I will be posting more pix in the garage soon. About 200 miles on it now. Got on the throttle today hard for the first time, a pretty good shove back in the seat. It has a totally different sound than my LBZ. Very Quiet.

As others have posted, I am not a big fan of the plastic on the hood, but I love the 20" wheels. The Urea tank does stick out, especially on a truck with out step up rails (and boy could this truck use them - but they are a dealer installed option ).

How the hell do you have one already?! :eek:

Scratch my last post... just read the other thread and figured it out
Good lookin truck!

He works for GM.

Thats awesome :thumb: Definately a good lookin truck... seem like it handles any better than previous dmax's?

Is it taller? I realize the bodywork is the same but with the whole new suspension does it have a taller stance?

Is it taller? I realize the bodywork is the same but with the whole new suspension does it have a taller stance?

It is slightly taller than a 2010 HD (with 17 wheels and tires). Not sure if it is due to the suspension or the larger wheels and tires that are now available.

Awesome, keep us posted!!

Based on GM exterior dimensions, it's roughly 1" taller overall. (at least the 2500HD CC short bed is)

Crank up the torsion bars and tell us how it rides. ;)

Also, does it ride on the factory bumpstops?

Also, could you get a pic of the frame from the driver's side (without the urea tank) so we could see the frame better?

And is the hood vent functional? Could it be taken off without showing holes in the hood?

Isn't that Diesel Fluid tank hanging too low? Its going to be smashed for sure the first time someone goes off road

Is there any way you can measure the torsion bars and see if they are the same length as the classics? Can you also type the code on the new bars and the FAWR? Thanks a ton!!!

Based on GM exterior dimensions, it's roughly 1" taller overall. (at least the 2500HD CC short bed is)

Crank up the torsion bars and tell us how it rides. ;)

Also, does it ride on the factory bumpstops?

Also, could you get a pic of the frame from the driver's side (without the urea tank) so we could see the frame better?

And is the hood vent functional? Could it be taken off without showing holes in the hood?

I will get a picture of the driver's side frame and post it. The hood vent is not functional and if taken off, it will reveal a less than finished looking area.

Isn't that Diesel Fluid tank hanging too low? Its going to be smashed for sure the first time someone goes off road

The bottom of the shield of the DEF tank, is 10+ inches off of the ground. The cross member for the frame is a 1/4 lower than it. (The frame x-member on my classic is 9" off the ground, but I still have the stock 245's on it.)

Is there any way you can measure the torsion bars and see if they are the same length as the classics? Can you also type the code on the new bars and the FAWR? Thanks a ton!!!

The torsion bars appear to be the same length as the ones on my classic. They (see new pics) have new model stickers on them, can't see the code. Front axle weight rating, I will have to verify that one from the manual.

Additional pictures are now in garage.

Toasted a Lightning F150 at a stoplight today. :cool:

Does it have the exhaust break? If so, how does it work?

How is the ride and steering feel compared to your 2007? What about brake feel and stopping power.
Thanks

Does it have the exhaust break? If so, how does it work?

It has the exhaust brake. I am sure it will not function until I have the TT hooked up.

How is the ride and steering feel compared to your 2007? What about brake feel and stopping power.
Thanks

Handling is better than the classic, ride is firmer, but this truck is an EC and my classic is a CC and 20 inch 265's vs 16 inch 245's.

Steering is tight. Brakes are good, no mushiness in the pedal at all.

Engine sound is very different. On the LBZ I can play with the throttle to get the turbo spooling noise, I have not heard a hint of that from the LML.

Looks like if there is any increase in ground clearance, it is because of the wheels, not the chassis. Lower control arms sure look strong. I wonder about the material thickness of the frame rails. Did they box it in order to use thinner gauge material? Is the chassis in the Super Duty's league? I see GM still uses the ineffective wax frame coating.

Is the fuel filter any easier to get at? Or do you still need to go through the fender liner?

The access thru to the fuel filter is still thru the wheel liner.

I did an all interstate 105 mile trip this weekend @ 65mph. Filled up to the brim before getting on the road and refilled immediately after getting back. Put in 4.8 gallons = 21.87 mpg, the DIC said 22.0 mpg. 700 miles on the truck now.

I did forget to mention, that the new tank is one heck of lot easier to top off. There is a breather tube very close to the top of the filler neck that must be helping this. Alot less foam to battle when trying to fill it to the top.

You're killing me. I'm going to end up buying one before the summer is over I'm sure. Can you smell the exhaust inside the truck at all when it's in regen mode and you're sitting at a light? This is what pushed me to rip off the DPF setup after 10 days of ownership on my '08. Also, are the 20" tires 10-ply from the factory? I've just gotta decide if I wanna go with another 2500HD or a dually. I didn't like my '05 dually for daily driving, but it was beyond nice when pulling trailers!

Thanks for sharing all of the info.

Trevor

Great loookin truck!

You're killing me. I'm going to end up buying one before the summer is over I'm sure. I've just gotta decide if I wanna go with another 2500HD or a dually. I didn't like my '05 dually for daily driving, but it was beyond nice when pulling trailers!
Trevor

What about going with a 3500SRW?

Do the trans cooler lines look any different ?

Do the trans cooler lines look any different ?

the transmission and transmission cooler are significantly different, so Im going to assume the cooler lines are new/updated too. :)

What about going with a 3500SRW?

If I go 1-ton it'll only be a dually. I don't like the look of the SRW long beds, and if I decide to go 1-ton I want the best towing setup possible if I'm gonna scarifice the mileage.

If I go 1-ton it'll only be a dually. I don't like the look of the SRW long beds, and if I decide to go 1-ton I want the best towing setup possible if I'm gonna scarifice the mileage.

you can get 3500 SRW short beds now too. ;)

3500SRW trucks now have 11,600lb GVWR.

dually's are up to 13,000, or 13,200 if its a c/c

If I go 1-ton it'll only be a dually. I don't like the look of the SRW long beds, and if I decide to go 1-ton I want the best towing setup possible if I'm gonna scarifice the mileage.
I plan to go with a 3500 srw so I hope the mpg is near the same for a 2500 and a 3500 srw since there isn't that much different.The dually part and the shortter tires of a dually is what I always thought killed their mileage.You can get a 3500 srw with a short bed this year.

You're killing me. I'm going to end up buying one before the summer is over I'm sure. Can you smell the exhaust inside the truck at all when it's in regen mode and you're sitting at a light? This is what pushed me to rip off the DPF setup after 10 days of ownership on my '08. Also, are the 20" tires 10-ply from the factory? I've just gotta decide if I wanna go with another 2500HD or a dually. I didn't like my '05 dually for daily driving, but it was beyond nice when pulling trailers!

Thanks for sharing all of the info.

Trevor

I'm gonna say yes. I think all 2500-3500 have load range e. And I beleive he told me that they are a 265/60r20 Goodyear

You're killing me. I'm going to end up buying one before the summer is over I'm sure. Can you smell the exhaust inside the truck at all when it's in regen mode and you're sitting at a light? This is what pushed me to rip off the DPF setup after 10 days of ownership on my '08. Also, are the 20" tires 10-ply from the factory? I've just gotta decide if I wanna go with another 2500HD or a dually. I didn't like my '05 dually for daily driving, but it was beyond nice when pulling trailers!

