The 2011 is going to have a different lug pattern, correct?

yes, due to the increased weight capacity GM went to a 210mm stud diameter....IIRC it is the same as the current Ford HD pattern

Ahhh very nice.

8-on-180mm on single axle
8-on-210mm on dually

So the single axle did not change or did it?

stupid question, but whats LMM and older lug pattern?

8x6.5

So they did change.

Nothing like keeping things easy and convenient... :rolleyes:

Nothing like keeping things easy and convenient... :rolleyes:

Really? Well it was either:

A) keep the old lug pattern and be stuck with the same last-place (when compared to ford and dodge) GVWR's/towing capacity, and worthless front end capacity from the 2001-2010 HD's

or

B) change the lug pattern to something that can handle more weight/stronger, and thus allow the 2011 GM HD trucks to actually be competitive with ford in terms of GVW, FAWR, and towing capacity.

I chose B.

and plus, come on, the 8x6.5 pattern has been around since the LATE 1960's. So its not like you can say "oh, that stupid GM, theyre always changing things...".

ben

I choose B also...

Give me a B! lol

Really? Well it was either:

A) keep the old lug pattern and be stuck with the same last-place (when compared to ford and dodge) GVWR's/towing capacity, and worthless front end capacity from the 2001-2010 HD's

or

B) change the lug pattern to something that can handle more weight/stronger, and thus allow the 2011 GM HD trucks to actually be competitive with ford in terms of GVW, FAWR, and towing capacity.

I chose B.

and plus, come on, the 8x6.5 pattern has been around since the LATE 1960's. So its not like you can say "oh, that stupid GM, theyre always changing things...".

ben

How is it dodge makes due with 8 on 6.5 still then :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the lug pattern it is the POS IFS

have you seen the ratings on the ram?

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/05/gm-increases-towing-and-hauling-figures-for-2011-heavy-duty-trucks.html

How is it dodge makes due with 8 on 6.5 still then :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the lug pattern it is the POS IFS

NO its because dodge has way less capability in terms of GVWR and FAWR than the 2011 GM and 2011 ford trucks.

IIRC Ford did the same thing in 2005 when they increased the ratings on the F350 "towboss" package or whatever; they went to a bigger lug pattern with bigger studs. Ford's have always had higher ratings since the superduty's came out in 99, and its because, DUH, they have a bigger lug pattern...8x170mm.

WTF does IFS have to do with the bolt pattern. GM wanted the truck to be able to carry/handle X pounts FAWR and GVWR. Their engineers determined that 8x6.5 and the current size studs were not sufficent to support that weight. That doesnt have jack shit to do with what suspension it has.

Ben you know us SFA guys we look for any reason to bash IFS:D

Gm must have not thought it was up to the task because they completely reworked it.

I guess the new lug pattern may be stronger but I don't ever recall overloaded trucks with sheared wheels studs or whatever.

Did they make any changes to the AAM 11.5 because that would make more sense to change the pattern rather than the lug will break off because they are 8 on 6.5 but then again I have never seen a 11.5 fail in a stock truck.

I just hope they don't pull a ford and change the pattern every few years and that stupid ass 7 lug crap

Really? Well it was either:

A) keep the old lug pattern and be stuck with the same last-place (when compared to ford and dodge) GVWR's/towing capacity, and worthless front end capacity from the 2001-2010 HD's

or

B) change the lug pattern to something that can handle more weight/stronger, and thus allow the 2011 GM HD trucks to actually be competitive with ford in terms of GVW, FAWR, and towing capacity.

I chose B.

and plus, come on, the 8x6.5 pattern has been around since the LATE 1960's. So its not like you can say "oh, that stupid GM, theyre always changing things...".

ben
Yeah, I saw a 2001 Chevy HD Reg cab for sale around here with 80's rims on the rear. Stupid...

Ben you know us SFA guys we look for any reason to bash IFS:D

you know I love a good sfa vs. IFS argument. :p:

Did they make any changes to the AAM 11.5 because that would make more sense to change the pattern rather than the lug will break off because they are 8 on 6.5 but then again I have never seen a 11.5 fail in a stock truck.

yes, the rear axle is strengthened...I think the shafts are bigger, and the housing is a little different??? I know the front axle is completely new; still aam and still 9.25, but the case is now "1 piece" with a sort of removeable third...rather than the 2 piece split case on the 2010 and earlier trucks.

I just hope they don't pull a ford and change the pattern every few years and that stupid ass 7 lug crap

yeah really. Of all the stupid stuff Ford has done over the years, I think the 1998 F-250 "light duty" (with the 7-lug axles) is right up there near the top...

that 98 f 250 light duty was a joke

ya that is one pattern I am glad never caught on

I would have been nice if GM went with the 8x170 pattern so existing aftermarket wheels could be used. I'm guessing GM went with 8x180 so we would have to buy 18" & 20" wheels from them instead. I wonder how long it will take for aftermarket wheels to become available for the 2011 GM trucks?

Man I hope BMF jumps on board with the 8x180mm, if they didn't that would make me sad. :(

I would have been nice if GM went with the 8x170 pattern so existing aftermarket wheels could be used. I'm guessing GM went with 8x180 so we would have to buy 18" & 20" wheels from them instead. I wonder how long it will take for aftermarket wheels to become available for the 2011 GM trucks?


