RE: Duelly

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

All negatives for dually already stated in this thread, please review them.

I don't agree with these talking points.... SORRY...

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

I think that the 23 foot Class B is the smallest vehicle I want to be in and the 170 inch wheelbase with the dual wheels works great for me, but, I understand if you want a 19 foot RV.... they sure are popular....

Hope that works well for you....not my thing.... plus driving across the USA every year I love the extra space and weight capacity.

A shorter wheel base is easier to level. Easier to park with a shorter turning radius. You can park in more and tighter spaces. As I mentioned before, with a 170 WB Sprinter you cannot pull in straight between two cars in a Walmart or Target parking lot let alone not taking up two back to back spaces. You cannot parallel park in a marked empty space between two cars.

Driving across the country is nothing. I just put 3,400 miles already in our new van in less than 4 weeks. Extra weight capacity means nothing in a Class B. With a 2500 Sprinter 144 you have a gross upfitted weight of about 7,600 libs and can go up to 9,050 lbs. That means you can carry 1,450 lbs. I doubt you can load a Class B with that much weight with two people. I couldn’t with a 24 ft. Sprinter and in my design I got everything transferred to my 19 ft. Sprinter. So, the extra weight capacity is just that - unused.

In a Sprinter, a 2500 vs 3500 dually is like driving a car instead of a truck for a metaphor. Less stressful. Pushing about a ton less which so far has translated about 2 mpg more and much more responsive in getting up to speed. Keep in mind, my memory of the two were fresh as I traded a 3500 24 ft Sprinter for a 2500 19 ft. In my last trip. Mies - Less is more in for Alvar.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Davydd

A shorter wheel base is easier to level. Easier to park with a shorter turning radius. You can park in more and tighter spaces. As I mentioned before, with a 170 WB Sprinter you cannot pull in straight between two cars in a Walmart or Target parking lot let alone not taking up two back to back spaces. You cannot parallel park in a marked empty space between two cars.

Driving across the country is nothing. I just put 3,400 miles already in our new van in less than 4 weeks. Extra weight capacity means nothing in a Class B. With a 2500 Sprinter 144 you have a gross upfitted weight of about 7,600 libs and can go up to 9,050 lbs. That means you can carry 1,450 lbs. I doubt you can load a Class B with that much weight with two people. I couldn’t with a 24 ft. Sprinter and in my design I got everything transferred to my 19 ft. Sprinter. So, the extra weight capacity is just that - unused.

In a Sprinter, a 2500 vs 3500 dually is like driving a car instead of a truck for a metaphor. Less stressful. Pushing about a ton less which so far has translated about 2 mpg more and much more responsive in getting up to speed. Keep in mind, my memory of the two were fresh as I traded a 3500 24 ft Sprinter for a 2500 19 ft. In my last trip. Mies - Less is more in for Alvar.

Let's say I believe you.... you are still 4 feet shorter with 19 foot van.... and that translates to inside space....

Again, I'm glad you're happy.....

There's a lot more weight capacity on the OCCC.... this is just a fact....my maximum weight capacity is 11,030 pounds. You cannot dispute this if you had one of these models.

The fact that you brought up the ability to accelerate and more responsive /faster is completely unimportant.

Who's racing an RV? Again, personal choice.... you've made yours....

This argument is pointless. I like the extra space inside the RV....

By the way, when you start adding up all the weight capacity for two people, 400 pounds, gear, full tank of water, bicycles, food, extra bottled water, etc....it adds up...

I still have over 1,500 pounds of extra headroom on my weight even carrying everything.....

I never want to be close to the limit.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Davydd

A shorter wheel base is easier to level. Easier to park with a shorter turning radius. You can park in more and tighter spaces. As I mentioned before, with a 170 WB Sprinter you cannot pull in straight between two cars in a Walmart or Target parking lot let alone not taking up two back to back spaces. You cannot parallel park in a marked empty space between two cars.

Driving across the country is nothing. I just put 3,400 miles already in our new van in less than 4 weeks. Extra weight capacity means nothing in a Class B. With a 2500 Sprinter 144 you have a gross upfitted weight of about 7,600 libs and can go up to 9,050 lbs. That means you can carry 1,450 lbs. I doubt you can load a Class B with that much weight with two people. I couldn’t with a 24 ft. Sprinter and in my design I got everything transferred to my 19 ft. Sprinter. So, the extra weight capacity is just that - unused.

In a Sprinter, a 2500 vs 3500 dually is like driving a car instead of a truck for a metaphor. Less stressful. Pushing about a ton less which so far has translated about 2 mpg more and much more responsive in getting up to speed. Keep in mind, my memory of the two were fresh as I traded a 3500 24 ft Sprinter for a 2500 19 ft. In my last trip. Mies - Less is more in for Alvar.

Two good points to extract:

1. You made the decision to change from 170 to 144
2. Having close in time comparison of both is invaluable.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Let's say I believe you.... you are still 4 feet shorter with 19 foot van.... and that translates to inside space....

Again, I'm glad you're happy.....

