I too have noticed front end loss of traction on diesel/I4 vans and poor
rear wheel traction a the same time!. Anyway, I weighed my van a year or so
ago and posted the results, here they are again:

"On the way home from work last night, around 1 am, I stopped at the local
weigh scale (Victoria B.C. list members -> at Elk lake ) . Nobody around but
the scale is left on...

Rolled the front wheels on: 980 kg
Entire van: 1850 kg
Rear wheels: 870 kg

As is, that's a 53/47 weight distribution.

subtract "cargo" from front weight:

approx 50 litres of fuel, about 37 kg.
human, about 90 kg

gives:
853 kg front
1723 kg all
870 kg rear (assumed the same)

which results in an approx. 50/50 distribution

Van is '82 westy, I4 conversion."

Alistair

PS note the density of gasoline apropos of concurrent thread on roof
weights.

--
'82 Westy -> diesel converted to gas in '94
albell@uvic.ca
http://members.shaw.ca/albell

on 10/4/02 6:58 AM, David Brodbeck wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Chris S wrote:
>
>> Vanagons have a nearly even front-to-rear weight bias.  The passenger
>> Vanagons are slightly, oh, ever so, in the front.  She ain't a Type 2, ya
>> know. ;-)
>
> What about the diesels?  (Not that it matters for this discussion, of
> course -- they use a different radiator.)  Mine shows a prounounced
> tendancy for the front wheels to 'skate' in wet weather, but part of that
> may be tires.  The PO replaced the rear tires, and they have deeper treads
> than the fronts -- exactly the opposite of what I'd prefer.
>
> _ _
> __ _ _   _| | |  | David M. Brodbeck (N8SRE)              Ypsilanti, MI
> / _` | | | | | |  +-----------------------------------------------------
> | (_| | |_| | | | @ cyberspace.org
> \__, |\__,_|_|_| "There is something ironic when the developers name
> |___/             housing development after what they bulldozed to build
> it, but I think you have to allow some latitude in
> naming, so that not every street is called "Suburban
> Drive." -- Jan Wolter