Thanks for sharing all of the info.

Trevor

I haven't noticed any diesel smell in the cab.

The tires are 8 ply load range E.

Thanks for the info. I'll just keep my existing wheels and tires and carry them over, unless I get some good money for them. I wonder how much of the aftermarket suspension will/will not carry over. My next truck will get a 4" lift so I don't have cranked t-bars causing me to ride on bump stops!

Thanks for the info. I'll just keep my existing wheels and tires and carry them over, unless I get some good money for them. I wonder how much of the aftermarket suspension will/will not carry over. My next truck will get a 4" lift so I don't have cranked t-bars causing me to ride on bump stops!

I believe I read that the bolt pattern is different too.

I haven't noticed any diesel smell in the cab.

The tires are 8 ply load range E.

Load range E is a ten ply and 8 ply is a D.


I believe I read that the bolt pattern is different too.

yeah the bolt pattern has changed to help accomodate the increase in weight handling capacity.

Doh! That's a backfire on my part. Guess I can sell the wheels and carry the tires over.

Any idea how much the factory 20's will cost?

850 w/ LTZ, 1395 w/ LT1

"Load range E is a ten ply and 8 ply is a D"

Info is straight off the side wall of the tire, 6 plys on the tread area, 2 on the side walls, and load range E.

Hey can you tell us what kind of ECM it has delphi or bosch???

Hey can you tell us what kind of ECM it has delphi or bosch???

looks to me like its delphi, by the case and connectors. He would probably have to unclip the ECM from its holder to see for sure though.

thanks was just wondering for the EFI live!

Correct me if i am wrong but if its suppose to a stronger front end are these the same weak tie rods:confused:

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garageimage.php?do=full&p=112206&d=1273796129

Look beefy to me but then I don't race my truck, nor did GM build them that way. If the owner wants to race/sled pull in 4wd then it's up to them to provide the extra steps and upgrades. Probably a production cost kinda thing. Would be cool if they're a bit heavier duty than the older ones but either way having IFS is but one reason why I buy GM.

Correct me if i am wrong but if its suppose to a stronger front end are these the same weak tie rods:confused:

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garageimage.php?do=full&p=112206&d=1273796129

they are a little bigger.

if you use the truck the way GM intended the truck to be used by the end user, you will never bend/break a tie rod. If you crank up the power and do a big 4wd boosted launch, they probably arent going to hold up much better than the 2001-2010 tie rods. WTF do you expect? GM to put tie rod sleeves on them from the factory? Why is there any need, in a stock application. THERE ISNT. :p:

Just purchased DEF at the local O'Reilly Auto Parts store, $4.99 a gallon.

they are a little bigger.

if you use the truck the way GM intended the truck to be used by the end user, you will never bend/break a tie rod. If you crank up the power and do a big 4wd boosted launch, they probably arent going to hold up much better than the 2001-2010 tie rods. WTF do you expect? GM to put tie rod sleeves on them from the factory? Why is there any need, in a stock application. THERE ISNT. :p:


guess you have never been cruising down the interstate at 75plus and hit a pot hole and broke one of these pieces of shit either have you..but your probally 80 and dont drive that fast either do you....i dont expect sleeves i expect a damn tie rod end that belongs on a 3/4 ton truck not a toyota corolla!!!! so there is:p::p::eek:

little late, but want to know more!

Correct me if i am wrong but if its suppose to a stronger front end are these the same weak tie rods:confused:

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/garageimage.php?do=full&p=112206&d=1273796129


Yep its sad when the parts on my f150 are bigger than a GM HD pickup...

guess you have never been cruising down the interstate at 75plus and hit a pot hole and broke one of these pieces of shit either have you..

oh, you've broken a tie rod under those circumstances?

but your probally 80 and dont drive that fast either do you....

yeah, im 80...

..i dont expect sleeves i expect a damn tie rod end that belongs on a 3/4 ton truck not a toyota corolla!!!

you wouldnt know what a toyota corolla TRE looked like even if I hit you over the head with it. Its rack and pinion dumbass. Our HD trucks have a recirculating ball steering setup.

ben

I dont understand you guys. The fact is if you leave the truck stock and use it as such, you arent going to break a damn tie rod. Im not directing this post at anyone, just in general all around the forum.

Is complaining about it magically going to make the tie rod bigger? NO. So either put some sleeves on them and STFU, or go buy a ford/dodge with a solid front axle. I dont understand why people constantly post up complaints about this stuff. As if all of us here didnt already know that the tie rods are inadequate if we go racing or doing big 4wd boosted launches with 600hp.

Same goes for everything weak/inadequate about these trucks. LBZ pistons, LB7 injectors, etc. What does complaining about it on the forum here do. Really. You have a problem and you have a solution. If you apply the solution to the problem, the problem goes away. Its like magic.

Complaining about a problem with no known solution is one thing, but complaining about a problem with a simple $80 solution that takes all of half an hour to install is just annoying.

ben

Just purchased DEF at the local O'Reilly Auto Parts store, $4.99 a gallon.


What does the DEF bottle look like?

I dont understand you guys. The fact is if you leave the truck stock and use it as such, you arent going to break a damn tie rod. Im not directing this post at anyone, just in general all around the forum.

Is complaining about it magically going to make the tie rod bigger? NO. So either put some sleeves on them and STFU, or go buy a ford/dodge with a solid front axle. I dont understand why people constantly post up complaints about this stuff. As if all of us here didnt already know that the tie rods are inadequate if we go racing or doing big 4wd boosted launches with 600hp.

Same goes for everything weak/inadequate about these trucks. LBZ pistons, LB7 injectors, etc. What does complaining about it on the forum here do. Really. You have a problem and you have a solution. If you apply the solution to the problem, the problem goes away. Its like magic.

ben

Dude calm down you worry about this stuff way to much and take everything way to personally. Take a step back and just enjoy life man.

Dude calm down you worry about this stuff way to much and take everything way to personally. Take a step back and just enjoy life man.

they have meds you can take for such out breaks;)

What does the DEF bottle look like?

I bought a case of four one gallon bottles, manufactured by Peak, BlueDEF.

http://bluedef.com/product.html#1Gallon

I bought a case of four one gallon bottles, manufactured by Peak, BlueDEF.

http://bluedef.com/product.html#1Gallon


Is GM picking up the tab for you?

Is GM picking up the tab for you?

1 bottle paid by GM. 3 by me. (for an upcoming trip)

1 bottle paid by GM. 3 by me. (for an upcoming trip)

Long ass trip to go through 4 gallons...

I bought a case of four one gallon bottles, manufactured by Peak, BlueDEF.

http://bluedef.com/product.html#1Gallon


OK now help eliminate all the hysteria about urea costing $35/gallon.

What did you pay for 4 gallons of DEF??? :) Prob less than $35 shipped for all 4 gallons.

I doubt this will help very many people but maybe those in a local area could buy bulk and share the costs. An overall savings for everyone. Maybe websites listing who has urea buying stations for travelers? Ya, crazy but who knows what will happen. We're a crafty bunch of folks and those who trust each other could make it happen.

OK now help eliminate all the hysteria about urea costing $35/gallon.

What did you pay for 4 gallons of DEF??? :) Prob less than $35 shipped for all 4 gallons.

Check post #46.

$4.99 a gallon.

