating up to 11k GVW once we're fully loaded with four people, all the gear, and all tanks filled, maybe even a little bit more.

Thank you again,
Dave
rhythmtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 05:57 AM   #45
Silver Member
 
Luv2Go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 73
Default

Not sure what the difference between the various AC Delco part numbers is, all dimensions seem to be the same for the 9600 (which is the GVWR of my 210) and the 10k, 12k, 14k you're looking at.

Actually, the front rotor I bought (Hawk HUS8659) is available on eBay again here at $50 ea, with free shipping, same seller and price I paid in 2018!

Note these are the "Quiet Slot" rotors that are just slotted, not drilled, and were not supposed to be available any more (per booster way earlier in this thread). Evidently this seller has a pretty large stock of them he's sold 8 and has over 10 left!
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2006 Roadtrek 210 Versatile, 400W Solar, 320AH LiFePO4. Suspension mods: Front: Moog 81004 coil springs. Rear: SuperSteer Track Bar, AirLift airbags with integrated bump stop, 2" lift blocks, removed overload leafs. All around: Bilsteins, 265-75R16 K02's
Luv2Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 10:44 AM   #46
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtone View Post
I really appreciate the replies,
I think I am almost good on research, this thread has been exceptionally helpful - but if I can ask 1 more question, would these be good for the front rotors?

ACDelco 177-878 ???

It lists 10k GVW and also 12 GVW, and 14 GVW - and I seem to remember calculating up to 11k GVW once we're fully loaded with four people, all the gear, and all tanks filled, maybe even a little bit more.

Thank you again,
Dave

The ratings of 10/12/14K# are almost certainly for dual rear wheel vans so the rotors are different on them.

A bit off topic, but if you are getting to 11K+# on the 9600# rated Chevy van, you are at risk of a badly overloaded rear axle, especially on a 210 with the long rear overhang. The 60s is rated right at the maximum allowed loading for the rear tires at 6080# as the tires are rated at 3042# each for the original Bridgestones. Other brands might be a few pounds higher. The Chevies tend to put more weight on the driver's side by about 2-300# which makes one side over on tire capacity even if you are just at rear axle total weight. You may have area axle weight approaching 7K# depending on where the load is sitting.



210s are probably near the top of class b vans that have rear tire failures and we have heard of multiple cases of thousands of dollars of body damage to the fiberglass parts from blowouts on them. Luckily no serious injuries that I know of so far.


The 60s also tends to run hot on the wheel bearings also so overloading can make that even worse, especially when combined with the incorrect offset AR wheels. Since the wheel bearings don't have an inner race and run on the drive axles themselves a bearing failure can destroy the axle with it and sometimes cause it to break. In a 60s this allows the wheel to actually fall of the van completely. The high bearing temps can actually even make the tires run hotter as it transfers through the wheels to the tires.



IMO, you need to get to the scales and see how you can get your weight down, especially on the rear axle before you have an issue that would be weight related. There are tire/wheel changes that can be done to gain tire capacity, but that doesn't change the overloaded axle itself, brakes, or other items that are handling more weight than they were rated for.


Most owners of 210s have found they really don't have a lot of load capacity in them compared to many other vans, often only a few hundred pounds beyond the weight of two occupants. Running with empty tanks can help some and many RVers do that on lots of different RV, especially small trailers.



You may want to start a discussion in another thread on 210 weight as there are a number of 210 owners on the forum who would have a bunch of real world experience with them. We have a 190 so we have much less of an issue than a 210, but still get close to 9600# if fully loaded for a long trip and the two occupants together is a bit under 300#
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 06:54 PM   #47
Silver Member
 
Luv2Go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 73
Default

Booster has a good point regarding weight. We're at the max on the rear axle and I've already replaced the driver side axle shaft / bearing due to wear. Next time I will bite the bullet and replace with a 70S, which fortunately booster and others have posted about.

Also have had two tire failures, though in my case they were always tread separation due to belt failures, the carcass held air so the damage was minimized. Strangely enough they were both on the passenger side. May have been due to over inflation as opposed to underinflation, both occurred after driving south in the winter where the cold pressure was set to 80psi at 25F, ambient temp at failure was in the 50's.

I just removed the generator for the second and final time to help reduce the weight, going with a 60A DC to DC and will change the stock alternator as soon as it dies, which will probably be pretty quick.