There's a lot more weight capacity on the OCCC.... this is just a fact....my maximum weight capacity is 11,030 pounds. You cannot dispute this if you had one of these models.

The fact that you brought up the ability to accelerate and more responsive /faster is completely unimportant.

Who's racing an RV? Again, personal choice.... you've made yours....

This argument is pointless. I like the extra space inside the RV....

By the way, when you start adding up all the weight capacity for two people, 400 pounds, gear, full tank of water, bicycles, food, extra bottled water, etc....it adds up...

I still have over 1,500 pounds of extra headroom on my weight even carrying everything.....

I never want to be close to the limit.

Test 144 in a spin and camping than you can compare, otherwise it is...... a .....single ..... point .... perspective.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

Test 144 in a spin and camping than you can compare, otherwise it is...... a .....single ..... point .... perspective.

George,

WOW 😳.... you have some nerve suggesting that I consider trading in my rig because you think that the 144 inch wheelbase is better handling or a better ride?

Listen, one of the main reasons I purchased the dual wheels was for the weight capacity, the extra wheels on the road and the 170 inch wheelbase... By the way, it's generally accepted that a longer wheelbase translates to a smoother ride.

I really find it offensive that you can't just accept that this is what I wanted and leave it at that......

One final thing.... what do you think the changes are for having a dual tire failure blowout on one side while I'm driving. I have a tire pressure monitoring system on the van so, that's not likely to happen either since it will alert me if I'm losing air suddenly or gradually.

Again, no offense but enjoy what you've chosen. . I wanted the extra space..... I don't appreciate someone who claims to be a know it all. I'm certain you chose your van to meet your needs.

A shorter van is not going to work for me. I almost considered a Class C when I purchased my RV and decided that the larger Class B would work... but, I would never have considered anything smaller.....do you see what I mean?

If I were to sell my RV I would not replace it....one time purchase.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

George,

WOW 😳.... you have some nerve suggesting that I consider trading in my rig because you think that the 144 inch wheelbase is better handling or a better ride?

Listen, one of the main reasons I purchased the dual wheels was for the weight capacity, the extra wheels on the road and the 170 inch wheelbase... By the way, it's generally accepted that a longer wheelbase translates to a smoother ride.

I really find it offensive that you can't just accept that this is what I wanted and leave it at that......

One final thing.... what do you think the changes are for having a dual tire failure blowout on one side while I'm driving. I have a tire pressure monitoring system on the van so, that's not likely to happen either since it will alert me if I'm losing air suddenly or gradually.

Again, no offense but enjoy what you've chosen. . I wanted the extra space..... I don't appreciate someone who claims to be a know it all. I'm certain you chose your van to meet your needs.

A shorter van is not going to work for me. I almost considered a Class C when I purchased my RV and decided that the larger Class B would work... but, I would never have considered anything smaller.....do you see what I mean?

If I were to sell my RV I would not replace it....one time purchase.

I didn’t mean to offend you in any way, I am sure that your van is the best one there is for you as you have conveyed multiple times, enjoy ……… it. Just because it is the best for …….. you by …….. far it does mean it is the best for ……. all myself included. …….. Have fun, keep blood pressure low, and drive safely.

[Jon in AZ]

Wow! Never dreamed this would generate such passion.

Seems to me you start by deciding what size and layout meets your needs. The weight then determines whether singles or duals are best.

I would always want a substantial margin on weight. Some larger vans with singles run perilously close to the rear tire and/or axle weight ratings. That would be something to investigate when you're considering a purchase.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Jon in AZ

Wow! Never dreamed this would generate such passion.

Seems to me you start by deciding what size and layout meets your needs. The weight then determines whether singles or duals are best.

I would always want a substantial margin on weight. Some larger vans with singles run perilously close to the rear tire and/or axle weight ratings. That would be something to investigate when you're considering a purchase.

Very true... I agree completely.

[booster]

While some may run close on max weight with single wheels, many don't and the biggest offender, the Roadtrek 210, is no longer made and a non issue for buying new.


The stability, or not, and handling characteristics, or not, are both influenced by driving style and preference. I like quick steering response and small steering wheel movements, some others would find our van to be "twitchy" or too fast to respond while a bunch might like it. Duellies tend to want to continue in whatever line they are on because of the duel wheels in the rear, so they are not going to be very quick to respond to steering inputs, at least from all I have ever seen. Same is true for long wheelbase, more stable in the direction it is going, a bit slower to respond. Our Chevy is on a 155 inch wheelbase and seems to be in a good spot for how I like it to drive. Long enough wheelbase to resist wind push well, and short enough to respond to the steering quickly enough for me.


To each their own, but the downsides listed for duellies are real, as many on here have found, while many others are OK with balance of ups and downs. Personally, I would not want duels as I don't like how they feel driving, and if you happen to be one to drive on the beach, in mud, deeper sand or other soft conditions they get stuck very easily. Better traction with duels is mostly limited to dry solid surface road conditions, not for on gravel, water (hydroplaning), snow, ice, mud, sand, etc.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Let's say I believe you.... you are still 4 feet shorter with 19 foot van.... and that translates to inside space....