$4.99 per gallon--that is less than some pay for bottled spring water without thinking twice.

Time will tell, but I see urea as a non-issue.

$4.99 per gallon--that is less than some pay for bottled spring water without thinking twice.

Time will tell, but I see urea as a non-issue.

I completely agree.

What have you guys(or gals) paid per gallon for beer lately?

12.99 for a 18 pack of bud light cans here.

What have you guys(or gals) paid per gallon for beer lately?

Drink enough beer and you have all the urea you need;)

Drink enough beer and you have all the urea you need;)


You know someone somewhere is gonna try that!

supertech will have some cheaper than water soon. Beer is an investment though, so it's worth more anyway.

With high idle still clog the filter the same as a low idle??

12.99 for a 18 pack of bud light cans here.
:eek: That's just a little more than what I pay for a 12 pack!!!!!!! Not fair.

:eek: That's just a little more than what I pay for a 12 pack!!!!!!! Not fair.

Agreed.
I'll have to switch to Keystone or Natural light to keep the price down when I'm producing my "Home brew Urea":beerchug:

Looks like if there is any increase in ground clearance, it is because of the wheels, not the chassis. Lower control arms sure look strong. I wonder about the material thickness of the frame rails. Did they box it in order to use thinner gauge material? Is the chassis in the Super Duty's league? I see GM still uses the ineffective wax frame coating.

What is the big deal with a superduty's frame? I've seen one, and it doesn't look any stronger that ours. It may use thicker material, but it is not as wide as ours. Or, am I missing something?

Agreed.
I'll have to switch to Keystone or Natural light to keep the price down when I'm producing my "Home brew Urea":beerchug:
Haha yea, well as long as you don't have to switch to Bush.

Absolutely no sympathy here. You guys need to take a trip to Canada if you want to complain about beer prices!

Not to derail this thread....

Funny how a thread gets derailed when people start talkin about beer.

Do you have an average MPG yet with mixed city and highway?

I wonder about the material thickness of the frame rails. Did they box it in order to use thinner gauge material? Is the chassis in the Super Duty's league? I see GM still uses the ineffective wax frame coating.

The chassis weighs an additional 700 pounds with tow and payload ratings now exceeding Ford. I doubt that would come from thinner gauge material. Also I wouldn't consider the wax coating ineffective. I've yet to find a speck of rust on my frame where the wax was intact.

Are the 6.0's going to be 700#s heavier than the previous GMT-900's? The 6.0 has fair power, but with another 700 lbs. to lug around that may make a difference. With the LML, not so much. These new LML's are going to be ridiculous in the towing/payload department.

guess you have never been cruising down the interstate at 75plus and hit a pot hole and broke one of these pieces of shit either have you..but your probally 80 and dont drive that fast either do you....i dont expect sleeves i expect a damn tie rod end that belongs on a 3/4 ton truck not a toyota corolla!!!! so there is:p::p::eek:
You must have run off the road and hit a 8" curb thought it was a pot hole. I get tired of hearin poeple go on about those weak tierods. I'm in construction and get into some bad situations. Smokin all four in low range for 300' on dry pavement with torsion bars cranked up no sleeves or center link pullin a big truck out of a bind he got into,never broke anything. I like these people that think sfa is so great. My dodge once a year $2500 to keep it on the road,06 2500 sfa 75mph tierod falls off with a log truck comin head on, on a two lane road. My 06 dmax hasn't cost me a dime only 85k on it though.

Are the 6.0's going to be 700#s heavier than the previous GMT-900's? The 6.0 has fair power, but with another 700 lbs. to lug around that may make a difference. With the LML, not so much. These new LML's are going to be ridiculous in the towing/payload department.

Agreed. I think GM really missed the boat by not making the 6.2L standard in these trucks. Now both Dodge and Ford can boast about better Base model HP and torque. Granted the Duramax is a rockstar, but GM sells 2:1 gassers over diesels in the HD trucks. Time for a change here.

Agreed. I think GM really missed the boat by not making the 6.2L standard in these trucks. Now both Dodge and Ford can boast about better Base model HP and torque. Granted the Duramax is a rockstar, but GM sells 2:1 gassers over diesels in the HD trucks. Time for a change here.

There is a reason for that. The 6.2 is all aluminum; HD applications should have/need an iron block to hold up to the heavier loads and abuse of a 3/4 and 1 ton application.

ben

There is a reason for that. The 6.2 is all aluminum; HD applications should have/need an iron block to hold up to the heavier loads and abuse of a 3/4 and 1 ton application.

ben


x2 there is a reason for the 6.0l They are tough motors.

Can we get pics of the trans lines on the LML?

What is the big deal with a superduty's frame? I've seen one, and it doesn't look any stronger that ours. It may use thicker material, but it is not as wide as ours. Or, am I missing something?

It doesn't drop down a foot under the cab.

Any mileage updates on the LML? I'm curious about in-town and/or a mix of in-town and highway mileage.

I dont understand you guys. The fact is if you leave the truck stock and use it as such, you arent going to break a damn tie rod. Im not directing this post at anyone, just in general all around the forum.

Is complaining about it magically going to make the tie rod bigger? NO. So either put some sleeves on them and STFU, or go buy a ford/dodge with a solid front axle. I dont understand why people constantly post up complaints about this stuff. As if all of us here didnt already know that the tie rods are inadequate if we go racing or doing big 4wd boosted launches with 600hp.

Same goes for everything weak/inadequate about these trucks. LBZ pistons, LB7 injectors, etc. What does complaining about it on the forum here do. Really. You have a problem and you have a solution. If you apply the solution to the problem, the problem goes away. Its like magic.

Complaining about a problem with no known solution is one thing, but complaining about a problem with a simple $80 solution that takes all of half an hour to install is just annoying.

ben


So what exactly is the solution for the shitty lb7 injectors??????

There is a reason for that. The 6.2 is all aluminum; HD applications should have/need an iron block to hold up to the heavier loads and abuse of a 3/4 and 1 ton application.

ben


I'm with this one. All in all the thing that keeps me out of a Ford truck or Ford anything is the motors. You get a 5.4L that is junk or a under powered V-10 with horrible mileage. Gee I really want one of those.

I'm with this one. All in all the thing that keeps me out of a Ford truck or Ford anything is the motors. You get a 5.4L that is junk or a under powered V-10 with horrible mileage. Gee I really want one of those.


what is wrong with the 5.4? Uncles has a original 5.4 with 600k on it. Never had ANY problems with mine either and I had several. Yeah there no Dmax when it comes to power but they are a solid motor.

what is wrong with the 5.4? Uncles has a original 5.4 with 600k on it. Never had ANY problems with mine either and I had several. Yeah there no Dmax when it comes to power but they are a solid motor.

the 5.4 is fine as long as it's in an F150 but it's pretty under-powered in a F250 or F 350

My wifes 06 F150 5.4 with 6X,XXX miles has been a piece of crap.Valvetrain and ignition troubles.They want $500.00 to put in spark plugs if nothing goes wrong,and it's not uncommon for them to have to pull the heads off when the plugs beak off they said.

My wifes 06 F150 5.4 with 6X,XXX miles has been a piece of crap.Valvetrain and ignition troubles.They want $500.00 to put in spark plugs if nothing goes wrong,and it's not uncommon for them to have to pull the heads off when the plugs beak off they said.


