Skip, seems to me it (backing) can be 50% of the hassle of trailering!! People in motorsports of all kinds have to maneuver their rigs around and between each other every racing weekend, and the abiiity to do this well is prized, while the unskilled are razzed unmercifully.

I have found that vehicles with extra length from axle to hitch ball are so much better for backing trailers (my old 1966 Econoline Supervan was outstanding, though it couldn't handle very big trailers) that I am going to modify my recently-acquired standard-length '87 E150 specifically to add to this dimension. The factory rear bumper is in bad shape anyway, and I'm going to weld up a much bigger, stouter bumper that I can stand on easily when putting various things on the roof-rack (I'll make a similar sort of front bumper as well). This new bumper will incorporate a suitably-braced trailer hitch receiver. The increased length of the new bumper would automatically add maybe half-a-foot to the axle-to-ball dimension, which will help a great deal, but won't be so much as to make the van a tail-wager on the road (the spell-check feature keeps "correcting" me incorrectly).

However, I'm thinking about being able to add to this dimension when I have arrived at the campsite, race-site, etc., by means of incorporating an extra-long sliding hitch-ball support. The usual kind is slid into the hitch receiver and pinned. Mine will feature a second hole for this, maybe 5" forward of the first. When I get to the campsite, I pull off the road, unpin my hitch, and pull forward until the hitch is slid out to its second mounting hole, where I'll pin it for the weekend. Sure, I'll have a stop so that the hitch can't slide entirely out of the receiver. When I'm ready to drive home, I re-pin the hitch to the "towing" position. Easy enough to make this, almost more trouble to describe it.

I suppose we could figure out some sort of "trailer-maneuvering equation" or ratio that incorporates the rear axle to hitch-ball length, plus vehicle wheelbase, trailer length from hitch to axle or dual-axles mid-point, maybe throwing in turning radius of the tow-car, yadda yadda. But most of us can just look at the vehicle and trailer and come to a reasonable intuition of how it will work. Just by looking, you can see that for backing a trailer, my old '66 long-body Supervan with its short wheelbase and big overhang would have excellent leverage, whereas my standard-length '87 E150 would be just the opposite: poor at backing a trailer, but far better for towing it.

(Fortunately, my "new" '87 E150 has the Traction Lock 9" rearend, and a relatively lightweight six out front, because these newer-generation Econolines ordinarily have a LOT less traction in slippery grass, et al, than did that old bull-nose Supervan).

 

good points, our excursion sucks at backing up,but is stable at forward

 

2 trips with my extended clubwagon, 76 E250 felt pretty heavy..............
scrap load was only 3800lbs, kind of forgot it was there

 

boy that vans in rough shape!

 

beauty is only skin deep........................ just did full brake job on it at 470,000km , should be good for another 150,000 or so before the trans goes or the doors fall off. would go to the west coast and back no problems, if I take along some earmuffs . I would probably break it if it had dual rear wheels

 

That van is in better shape then my 96 E250!

 

Your symptoms are the same as not having enough front end caster. The E Series vans appear to come off the assembly line with a caster some where less the +4.0 degrees. The Ford specification is very wide, from +1.5 to +7.5. By adding 2.0 degrees to be in the range of +5.0 to +6.0 might add stability to your towing problem. It will definitely add front end stability and has worked wonders on Class C RVs.