Skip to main content
Topic: Dutchmen 33K Kodiak/Duramax (Read 33 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dutchmen 33K Kodiak/Duramax

Yahoo Message Number: 114

I bought a 2007 Dutchmen Model 33K on the Kodiak chassis a couple months ago....it is on the GM 22' chassis (from cab back to rear of frame rails), with a 213.5" wheel base. GM specs show the "ideal" weight distribution percentage for front/rear axle is 6/94. This is the lowest front end percentage (6%) of any of their chassis. Four Winds then extended the frame another 30". The 80 gallon fuel tank, 81 # propane, the black and gray tanks are all located behind the rear axle.

I tow a 2006 Chevy Tahoe, and while driving down the pass from Lake Tahoe to Carson City, Nevada recently, I almost lost control of the RV.... it felt like my steering was non-responsive. I assume the front end was "floating" a little due to the weight distribution and toad pushing from behind. Has anyone else heard of this problem, and if so, has Four Winds done anything about it.

Thanks,

Denny Myhre


See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Re: Dutchmen 33K Kodiak/Duramax

Reply #1
Yahoo Message Number: 115
OUCH. We bought our Greyhawk 32SS because we wanted to tow our 2007 Tahoe. We've used it 4 times so far but have not towed yet. I sure hope we don't have the same experience or it will be a short lived member of our family.

Our unit likely started life as a 213.5 as well (why, I don't know given the entire range of chassis lengths provided by GM - I gather they all buy this short one so they only need one chassis and then lengthen each as needed). From what I can see they lengthened the wheelbase to 225 inches (the cut and insert looks fairly solid) and then added to the frame rails at the end to accommodate the 32.5 ft length. That addition looks fairly solid as well. The 6/94 weight distribution just intuitively seems to me to be very strange indeed.

We've been thinking we'd better take the Tahoe out behind the Kodiak for a roadtest before we head to Florida and now I think I'd better do it very soon. I hope other owners will let us know how their experiences compare.

Denny, is your wheelbase still 213.5 or was it lengthened as well?

Don


Re: Dutchmen 33K Kodiak/Duramax

Reply #2
Yahoo Message Number: 120
6% of 19,500 is 1170 - are you saying if you load to the GVWR that on a scale your rig would show a front axle weight of 1170 lbs and the rear axle weight would be 18330 lbs? Frankly, almost impossible to imagine. What you are saying is that the weight hanging off the back end is almost lifting your tires off the ground. I'd think you might have another problem. Does the weight on the rear perhaps exceed the capacity of the 4 rear tires?

Don



Re: Dutchmen 33K Kodiak/Duramax

Reply #3
Yahoo Message Number: 121

In a message dated 9/30/2007 10:09:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, dleslie0328@... writes:
Quote
Quote
6% of 19,500 is 1170 - are you saying if you load to the GVWR that on a scale your rig would show a front axle weight of 1170 lbs and the rear axle weight would be 18330 lbs? Frankly, almost impossible to imagine. What you are saying is that the weight hanging off the back end is almost lifting your tires off the ground. I'd think you might have another problem. Does the weight on the rear perhaps exceed the capacity of the 4 rear tires?

If I am reading the attached link correctly from GM for my 213.5 wheelbase, it shows exactly that....Denny

http://www.chevrolet.com/mediumduty/kodiak/c5500/specifications/





See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.