Yep that is about the only problem with them, the plugs sometimes break off. A qualified mechanic with the right tools will get them out no problem. And NO you do not have to pull the head.

I found some articles before about the 5.4s blowing spark plugs out and hitting the fuel rail, and burning the truck to the ground. Supposedly it's just because there's only 3 threads holding the plug in. I've also read that simply torquing them to the correct specs usually eliminates the problem, and apparently this only affects certain years of the 5.4L.

I found some articles before about the 5.4s blowing spark plugs out and hitting the fuel rail, and burning the truck to the ground. Supposedly it's just because there's only 3 threads holding the plug in. I've also read that simply torquing them to the correct specs usually eliminates the problem, and apparently this only affects certain years of the 5.4L.


That is the 4.6 that shoots plugs I believe. And once again, properly installed and maintained and it does not happen! lol

It happens a lot and I have seen it happen on a V10 also. I suspect it does have to be properly torqued and that would likely solve the problem but that is still a joke. If you hear a small block Ford with what sounds like an exhaust donut leak well there you have it. The plug is stripped.

Never seen a 4.6 shoot a plug but it happened to my buddies v10 when driving in it. You know it was OK because that particular truck had 350k on it and has had the alternator and water pump replaced. Not to shabby if you ask me, but hell we are on a GM forum so that motor is a complete POS. Making it to 300k with those minor of repairs must have been a fluke or something..... Cant say the same thing for my dads GM Suburban. We could have bought a whole nother truck for the ammount we have spent on repairs.

I guess I just find it funny when you guys trash ford gas motors, yea they are not the greatest ever built but they sure do get the job done.

We have a 97 f150 with a 5 speed and the 220hp spec 4.6L, 4x4 with 3.55s. It's just our farm truck. I'll definitely admit it's not that impressive of a motor powerwise, but it has 278k (so probably 160 or 170k miles) and it's original, as long as the battery is charged away she goes.

I thought this was an LML thread???:sign_weir

So what exactly is the solution for the shitty lb7 injectors??????

put LLY heads/injectors on. :D

Never seen a 4.6 shoot a plug but it happened to my buddies v10 when driving in it. You know it was OK because that particular truck had 350k on it and has had the alternator and water pump replaced. Not to shabby if you ask me, but hell we are on a GM forum so that motor is a complete POS. Making it to 300k with those minor of repairs must have been a fluke or something..... Cant say the same thing for my dads GM Suburban. We could have bought a whole nother truck for the ammount we have spent on repairs.

I guess I just find it funny when you guys trash ford gas motors, yea they are not the greatest ever built but they sure do get the job done.

Dude it isn't about owner loyalty. The motor has poor specs and can't pull crap and puked plugs. I have heard that the 3 valve motors are a bit better but I know when I used to pull my boat which was all of 6500 lbs I had to turn off the A/C for it to get out of it's way. What a joke! Couple that with the pig weighted Ford 3/4 tons and it was nearly useless vs the 6.0 or the hemi. Those are just the facts.

It doesn't drop down a foot under the cab.


Ah but have you tried putting a Ford on a lift? Big pain in the a$$ if you ask me. The center under the cab is short, and it takes a good size incline to the bed. With a three way pad, you need some big and tall adapters on them to even get close. Its a funky design that just angles up to a point. With the GM trucks, lifting them couldnt be any easier. Tall or short pads, set them at the frame and done.

Whatever you say Coolbreeze! :cool:

Ah but have you tried putting a Ford on a lift? Big pain in the a$$ if you ask me. The center under the cab is short, and it takes a good size incline to the bed. With a three way pad, you need some big and tall adapters on them to even get close. Its a funky design that just angles up to a point. With the GM trucks, lifting them couldnt be any easier. Tall or short pads, set them at the frame and done.

I agree. :)

last excursion I worked on, It took me a while to get the arms/pads configured so I wouldnt crunch the running boards etc with the lift arms.

I agree. :)

last excursion I worked on, It took me a while to get the arms/pads configured so I wouldnt crunch the running boards etc with the lift arms.


Its the same with Dodges too. I work at a local Chevy dealer, and we have a $15.95 oil change special, so we see all sorts of cars and trucks in the door. By far, the easiest to lift (and work on IMO) are Chevy/GMC's. Drain plug and filter are within inches from eachother. Ford filters sit way up high sometimes, same goes for Dodges, but those filters are towards the front.

Wow, you guys sure can ruin a thread!

The 5.4 is gone, Ford now has a 6.2 gas motor, supposed to rip. Yes GM should just kill the 6.0 and use the 6.2 but remember that they have a 7.0 direct injection gas motor coming out that will be 430+hp, to go with Dodge's new BIG Hemi that is 450hp, Ford will have something big coming as well.

I am still pi$$ed that the gasser doesn't get the 6,000lbs front end! Look on GM's web-site, it is listed right there.

I really don't care if they get their $hit together, I will keep buying used trucks with cash or they can get their crap together and I will buy a new truck, their choice, but with prices the way they are I am not alone...

Wow, you guys sure can ruin a thread! :offtopic:

I agree. The OP either gave up on this thread or shot himself from the derailment.

Wow, you guys sure can ruin a thread!

The 5.4 is gone, Ford now has a 6.2 gas motor, supposed to rip. Yes GM should just kill the 6.0 and use the 6.2 but remember that they have a 7.0 direct injection gas motor coming out that will be 430+hp, to go with Dodge's new BIG Hemi that is 450hp, Ford will have something big coming as well.

I am still pi$$ed that the gasser doesn't get the 6,000lbs front end! Look on GM's web-site, it is listed right there.

I really don't care if they get their $hit together, I will keep buying used trucks with cash or they can get their crap together and I will buy a new truck, their choice, but with prices the way they are I am not alone...

they dont need it because the gasser weighs several hundred pounds LESS than the duramax/allison. ;)

You can still put just as big a plow on a gasser. It doesnt need a 6,000lb front end to be "equal" with the front end capacity of a duramax/6,000lb FAWR package.

There is a reason for that. The 6.2 is all aluminum; HD applications should have/need an iron block to hold up to the heavier loads and abuse of a 3/4 and 1 ton application.

ben
Does your ass hurt from pulling that post out of there?

There is nothing wrong with all aluminum motors, the L92 still has iron sleeves for the cylinders. If anything its a better design than all steel blocks, aluminum dissipates heat better and in my tuning experience can usually eek out another degree or two of timing. There isnt a damn thing wrong with an all aluminum motor being put in a HD application. Everything internally is the same as the LY6 6.0 with the obvious difference of the block material and bigger bore diameter.

Does your ass hurt from pulling that post out of there?

There is nothing wrong with all aluminum motors, the L92 still has iron sleeves for the cylinders. If anything its a better design than all steel blocks, aluminum dissipates heat better and in my tuning experience can usually eek out another degree or two of timing. There isnt a damn thing wrong with an all aluminum motor being put in a HD application. Everything internally is the same as the LY6 6.0 with the obvious difference of the block material and bigger bore diameter.

:shitfan::catfight:

LOL, I like the emoticons. Too funny. I'm an LS2 fan so I hear ya man! All the other aluminum engines are cool as well, I'm just goin' from my experience with the LS2.