Again, I'm glad you're happy.....

There's a lot more weight capacity on the OCCC.... this is just a fact....my maximum weight capacity is 11,030 pounds. You cannot dispute this if you had one of these models.

The fact that you brought up the ability to accelerate and more responsive /faster is completely unimportant.

Who's racing an RV? Again, personal choice.... you've made yours....

This argument is pointless. I like the extra space inside the RV....

By the way, when you start adding up all the weight capacity for two people, 400 pounds, gear, full tank of water, bicycles, food, extra bottled water, etc....it adds up...

I still have over 1,500 pounds of extra headroom on my weight even carrying everything.....

I never want to be close to the limit.

Who's racing? Getting up to speed on an interstate ramp for one. Same engine and a ton lighter makes a major difference.

As I said, I physically can't carry the weight allowed in a 2500 or close to the limit, so the extra weight is as I said, useless. Theoretically, the 9,050 weight limit is set by MB for various regularitory reasons. It could easily be 9,900 with my suspensions improvements as I think in other countries it is. No reason to care as I am below the 9,050 by 700-800 pounds. So I am not close to the limit either.

I think I have more storage and a bigger bathroom than a Roadtrek Adventurous Sprinter as my inside space is better planned. I have no desire to haul a ton more and more empty air. I know I have a bigger freshwater tank (40 gal) grey tank (26 gal) and black tank (25 gal) than you.

You do know, or perhaps you don't, that the N1T Sprinters (2003-2010) were all 4 wheel 2500s with Class B upfitters. Then with the NC3V bodies (2011-2019) every upfitter started out with 2500s and quickly changed after a year to 3500 duallies except for Great West Van Legends that were 3500 from the start. Some upfitters dropped Class B's altogether with that mistake and Airstream quit making them for a year to recover. Many 144 WB Sprinters are duallies or stripped down rudimentary vans if they are on 2500 bodies. Advanced RV only built on 3500s with the 144 until I challenged them to build on a 2500 with my totally custom design and a lot of creative engineering by them to keep the weight down.

Booster, I don't know much about it but you mentioned steering responsiveness and tracking with longer wheel base and dually wheels. MB Sprinter 2500s have electronic steering which is way more responsive and faster turning than my previous 2015 3500. That's part of the dream in comparison driving. The 6 speed transmission paddle shifters make it feel like I am in a sports car in the Allegheny mountains.

[Boxster1971]

My dually 3500 Sprinter based Airstream Interstate has worked well for my needs over the last 8+ years. But now older my travel needs are different and a smaller 2500 short Sprinter will better suit my future travel plans. If I need extra space I’ll add an EXO hitch rack system from Yakima.
https://youtu.be/4MGCZ8RcH00

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Boxster1971

My dually 3500 Sprinter based Airstream Interstate has worked well for my needs over the last 8+ years. But now older my travel needs are different and a smaller 2500 short Sprinter will better suit my future travel plans. If I need extra space I’ll add an EXO hitch rack system from Yakima.
https://youtu.be/4MGCZ8RcH00

Interesting Yakima modular system, swinging hitch frame is very similar to a Stowaway unit. I used mine Stowaway for a couple of years but found it to big and cumbersome to mount and dismount. It was used primarily for BBQ, cable, hoses, stove. Since, I switched to rear door ladder, added BBQ mount, just recently added quickly demountable aluminum box, chairs will go on the ladder or the box. Time will tell if I like the box, but I love BBQ usable directly on the ladder.

[BillsPaseo]

Are you planning to tow anything? If so, that is a big consideration, especially if you are shopping the Ram Promaster or Ford Transit chassis options.

We tow a 5x8 enclosed trailer with two dual sport motorcycles inside, total weight of the loaded trailer is only about 1800 lbs, but it has about 350 lbs of tongue weight that has to be factored into the OCCC of the van.

When we were shopping for our van, we were interested in the two Winnebago models available at that time with gas engines (didn't want a diesel), the Travato (Promaster) and the Paseo (Transit). What sold us on the Paseo was the additional 650 lbs of cargo capacity on the Paseo, comparing the as-built OCCC stickers on two vans sitting side-by-side on the dealers lot. We could have made the Travato work, but we would have had to be a LOT more careful about loading.

We are very happy with the dually Transit chassis. It handles incredibly well for a vehicle so large, and with the EcoBoost engine, the acceleration is pretty incredible. Towing our trailer over mountain passes, it never breaks a sweat.

[bonnecavesman]

Canadian couple with 2010 Sprinter 3500/RT 2011 Adventurous RS conversion. 275K kms/172K miles driving all year including annual 7 month ski migration (Ontario to Rockies). Outfitted with Finnish Nokian Rotiiva (grippy) tires. Our 1st B therefore no valid comparative comments. Do enjoy perceived dually benefits eg. greater lateral stability in prairie sidewinds, great interior capacity, ability to comfortably haul closed cargo/motorcycle X2 trailer (no tongue weight concerns), good traction in snowy conditions, any extra tire noise on pavement offset by traction. Can usually find Nokians on promo pricing when replacements needed.