Back on topic: I'm confident that if you decide to use the parts booster, others and I used for the brake replacement that you'll be pleased. As with booster, we're not easy on the brakes, we like driving in the mountains in the east where there are some surprisingly long grades and we use the brakes a lot.
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2006 Roadtrek 210 Versatile, 400W Solar, 320AH LiFePO4. Suspension mods: Front: Moog 81004 coil springs. Rear: SuperSteer Track Bar, AirLift airbags with integrated bump stop, 2" lift blocks, removed overload leafs. All around: Bilsteins, 265-75R16 K02's
Luv2Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 07:04 PM   #48
Platinum Member
 
folivier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Louisiana and Colorado
Posts: 131
Default

My 2011 C210 according to the VIN lookup lists the axle as a G80 (AXLE,REAR,POSITRACTION,LIMITED SLIP); Does this sound right and is it an improvement over the 60 or 70 series listed in this discussion?
Next month I'll be pulling the wheels and checking brake pads.
__________________
Enjoying life at our Colorado cabin
2011 Roadtrek C210P
RZR 570, Ranger 1000
Previously: 1999 36' Foretravel, 1998 Newell, 1993 Newell
folivier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 07:19 PM   #49
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv2Go View Post
Booster has a good point regarding weight. We're at the max on the rear axle and I've already replaced the driver side axle shaft / bearing due to wear. Next time I will bite the bullet and replace with a 70S, which fortunately booster and others have posted about.

Also have had two tire failures, though in my case they were always tread separation due to belt failures, the carcass held air so the damage was minimized. Strangely enough they were both on the passenger side. May have been due to over inflation as opposed to underinflation, both occurred after driving south in the winter where the cold pressure was set to 80psi at 25F, ambient temp at failure was in the 50's.

I just removed the generator for the second and final time to help reduce the weight, going with a 60A DC to DC and will change the stock alternator as soon as it dies, which will probably be pretty quick.

Back on topic: I'm confident that if you decide to use the parts booster, others and I used for the brake replacement that you'll be pleased. As with booster, we're not easy on the brakes, we like driving in the mountains in the east where there are some surprisingly long grades and we use the brakes a lot.

Great information, thanks for posting it.


We have lived with our 70s swap in for a number of years in our 090 and can say every measurable thing that I can think of got better. Lower hub temps, lower tire temps, etc. Add to that the fact we have gone to 265-75-16 tires on the correct offset wheels, and I now have essentially no rear axle worries as the tires add about 700# capacity. I really don't like running at max on anything, tires and axles included.



That all said, I did just replace the hubs and bearings on the 70s as it had nearly 200K miles on it because it was well used when we got it. The old bearings looked perfect when I took them out so not any any issue at all, but the hubs were very rusty because they came from a high salt area of the northeast. The rust required more tapered rotor shims than I like to use, so I figured I would just replace the whole hub/bearing assembly while the OEM parts were still available. Minor shimming on one side now, so all good.


IMO, based on what we have heard about 210 rear axle overloading, it is that Luv2Go's plan to go to a 70s is well placed. It is truly a drop in swap. No change in driveshaft or brake parts except for the rotors. Everything else is the same.


If you also do the swap to the bigger tires and correct offset wheels also your rear axle capacity gains somewhere around 700# of capacity. I am not suggesting you use that capacity though, but that extra capacity is what helps prevent bad things from happening if you are at the original capacity.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 07:25 PM   #50
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by folivier View Post
My 2011 C210 according to the VIN lookup lists the axle as a G80 (AXLE,REAR,POSITRACTION,LIMITED SLIP); Does this sound right and is it an improvement over the 60 or 70 series listed in this discussion?
Next month I'll be pulling the wheels and checking brake pads.

The G80 designation does not address axle size AFAIK, it is only referring to the Gov-lock rear axle feature.


Also AFAIK, GM only put the 10.5" 70s rear axle in the vans as part of the trailer tow package and it included the G80 option in the 70s. All the G80 axles I have heard about in Roadtreks also had the 70s axle, and I would certainly think yours will have it also.


If you have big hub sticking out of the rear wheel center with a bunch of bolt heads on it, you have the 70s. If you pull off the wheel or wheel cover it will be very obvious.


