Weight Distribution Option for a 23 ft Toy Hauler Towed by a 1999 Dodge Ram 1500 With 6 Inch Lift

Question:

hi my 99 dodge ram 1500 club cab has a six inch lift can you tell me what receiver weight distribution set up would work on my truck im hauling a 23 foot toy hauler that weight 5,932 pounds, plus up to 2,000 additional pounds of contents. But, we mainly need it to haul right around 6,800 pounds roughly. We just want it to pulll nicely down the round without swaying all over and the trailer needs to sit even. Please get back with me and let me know the above things, so I can order the parts I need. Thanks!

asked by: Terry

Expert Reply:

The key to choosing the best weight distribution system for you is knowing the tongue weight of your trailer when it is fully loaded and ready to tow. Keep in mind that anything loaded behind the rear axle of your 1999 Dodge Ram 1500 will contribute to the tongue weight as well. I would recommend choosing a system that has a tongue weight capacity range that encompasses the tongue weight of your trailer with its heaviest load.

If the tongue weight of your fully loaded trailer and anything loaded behind the rear axle of your truck stays under 1,200 lbs, then I would recommend looking at the Reese Strait-Line Weight Distribution System with Sway Control, # RP66084. This system can support tongue weights between 600 and 1,200 lbs and includes dual cam sway control. The hitch ball is not included with this system, so for a 2 inch ball you can use # A-90 or for a 2-5/16 inch ball you can use # 19286.

Since you have a 6 inch lift on your truck, you will most likely need a weight distribution shank with enough drop to tow your trailer level. I have attached an article that details how to determine the correct amount of rise or drop that you need to tow the trailer level as well as a link to all of our Reese weight distribution shanks.

Once you determine the amount of drop you will need to tow the trailer level, let me know and I can recommend the correct shank for you.

expert reply by: John H