The LS3/L92 motors are the best engines GM has produced thus far for general vehicle use, the LS7 is awesome too but not nearly as versatile since it comes with all the added dry sump crap. With nothing more than a tune the L92s are putting down damn close to 350rwhp/tq, why you wouldnt want that in your HD truck if you were going the gas route is beyond me.

Does your ass hurt from pulling that post out of there?.

huh? Im not following you? Did I say something wrong? :confused:

There is nothing wrong with all aluminum motors, the L92 still has iron sleeves for the cylinders. If anything its a better design than all steel blocks, aluminum dissipates heat better and in my tuning experience can usually eek out another degree or two of timing. There isnt a damn thing wrong with an all aluminum motor being put in a HD application. Everything internally is the same as the LY6 6.0 with the obvious difference of the block material and bigger bore diameter.

no, sorry try again. Cam is different, CR is different, couple other things too.

GM (or ford or dodge) will never put an aluminum block engine in HD trucks. Not saying aluminum engines are bad...but in an application thats going to be overworked and abused constantly, you really need an iron block.

huh? Im not following you? Did I say something wrong? :confused:



no, sorry try again. Cam is different, CR is different, couple other things too.

GM (or ford or dodge) will never put an aluminum block engine in HD trucks. Not saying aluminum engines are bad...but in an application thats going to be overworked and abused constantly, you really need an iron block.
You proved that youre good at a google search, your statement has nothing but your opinion backing it, thus you pulled it out of your ass. Follow the bouncing ball...

I was talking in reference to durability, if you want to get real technical the oil pump is different due to the vvt versus dod lifter, the L92 has flat top pistons for a higher CR but none of that has anything to do with reduced reliability. The dished pistons are already in production from the CTS-V LSA motor to drop the CR enough for heavy truck use and DOD would be a good thing for fuel economy to try and help the dismal mileage that the gasser HD trucks tend to get.

Ford and Dodge havent produced a good engine since the 70s so i fail to see where that statement has anything to do with anything. The LS1 family is one of the best internal combustion engines ever for mass consumption. Its cheap, reliable, low maintenanvce, makes tons of power per cubic inch and last forever.

How does a motor being made out of aluminum make it so bad for heavy use? There are 1000+rwhp engines out there out the LS2/3 blocks with no problems and are actually more reliable than their iron block counterparts due to have longer cylinder walls for better stability at BDC. There are tons of motors making 600+rwhp and have been living like that for many years/miles now. So by your reasoning since the all the vettes, camaros, gtos, and TBSSs should just throw in the towel because theyre running an aluminum block? While they arent being subjected to heavy loads during pulling theyre being subjected to 3 and 4 times the amount of hp and tq a motor would see in an HD truck, seems like a pretty good comparison to see how they would last.

I know this has gotten off topic as to what this thread was originally intended for but contrary to Ben's belief he isnt the end-all be-all of the automotive industry and is just flat out wrong about aluminum engines not being very good at handling abuse. As I said earlier they tend to be better to tune, less prone to detonation and if you really want to push it can take a bit more timing due to the better heat dissipation characteristics of aluminum.

Dont even bother responding unless you have cold hard evidence to support your stance on aluminum LS family engines failing at a higher rate, your opinion on this subject means nothing to me and anecdotes or facts about other engines dont pertain to LS engines as theyve shown time and again theyre in a whole 'nother class than current gas offerings from anywhere else.

:popcorn:

You proved that youre good at a google search, your statement has nothing but your opinion backing it, thus you pulled it out of your ass. Follow the bouncing ball...

I was talking in reference to durability, if you want to get real technical the oil pump is different due to the vvt versus dod lifter, the L92 has flat top pistons for a higher CR but none of that has anything to do with reduced reliability. The dished pistons are already in production from the CTS-V LSA motor to drop the CR enough for heavy truck use and DOD would be a good thing for fuel economy to try and help the dismal mileage that the gasser HD trucks tend to get.

Ford and Dodge havent produced a good engine since the 70s so i fail to see where that statement has anything to do with anything. The LS1 family is one of the best internal combustion engines ever for mass consumption. Its cheap, reliable, low maintenanvce, makes tons of power per cubic inch and last forever.

How does a motor being made out of aluminum make it so bad for heavy use? There are 1000+rwhp engines out there out the LS2/3 blocks with no problems and are actually more reliable than their iron block counterparts due to have longer cylinder walls for better stability at BDC. There are tons of motors making 600+rwhp and have been living like that for many years/miles now. So by your reasoning since the all the vettes, camaros, gtos, and TBSSs should just throw in the towel because theyre running an aluminum block? While they arent being subjected to heavy loads during pulling theyre being subjected to 3 and 4 times the amount of hp and tq a motor would see in an HD truck, seems like a pretty good comparison to see how they would last.

I know this has gotten off topic as to what this thread was originally intended for but contrary to Ben's belief he isnt the end-all be-all of the automotive industry and is just flat out wrong about aluminum engines not being very good at handling abuse. As I said earlier they tend to be better to tune, less prone to detonation and if you really want to push it can take a bit more timing due to the better heat dissipation characteristics of aluminum.

Dont even bother responding unless you have cold hard evidence to support your stance on aluminum LS family engines failing at a higher rate, your opinion on this subject means nothing to me and anecdotes or facts about other engines dont pertain to LS engines as theyve shown time and again theyre in a whole 'nother class than current gas offerings from anywhere else.

What the hell did I do to piss you off, jesus. :confused:

I am a HUGE fan of the gen III/IV LS engines, they are awesome and I absolutely love all of them. They are far superior to the old Gen I and Gen II GM small blocks and the ford modular junk and chrysler hemi arent even in the same universe. You are getting all pissed off as if I said the LS engines are junk?? WTF???? I NEVER SAID "ALUMINUM LS ENGINES ARE WEAK AND HAVE PROBLEMS HOLDING TOGETHER". You're putting words in my mouth. I have taken a couple [iron blocks] apart, and tuned them as well, so im not talking out of my ass or copying and pasting from google.

GM's opinion is that an aluminum block isnt strong enough for HD use, so yeah, im following that bouncing ball that GM threw, seeing as they designed it. Would you agree that an HD engine sees more load/stress than a car/half ton SUV engine????????????????????????? I dont have any experience blowing up an aluminum LS engine, if thats what you wanted to hear from me. :rolleyes:

the gasser HD trucks are under enough load most of the time that DOD probably wouldnt help much in my own stupid worthless opinion, seeing how little load/TP% it takes to get a half ton SUV/pickup out of 4-cylinder mode on the highway.

Where is it published that GM thinks an aluminum block isnt strong enough for HD use? Ive been around the LS world damn near since it began and have never read this.

You did nothing directly to me to piss me off, you just constantly jump on people here for posting something misleading/wrong/opinion and youre doing the same so I figured Id give you a taste of your own medicine. And Im bored.

DOD wouldnt do that great in an HD truck as you said but it doesnt do that great in any of the other vehicles GM puts it in with the exception of the G8 since its relatively light/aerodynamic and is running the L76 which produces a good amount of power anyway.

While I would agree that stock for stock and HD truck will see a harder life, that wasnt my point. My point if you actually comprehend what youre reading was that there are tons of modified(aka very high hp) aluminum block motors out there that are holding together just fine. High engine rpm and cylinder pressure are much faster wear accelerators than a heavy load on the engine. Id be tempted to agree with you on heavier load being a quicker wear factor if the engine was turbocharged but thats another discussion.