I think you won the jackpot on this one, as the 70s is a very much better axle than the 60s.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 07:29 PM   #51
Silver Member
 
Luv2Go's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by folivier View Post
My 2011 C210 according to the VIN lookup lists the axle as a G80 (AXLE,REAR,POSITRACTION,LIMITED SLIP); Does this sound right and is it an improvement over the 60 or 70 series listed in this discussion?
Next month I'll be pulling the wheels and checking brake pads.
Parallel posting with booster, but I'll post anyway:

From what I see on the al knowing internet, the 2010 and up have the 6 speed transmission. Along with that they changed the rear axle ratio, ours is a 4.10 which is RPO code G80 and GT5. I seem to remember they changed to an American Axle from Dana which may mean you have a full floating axle. It's easy to check, take off your tire and if the hub sticks out about 2-3" you have a full floater.
__________________
Stewart, Brenda and kids
2006 Roadtrek 210 Versatile, 400W Solar, 320AH LiFePO4. Suspension mods: Front: Moog 81004 coil springs. Rear: SuperSteer Track Bar, AirLift airbags with integrated bump stop, 2" lift blocks, removed overload leafs. All around: Bilsteins, 265-75R16 K02's
Luv2Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 07:46 PM   #52
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luv2Go View Post
Parallel posting with booster, but I'll post anyway:

From what I see on the al knowing internet, the 2010 and up have the 6 speed transmission. Along with that they changed the rear axle ratio, ours is a 4.10 which is RPO code G80 and GT5. I seem to remember they changed to an American Axle from Dana which may mean you have a full floating axle. It's easy to check, take off your tire and if the hub sticks out about 2-3" you have a full floater.
Totally agree, I missed the 2011 year mentioned.


That said, it is also likely they had a small and and large AAM axle that changed with G80 and tow package that year, so further exploration needed I think.


Of course it is easiest to just pull a rear wheel and look at the hub to know if it is semi or full floating.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 08:20 PM   #53
Platinum Member
 
folivier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Louisiana and Colorado
Posts: 131
Default

Thanks booster and Luv2Go, I'll be checking that when I look at the brakes.
The brakes work ok but it seems there is more pedal movement required than my 2011 Tahoe. So I'll be pulling all 4 wheels and inspecting the brakes and possibly (probably) flushing the brake fluid. But not until next month, still enjoying the snow at our Colorado cabin.
__________________
Enjoying life at our Colorado cabin
2011 Roadtrek C210P
RZR 570, Ranger 1000
Previously: 1999 36' Foretravel, 1998 Newell, 1993 Newell
folivier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 08:40 PM   #54
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

The Chevies are kind of "famous" for having more brake pedal travel than many people are used to, me included. I checked ours multiple times against the pedal travel spec in the factory service manual and it was right on spec. Odd yes, uncomfortable to some yes, not as designed no.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2022, 09:06 PM   #55
Platinum Member
 
folivier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Louisiana and Colorado
Posts: 131
Default

That's interesting, I've had numerous Chevy's over the years. Suburbans, Silverados, and the current 2011 Tahoe and all had the same amount of pedal movement. My 2011 RT has almost twice the pedal movement that's why I plan to inspect the brakes. On my 700 mile trip home after buying it the brakes worked fine other than getting used to the extra movement. I didn't take the time to see if they bleed down but I will when I get back to it. I need to pull the wheels off anyway to polish them.
__________________
Enjoying life at our Colorado cabin
2011 Roadtrek C210P
RZR 570, Ranger 1000
Previously: 1999 36' Foretravel, 1998 Newell, 1993 Newell
folivier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2022, 06:03 AM   #56
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: California
Posts: 44
Default

Thanks for the replies, I meant to reply to this again sooner.

You buy a 3500 you think that you can carry the earth but I guess not, haha. I'll get to the scales soon.

What are the options for upgrading the rear end? I looked at the 70S but the array of options was dizzying, haha, I'll have to do more research.

Also just bought 4 new tires which likely wouldn't fit any different axles, they're E-rated Michelins at 3042 lbs per tire in the standard size for the 210 which is 245/75-16 with 8 bolts on the rim.

Thanks again!
rhythmtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2022, 11:02 AM   #57
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtone View Post
Thanks for the replies, I meant to reply to this again sooner.

You buy a 3500 you think that you can carry the earth but I guess not, haha. I'll get to the scales soon.

What are the options for upgrading the rear end? I looked at the 70S but the array of options was dizzying, haha, I'll have to do more research.

Also just bought 4 new tires which likely wouldn't fit any different axles, they're E-rated Michelins at 3042 lbs per tire in the standard size for the 210 which is 245/75-16 with 8 bolts on the rim.

Thanks again!

One the early versions of vans from 2003 to about 2010 there were only two axles offered the Dana 60s and 70s. The vans have a specific width so only those will fit easily.


The swap to the 70s heavier axle is not difficult but most DIY folks don't have the equipment to handle the big heavy parts so would be best off hiring it done. I did ours and the actual swap took me less than one day of working alone.


The hardest part is finding and 70s with the 4.11 gears in it, as most are 3.73. The good is that a gear swap can be done at the swap time by any reputable shop with a new set of 4.11 gears. The lower cost of finding a 3.73 axle will cover at least part of the price of the buying the gears. I did find a 4.11 geared axle when I did ours a number of years ago, but it took a while and was out of the N.E. so very, very, rusty. I spent a lot of time cleaning the rust off of it, especially the hubs. I finally just this year replaced the hubs because the rust had been so bad it was hard to get the rotors to run straight.



The later year large capacity 10.5" axles were made, I am pretty sure, by American Axle and all had 3.42 gears in them to work well with the 6 speed transmission used in the later vans. I think they would also fit in the van just as easily, but no one has done one yet with single rear wheel van. We know of one of a dually swap with one, though. Since you probably would be doing a gear swap anyway, that might be a very good way to go. The AA axles are generally the same as the pre 2003 axles used but with the disc brakes added. Those axles were labelled as GM axles and most shops I talked to consider them to be even more durable than Dana 70 axles by a small amount. The way they are designed makes working on them easier also. So a post 2010 axle in 10.5" would probably also be a viable swap, with a gear change, and making sure it came from a rust free area.


The axles don't really care what tires are on them, so you could use your tires on a larger axle, which we did for a while, but you would not get any load carrying capacity that way because the tires are the limiting factor. What you gain with bigger axle is a locking rear axle (positraction in generic terms) and a much more durable, cooler running, axle. Both the 60s and 70s are rated by GM at 6080# capacity, but that is only because of the tire size used on them. 6080# is likely also the approximate max on the 60s but a 70s would actually have much more capacity, probably about 30% higher.



You always have to be aware that adding a more capable rear axle will not change the actual overall load capacity of the van which is 9600#, especially from a legal point of view if you got weigh checked or in a major accident with lawsuits. It is unknow if any other parts are at the limit of 6080# or not. Brakes, springs, and frame strength and such are that kind of part. What you gain is operating "headspace" on the axle and tires (if you change to the higher capacity tires and wheels). The more headspace you have the lower the chance of failure is. One of the points of failure is the drive axle shafts themselves in the 60s because all of the wheel weight is on the axle shaft in that design and the quite small wheel bearings actually use the axle for the inner race, plus the axle shafts run very hot. The design also makes so if the axle shaft breaks, the rear wheel/rotor can actually separate from the van leaving you with no rear wheel. The 70s has two massive bearings carrying the weight and there is no weight on the axle shaft itself, plus no bearings even touching the axle shaft. on the wheel bearing end. They hardly ever break and even if they did the wheel will not separate from the van and you would just coast to a stop with the brakes still working normally.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2022, 06:03 AM   #58
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: California
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by booster View Post
One the early versions of vans from 2003 to about 2010 there were only two axles offered the Dana 60s and 70s. The vans have a specific width so only those will fit easily.


The swap to the 70s heavier axle is not difficult but most DIY folks don't have the equipment to handle the big heavy parts so would be best off hiring it done. I did ours and the actual swap took me less than one day of working alone.


The hardest part is finding and 70s with the 4.11 gears in it, as most are 3.73. The good is that a gear swap can be done at the swap time by any reputable shop with a new set of 4.11 gears. The lower cost of finding a 3.73 axle will cover at least part of the price of the buying the gears. I did find a 4.11 geared axle when I did ours a number of years ago, but it took a while and was out of the N.E. so very, very, rusty. I spent a lot of time cleaning the rust off of it, especially the hubs. I finally just this year replaced the hubs because the rust had been so bad it was hard to get the rotors to run straight.



The later year large capacity 10.5" axles were made, I am pretty sure, by American Axle and all had 3.42 gears in them to work well with the 6 speed transmission used in the later vans. I think they would also fit in the van just as easily, but no one has done one yet with single rear wheel van. We know of one of a dually swap with one, though. Since you probably would be doing a gear swap anyway, that might be a very good way to go. The AA axles are generally the same as the pre 2003 axles used but with the disc brakes added. Those axles were labelled as GM axles and most shops I talked to consider them to be even more durable than Dana 70 axles by a small amount. The way they are designed makes working on them easier also. So a post 2010 axle in 10.5" would probably also be a viable swap, with a gear change, and making sure it came from a rust free area.