I just fail to see any point in any of your posts backed up by an real evidence other than you "think" aluminum isnt fit for an HD application. When in actuality the real reason youll probably never see an aluminum block in an HD truck is teh cost period. A brand new LQ4/9 block runs 700 bucks and an LS3/L92 block runs just shy of 1500. There isnt 800 bucks worth of difference in performance to merit the price differential for your average gas HD truck driver. There is however a need(demand) for it in the vortexmax packages, the denalis and obviously the car line because people are willing to pay teh premium for more performance.

Ive been around a while and I suppose in some ways Id be your gasoline counterpart :p:

I wish when I talked to Bob Lutz a few years back I wouldve asked him why no aluminum blocks in HD trucks :crazy:

Where is it published that GM thinks an aluminum block isnt strong enough for HD use? Ive been around the LS world damn near since it began and have never read this.

Ill find it, let me refer to trusty old google.

I wish when I talked to Bob Lutz a few years back I wouldve asked him why no aluminum blocks in HD trucks :crazy:

cool?

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Feb/10chicago/0210_vortec

also if you get the heavy trailering packages on the half ton trucks you are no longer offered the option of the aluminum block engine.

http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0504_chevy_ls1_engine_basics/index.html

thats just a google search, I dont have experience making 1000rwhp on an LSx so im just going off of credible sources

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.brand_gm.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Feb/10chicago/0210_vortec

also if you get the heavy trailering packages on the half ton trucks you are no longer offered the option of the aluminum block engine.
Nothing in that is article contrary to the strength of an aluminum block. It describes why the iron block is so strong but all those characterisitcs are the same ones that the aluminum blocks have. Both have deep skirts and cross bolted 6 bolt mains.

I went to chevys site and as of right now the max trailering package includes the 6.2 when you build your own so I dont know where you got that information from.
http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0504_chevy_ls1_engine_basics/index.html

thats just a google search, I dont have experience making 1000rwhp on an LSx so im just going off of credible sources
Will Hanzel is one of the smartest/best engine builders in the industry but it is painfully obvious he is behind the times. In his article he states "Well, if you are making more than 700 hp (900-plus is routine today), the aluminum block starts to become a liability to long-term health.", when I can provide literally dozens of dyno charts from cars running aluminum blocks on ls1tech that are having absolutely no problems. The only people running into real problems with the aluminum blocks are the ones running large shots of nitrous due to the sudden cylinder pressure that creates the massive tq spike that is synonymous with nitrous use.

Here are a few aluminum block builds:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1006721-texas-mile-teaser-lg-motorsports-twin-turbo-z.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1239995-calspeed-424-ls3-ls7-heads-goes-611-rwhp-n-805-rwhp-n20-mustang-dyno.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1255433-d1sc-dyno-s-764-rwhp-645-tq.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1184265-g-force-1100-hp-gto.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1233096-uncage-rage-rr-forged-ls7-w-ecs-2200-876rwhp-z06beast.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1174726-c6z06-879rwhp-823rwqt-13-psi.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1100284-1018-rwhp.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/931605-twin-turbo-dyno.html

There are plenty more examples get to searching:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons-65/

These are all setups with aluminum blocks that are living under plenty of abuse, most of those were street cars too so you know they get used. I wont deny there is some deflection in aluminum blocks but that isnt to you get way on up there with the hp or more specifically the torque.

Seems those blocks are getting it done, I suppose they couldnt handle a measley 350hp at the CRANK with a heavier load put on them, but what do I know Im only a moderator on the biggest Gen III/IV GM performance website in the world(ls1tech/performancetrucks) :rolleyes:

With that said Im done, if you really want to discuss this subject further start a thread in the lounge and we can continue on(Im still bored) and not get this thread even further off course.

Nothing in that is article contrary to the strength of an aluminum block. It describes why the iron block is so strong but all those characterisitcs are the same ones that the aluminum blocks have. Both have deep skirts and cross bolted 6 bolt mains.

I went to chevys site and as of right now the max trailering package includes the 6.2 when you build your own so I dont know where you got that information from.

Will Hanzel is one of the smartest/best engine builders in the industry but it is painfully obvious he is behind the times. In his article he states "Well, if you are making more than 700 hp (900-plus is routine today), the aluminum block starts to become a liability to long-term health.", when I can provide literally dozens of dyno charts from cars running aluminum blocks on ls1tech that are having absolutely no problems. The only people running into real problems with the aluminum blocks are the ones running large shots of nitrous due to the sudden cylinder pressure that creates the massive tq spike that is synonymous with nitrous use.

Here are a few aluminum block builds:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1006721-texas-mile-teaser-lg-motorsports-twin-turbo-z.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1239995-calspeed-424-ls3-ls7-heads-goes-611-rwhp-n-805-rwhp-n20-mustang-dyno.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1255433-d1sc-dyno-s-764-rwhp-645-tq.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1184265-g-force-1100-hp-gto.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1233096-uncage-rage-rr-forged-ls7-w-ecs-2200-876rwhp-z06beast.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1174726-c6z06-879rwhp-823rwqt-13-psi.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1100284-1018-rwhp.html
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/931605-twin-turbo-dyno.html

There are plenty more examples get to searching:
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons-65/

These are all setups with aluminum blocks that are living under plenty of abuse, most of those were street cars too so you know they get used. I wont deny there is some deflection in aluminum blocks but that isnt to you get way on up there with the hp or more specifically the torque.

Seems those blocks are getting it done, I suppose they couldnt handle a measley 350hp at the CRANK with a heavier load put on them, but what do I know Im only a moderator on the biggest Gen III/IV GM performance website in the world(ls1tech/performancetrucks) :rolleyes:

With that said Im done, if you really want to discuss this subject further start a thread in the lounge and we can continue on(Im still bored) and not get this thread even further off course.

OMG get it through your head, im not saying "ALUMINUM WONT HOLD UP IN HIGH HP PERFORMANCE APPLICATIONS". Im just saying that 'that' is the reason, in GM's opinion, why they dont put aluminum blocks in HD pickup trucks. Would the aluminum blocks work fine in the real world if I were to take a new 3500 dually and put an L92 in it and hand the keys over to some oil field guy to beat the shit out of? Im pretty confident it would be fine.....

BUT the iron block is still 'stronger'. Maybe it doesnt make a difference at 300hp, 400hp, 500hp, 800hp, but it is still stronger (and cheaper as you said), which is why GM doesnt run an aluminum block in the HD's. GM tests them at the extreme and wants to be super conservative/extra safe here...

Perfect example. WE ALL KNOW LB7 rods/pistons/cranks will hold stock-LBZ power levels all day long for hundreds of thousands of miles. Plenthy of guys are running a small tow tune (and thus turning up their stock LB7's to LBZ power levels) with no problems. SO WHY THE FK, in your brilliant opinion, would they even bother strengthening the block, crank, rods, etc when they came out with the LBZ?????

Thats great you are a moderator on LS1tech, ive been on LS1tech for a couple years as well, I will bow down to you now. We all know how special forum moderators are. I built a 4x4 vw beetle offroad buggy and it has a tuned up LS (still in the back mind you), so im not TOTALLY stupid when it comes to gassers. :rolleyes:

ben

I really hope y'all both had the day off from work. Otherwise, two employers really got screwed. ;)

The LS3/L92 motors are the best engines GM has produced thus far for general vehicle use, the LS7 is awesome too but not nearly as versatile since it comes with all the added dry sump crap. With nothing more than a tune the L92s are putting down damn close to 350rwhp/tq, why you wouldnt want that in your HD truck if you were going the gas route is beyond me.

350? try closer to 420


So I take it the OP really did desert the thread from the ginormous derailment. Too bad as it had some really good info going on a truck I'm looking to buy

OMG get it through your head, im not saying "ALUMINUM WONT HOLD UP IN HIGH HP PERFORMANCE APPLICATIONS". Im just saying that 'that' is the reason, in GM's opinion, why they dont put aluminum blocks in HD pickup trucks. Would the aluminum blocks work fine in the real world if I were to take a new 3500 dually and put an L92 in it and hand the keys over to some oil field guy to beat the shit out of? Im pretty confident it would be fine.....

BUT the iron block is still 'stronger'. Maybe it doesnt make a difference at 300hp, 400hp, 500hp, 800hp, but it is still stronger (and cheaper as you said), which is why GM doesnt run an aluminum block in the HD's. GM tests them at the extreme and wants to be super conservative/extra safe here...

Perfect example. WE ALL KNOW LB7 rods/pistons/cranks will hold stock-LBZ power levels all day long for hundreds of thousands of miles. Plenthy of guys are running a small tow tune (and thus turning up their stock LB7's to LBZ power levels) with no problems. SO WHY THE FK, in your brilliant opinion, would they even bother strengthening the block, crank, rods, etc when they came out with the LBZ?????

Thats great you are a moderator on LS1tech, ive been on LS1tech for a couple years as well, I will bow down to you now. We all know how special forum moderators are. I built a 4x4 vw beetle offroad buggy and it has a tuned up LS (still in the back mind you), so im not TOTALLY stupid when it comes to gassers. :rolleyes:

ben
I was simply stating the correlation between high rpm/hp wear and longevity. As seen here on this site these diesels last hundreds of thousands of miles pulling heavy loads every day but pop in a fraction of that mileage with high hp/tq running through them. So therefore if the aluminum block gas engines are living under such extreme power it stands to reason theyd last under just heavy loads. Youve got your opinion and Ive got mine, although it seems mine is a bit more rooted in fact than opinion. Im done youre obviously not interested in facts and reason and more interested in proving your opinion right with just your word.
350? try closer to 420


So I take it the OP really did desert the thread from the ginormous derailment. Too bad as it had some really good info going on a truck I'm looking to buy
Youre not too good at reading comprehension are you? RWHP- in case you dont understand that it means rear wheel horsepower. As in they make 400 at the crank and regularly put down a little over 300rwhp through the 6l80e but with a tune are very close to 350. So why dont you try reading before posting.

Theres only a few dozen other threads with all the information that has been asked in this thread.

I was simply stating the correlation between high rpm/hp wear and longevity. As seen here on this site these diesels last hundreds of thousands of miles pulling heavy loads every day but pop in a fraction of that mileage with high hp/tq running through them. So therefore if the aluminum block gas engines are living under such extreme power it stands to reason theyd last under just heavy loads. Youve got your opinion and Ive got mine, although it seems mine is a bit more rooted in fact than opinion. Im done youre obviously not interested in facts and reason and more interested in proving your opinion right with just your word.

Youre not too good at reading comprehension are you? RWHP- in case you dont understand that it means rear wheel horsepower. As in they make 400 at the crank and regularly put down a little over 300rwhp through the 6l80e but with a tune are very close to 350. So why dont you try reading before posting.

Theres only a few dozen other threads with all the information that has been asked in this thread.


STFU already. I race with SCCA in Touring 1 in a C5 Corvette. I race against LS2 and LS3 C6 Corvette's (among other C5's, Viper's, Ferrari's, and Porsche's). The LS3 Corvettes (with M6) are making between 412-420 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER, also known as RWHP or rwhp from a tune only (so long as it's not Chuck COW's tune). Adding a 3 stage dry sump they are making between 427-433 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER. A 3 stage dry sump is the only allowed mod for the LS3 (and LS2) C6's. Other than the dry sump, the engines are completely showroom stock and unmodified.

Stop being an almighty jackass. You're not the end all-be all of LSx motors; and last time I checked, this thread is about the LML DIESEL PICKUP, not the gasser.

STFU already. I race with SCCA in Touring 1 in a C5 Corvette. I race against LS2 and LS3 C6 Corvette's (among other C5's, Viper's, Ferrari's, and Porsche's). The LS3 Corvettes (with M6) are making between 412-420 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER, also known as RWHP or rwhp from a tune only (so long as it's not Chuck COW's tune). Adding a 3 stage dry sump they are making between 427-433 REAR WHEEL HORSEPOWER. A 3 stage dry sump is the only allowed mod for the LS3 (and LS2) C6's. Other than the dry sump, the engines are completely showroom stock and unmodified.

Stop being an almighty jackass. You're not the end all-be all of LSx motors; and last time I checked, this thread is about the LML DIESEL PICKUP, not the gasser.
In my post I said L92 didnt I? L92 is ONLY backed by the 6L80e, so again please read my posts before trying to make me look like a dumbass.

Someone else brought up the aluminum gas motor not me. Who gives a shit if its off topic, there are multiple threads on this site and thousands of articles sprinkled through the internet that you can find out any detail you want about the LML.

OK, let's get back on the topic:

1. 7000 miles on the truck. Just got back from Wyoming/Montana trip. Gone almost three weeks, six National Parks and two National monuments visited.

2. Of the 6000 miles put on in the last three weeks, about 4200 to 4500 of is was towing. Everytime I hooked up, I had a least a headwind or a 1/4ing crosswind, or a mountian to go up (coming across SD and MN on the way back - 25mph winds out of the SE with gusts to 40mph, got 11.8 through there) . Still, with the avg towing speed at 65mph, I averaged 12.5 mpg towing.

3. Exhaust brake is VERY nice in the mountains. The biggest pass taken was the Teton Pass out of Jackson Wyoming. 10 degree grades both ways, from 5400 feet to 8600 feet. Between the transmission and the exhaust brake, I only had to use the brake pedal three or four times on the way down. Not as much down shifting and revving of the engine.

4. DEF fluid: Dealers have it and Flying J's have it. I bought a 2.5 gallon bottle of the GM fluid in Cody WY, just to be sure I had some extra (I had topped off the tank before the trip) as we decided to add Glacier NP to our trip and that was another 1000 miles of driving. Cost at the GM dealer was about $22. After hooking up and towing out of Glacier, the warning for DEF came on, said I had 643 miles worth of DEF left, I added the 2.5 gallons at the next stop. The warning comes on when the engine is first started. It will do so every time until at least a gallon of DEF is added. At a later Flying J, I asked an attendant if they had DEF, he said they did, and it was the Blue DEF, in a 2.5 gallon jug, for 11.99. Both the GM jug and the Blue DEF have a hose with a breather to make adding the fluid easier.

The DEF depletes in a ratio to fuel economy. If you don't tow, a full DEF tank will probably last an oil change cycle, if you tow, it will probably last about 4 to 5000 miles or so. I had a full tank at 1000 miles on the odo and got the warning at 5200.