The axles don't really care what tires are on them, so you could use your tires on a larger axle, which we did for a while, but you would not get any load carrying capacity that way because the tires are the limiting factor. What you gain with bigger axle is a locking rear axle (positraction in generic terms) and a much more durable, cooler running, axle. Both the 60s and 70s are rated by GM at 6080# capacity, but that is only because of the tire size used on them. 6080# is likely also the approximate max on the 60s but a 70s would actually have much more capacity, probably about 30% higher.



You always have to be aware that adding a more capable rear axle will not change the actual overall load capacity of the van which is 9600#, especially from a legal point of view if you got weigh checked or in a major accident with lawsuits. It is unknow if any other parts are at the limit of 6080# or not. Brakes, springs, and frame strength and such are that kind of part. What you gain is operating "headspace" on the axle and tires (if you change to the higher capacity tires and wheels). The more headspace you have the lower the chance of failure is. One of the points of failure is the drive axle shafts themselves in the 60s because all of the wheel weight is on the axle shaft in that design and the quite small wheel bearings actually use the axle for the inner race, plus the axle shafts run very hot. The design also makes so if the axle shaft breaks, the rear wheel/rotor can actually separate from the van leaving you with no rear wheel. The 70s has two massive bearings carrying the weight and there is no weight on the axle shaft itself, plus no bearings even touching the axle shaft. on the wheel bearing end. They hardly ever break and even if they did the wheel will not separate from the van and you would just coast to a stop with the brakes still working normally.
Thank you!

I greatly appreciate all of your posts and knowledge on the various things that I have asked on this forum.

Good to know about the 9600 lbs GVW, but I'm curious how the even bigger Class B rigs deal with this, maybe it's a Dana 70S with dual rear wheels? (spread out the load?)

We're looking at another rig, may or may not get it, but it's 24ft, same Chevy 3500 chassis though, haven't seen it yet but it must be dual rear tires.

But if the chassis is the same, it's hard to imagine even more load, without going up to an even bigger chassis size, haha. Do they make Class B's on 4500's? This is my worry, putting even more weight / stuff on the same chassis ...

I understand that we're getting a bit off the subject of brakes here, but it's related. Again, greatly appreciated your sharing of knowledge.

Thanks,
Dave
rhythmtone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2022, 10:48 AM   #59
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmtone View Post
Thank you!

I greatly appreciate all of your posts and knowledge on the various things that I have asked on this forum.

Good to know about the 9600 lbs GVW, but I'm curious how the even bigger Class B rigs deal with this, maybe it's a Dana 70S with dual rear wheels? (spread out the load?)

We're looking at another rig, may or may not get it, but it's 24ft, same Chevy 3500 chassis though, haven't seen it yet but it must be dual rear tires.

But if the chassis is the same, it's hard to imagine even more load, without going up to an even bigger chassis size, haha. Do they make Class B's on 4500's? This is my worry, putting even more weight / stuff on the same chassis ...

I understand that we're getting a bit off the subject of brakes here, but it's related. Again, greatly appreciated your sharing of knowledge.

Thanks,
Dave

I doubt you would see any van on single wheels over the 10K pound level. Once they get to that level the limiting is mostly tires. There is no cutoff of 3500 naming of the vans at any real limit that I know of. The longer Sprinters and Transits called 3500 (1 ton) are on duals and have ratings in the 11-12K or range. The older Fords and Chevies built on the cutaway chassis instead of unibody were also higher rated and on duals in similar load ranges. You still see the Fords in particular used as 3500 models on some very large class C RVs. The Cutaways are designed to carry more weight as they are what is used to make the very common box trucks for the commercial market. So, yes, you will find a Chevy on duals with higher load capacity, but it would be on a cutaway, not full steel body, van. You will find Transits and Spinters in full steel body vans on duals though.
booster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2024, 12:43 PM   #60
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: va
Posts: 78
Default

Back to the brake rotor warning. I have the 70S on my 2007 190p. had replaced the rotors and brake pads when I got it, I I too had the rear brake pads wear out very quickly. (front looked like new, rears were past the wear groves) I measured everything last time when installing and measured everything again this time, I have the correct rotor for my application. I started checking temperatures, the rear are running 100į hotter than the front after just a few stops. front is 200s rears are 300s. both left and right.



has anyone seen higher temperatures on the rear as compared to the front? do I need to re-bleed the system maybe I have some sort of weird bias going on?
The brakes don't drag, I drove a mile or so without hitting the brakes and then coasted into a parking lot, front and rear rotors were same temperature, a little bit above ambient.
__________________
2007 TurdWrek 190 popular
Todd
tlillard23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.