5. The Ext cab short box ride with the 20" wheels is definitely not as comfortable a ride as my '07 Classic crew.

OK, let's get back on the topic:

1. 7000 miles on the truck. Just got back from Wyoming/Montana trip. Gone almost three weeks, six National Parks and two National monuments visited.

2. Of the 6000 miles put on in the last three weeks, about 4200 to 4500 of is was towing. Everytime I hooked up, I had a least a headwind or a 1/4ing crosswind, or a mountian to go up (coming across SD and MN on the way back - 25mph winds out of the SE with gusts to 40mph, got 11.8 through there) . Still, with the avg towing speed at 65mph, I averaged 12.5 mpg towing.

3. Exhaust brake is VERY nice in the mountains. The biggest pass taken was the Teton Pass out of Jackson Wyoming. 10 degree grades both ways, from 5400 feet to 8600 feet. Between the transmission and the exhaust brake, I only had to use the brake pedal three or four times on the way down. Not as much down shifting and revving of the engine.

4. DEF fluid: Dealers have it and Flying J's have it. I bought a 2.5 gallon bottle of the GM fluid in Cody WY, just to be sure I had some extra (I had topped off the tank before the trip) as we decided to add Glacier NP to our trip and that was another 1000 miles of driving. Cost at the GM dealer was about $22. After hooking up and towing out of Glacier, the warning for DEF came on, said I had 643 miles worth of DEF left, I added the 2.5 gallons at the next stop. The warning comes on when the engine is first started. It will do so every time until at least a gallon of DEF is added. At a later Flying J, I asked an attendant if they had DEF, he said they did, and it was the Blue DEF, in a 2.5 gallon jug, for 11.99. Both the GM jug and the Blue DEF have a hose with a breather to make adding the fluid easier.

The DEF depletes in a ratio to fuel economy. If you don't tow, a full DEF tank will probably last an oil change cycle, if you tow, it will probably last about 4 to 5000 miles or so. I had a full tank at 1000 miles on the odo and got the warning at 5200.

5. The Ext cab short box ride with the 20" wheels is definitely not as comfortable a ride as my '07 Classic crew.

That's great news, so overall you were satisfied??? Not bad mileage considering what you were doing with the truck. Does the exhaust brake s make noise like the dodge are do you just feel it engage?? How about the brakes, stopping power feel much better?? Sorry so many questions.

OK, let's get back on the topic:

1. 7000 miles on the truck. Just got back from Wyoming/Montana trip. Gone almost three weeks, six National Parks and two National monuments visited.

2. Of the 6000 miles put on in the last three weeks, about 4200 to 4500 of is was towing. Everytime I hooked up, I had a least a headwind or a 1/4ing crosswind, or a mountian to go up (coming across SD and MN on the way back - 25mph winds out of the SE with gusts to 40mph, got 11.8 through there) . Still, with the avg towing speed at 65mph, I averaged 12.5 mpg towing.

3. Exhaust brake is VERY nice in the mountains. The biggest pass taken was the Teton Pass out of Jackson Wyoming. 10 degree grades both ways, from 5400 feet to 8600 feet. Between the transmission and the exhaust brake, I only had to use the brake pedal three or four times on the way down. Not as much down shifting and revving of the engine.

4. DEF fluid: Dealers have it and Flying J's have it. I bought a 2.5 gallon bottle of the GM fluid in Cody WY, just to be sure I had some extra (I had topped off the tank before the trip) as we decided to add Glacier NP to our trip and that was another 1000 miles of driving. Cost at the GM dealer was about $22. After hooking up and towing out of Glacier, the warning for DEF came on, said I had 643 miles worth of DEF left, I added the 2.5 gallons at the next stop. The warning comes on when the engine is first started. It will do so every time until at least a gallon of DEF is added. At a later Flying J, I asked an attendant if they had DEF, he said they did, and it was the Blue DEF, in a 2.5 gallon jug, for 11.99. Both the GM jug and the Blue DEF have a hose with a breather to make adding the fluid easier.

The DEF depletes in a ratio to fuel economy. If you don't tow, a full DEF tank will probably last an oil change cycle, if you tow, it will probably last about 4 to 5000 miles or so. I had a full tank at 1000 miles on the odo and got the warning at 5200.

5. The Ext cab short box ride with the 20" wheels is definitely not as comfortable a ride as my '07 Classic crew.
Thanks for the update! :)

That's great news, so overall you were satisfied??? Not bad mileage considering what you were doing with the truck. Does the exhaust brake s make noise like the dodge are do you just feel it engage?? How about the brakes, stopping power feel much better?? Sorry so many questions.

There is not alot of noise from the exhaust brake. You feel the truck slowing down when you are using it on level ground and going onto an off ramp and you feel it holding its speed against the downhill slope. Sometimes it uses a downshift.

The brakes are very good. I have always thought the brakes on my '07 classic are mushy, nothing mushy about these brakes.

This truck has me thinking about upgrading. Just have to work the interior politics.

Ahh so it is not yours to keep?

redeagle313 (http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/member.php?u=15578)
How does it perform?
How does it pull compared to the LBZ?
How does it accelerate compared to the LBZ with a full load and no load?

Thanks!

Ahh so it is not yours to keep?

No, it is a captured test fleet truck, I will have it for about 4 months.

redeagle313 (http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/member.php?u=15578)
How does it perform?
How does it pull compared to the LBZ?
How does it accelerate compared to the LBZ with a full load and no load?

Thanks!

It performs very well.
I think it out pulls my lbz and it accelerates harder than the lbz with a load or without. That extra 100 lb/ft of torque make it happen.

Thanks for the feedback!! What is the weight of your trailer loaded? I would be thrilled to get 12 towing. I'm 8.5-9.5 now depending on wind.

My 28' Airstream is about 6800 loaded and about 9' 6" high.

My 28' Airstream is about 6800 loaded and about 9' 6" high.

pretty big difference i guess between yours and mine. I usually am around 12k and with the 5er, the mast of the truck is like a parachute. Like clockwork, I'm 8 to 8.5 with a little headwind. 9 to 9.5 with no headwind. I got 10 once but had the wife and kids out pushin.

If I could ever get 12 consistently, I'd be thrilled.

what do the different wheel options look like and is there a choice besides 20"? didnt someone say thats what came standard on them?

what do the different wheel options look like and is there a choice besides 20"? didnt someone say thats what came standard on them?
17" are standard,18" on any srw and 20" on 2500s only.

17" are standard,18" on any srw and 20" on 2500s only.
thanks. Does anyone know where any pictures of them are? I tried lookin on gm's and chevys webpages but didnt really find anything.

thanks. Does anyone know where any pictures of them are? I tried lookin on gm's and chevys webpages but didnt really find anything.

Check the wheels and tires forum on here.

I posted the 18" wheels on there.

You can also search on cars.com or autotrader.com and find lots of HD pics.

Thanks for this info.... I really want one. Just need to know when they hit the lots!!!!!!

Left Lane News has some good pictures of the 18"s.

Thanks for this info.... I really want one. Just need to know when they hit the lots!!!!!!

They're already hitting the lots. Check my post in the new vehicle section. A guy posted pics of one he looked at at his local dealer. My truck is tenatively scheduled to be delivered on July 8th/9th.