Probably not long as that is a very minor change.

X2 but it would of been nice to stick with the same as ford

Really? Well it was either:

A) keep the old lug pattern and be stuck with the same last-place (when compared to ford and dodge) GVWR's/towing capacity, and worthless front end capacity from the 2001-2010 HD's

or

B) change the lug pattern to something that can handle more weight/stronger, and thus allow the 2011 GM HD trucks to actually be competitive with ford in terms of GVW, FAWR, and towing capacity.

I chose B.

and plus, come on, the 8x6.5 pattern has been around since the LATE 1960's. So its not like you can say "oh, that stupid GM, theyre always changing things...".

benI don't disagree with the change - however it rushed me to buy a 2010, so I could keep the new wheels/tires I just bought. Worth the loss of upgraded drivetrain? Maybe, due to end-of-year discounts - $5k goes a long way on mods. But I didn't want to let the wheels go. :D

-bZj

the 8x6.5 week patter?????

AAM rated then 1150 for 10500 and the SA 925 for 6000 with that bolt patern...

yeah your right been its pretty shit setup............


funny aint it the same 1150 rear that is in the 11 trucks??????

unless AAM upped the GAWR there is not point in going bigger on a bolt pattern exccept $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
which AAM GAWR would be more then what GM says it is.

i think it is a advertisment gimmic.

the 8x6.5 week patter?????

AAM rated then 1150 for 10500 and the SA 925 for 6000 with that bolt patern...

yeah your right been its pretty shit setup............


funny aint it the same 1150 rear that is in the 11 trucks??????

unless AAM upped the GAWR there is not point in going bigger on a bolt pattern exccept $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
which AAM GAWR would be more then what GM says it is.

i think it is a advertisment gimmic.

want to try that again in English?

:huh::think:

my head hurts. lol

unless AAM(not GM) upped their axle ratings for said axles..... it dont matter want bolt pattern is on there... in which GM will still be under(rated less than) AAM rating for said axles. bolt pattern means nothing..

its a marketing gimmick

unless AAM(not GM) upped their axle ratings for said axles..... it dont matter want bolt pattern is on there... in which GM will still be under(rated less than) AAM rating for said axles. bolt pattern means nothing..

its a marketing gimmick

OH OK adam, well if you say so, ill take your word for it. :rolleyes:

Both front and rear axles on the 2011's are new/strengthened; THEY ARE NOT 2001-2010 AXLES CARRIED OVER. But im sure you already knew that.

Im pretty sure he didnt!

all referense i have found they are still running a AAM1150. now both of us know that some were swedge down to 3.5" tube from 4" mainly on the 2500HDin which AAM has rated said axle for 10500lb reguardless of tube dia.

new axle full width 4"(similar the dodge vairants) tubes maybe bigger hub/spindle bearings which really doesnt change the axle housing setup it self. changes the hubs but not the axle housing itself... maybe if they ran thicker walled tubing and fully welded the tube to the housing VS the common OEM spot/plug weld that is the general pratices... that would leave the case housing the weak link...... allowing it to flex and kill the R&P and carrier.

3" wide vs 2.5" springs alow for a thinner spring leaf for smoother ride...
back to the assemetrical rear springs. similar to the 26/26(52") vs 26/30(56") of the late 80s/90s just this time they are using ~64" long springs... same principle differnet color.

still light on then 2500 rear axle raise ~116lb to 9200lb
bigger jump in the 3500drw 8200 to 9375lb
still have 10-12,00lb of tire under the rear axle on a DRW just like the GMT800s that really hasnty changed

so go full width 4" tube change hub bearings/brake rotors/caliber and call it a NEW :confused:

all referense i have found they are still running a AAM1150. now both of us know that some were swedge down to 3.5" tube from 4" mainly on the 2500HDin which AAM has rated said axle for 10500lb reguardless of tube dia.

new axle full width 4"(similar the dodge vairants) tubes maybe bigger hub/spindle bearings which really doesnt change the axle housing setup it self. changes the hubs but not the axle housing itself... maybe if they ran thicker walled tubing and fully welded the tube to the housing VS the common OEM spot/plug weld that is the general pratices... that would leave the case housing the weak link...... allowing it to flex and kill the R&P and carrier.

3" wide vs 2.5" springs alow for a thinner spring leaf for smoother ride...
back to the assemetrical rear springs. similar to the 26/26(52") vs 26/30(56") of the late 80s/90s just this time they are using ~64" long springs... same principle differnet color.

still light on then 2500 rear axle raise ~116lb to 9200lb
bigger jump in the 3500drw 8200 to 9375lb
still have 10-12,00lb of tire under the rear axle on a DRW just like the GMT800s that really hasnty changed

so go full width 4" tube change hub bearings/brake rotors/caliber and call it a NEW :confused:

So you're saying they changed the lug pattern for 2011 purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid? Pardon me if I misunderstand, I'm having a rough time deciphering your posts.

purely to annoy people????? IDK

i am saying the rear AXLE is NOT new.

now the '11 IFS is different.. starting with the foundation of them fordge A-arm from stamped steel variants thats a BIG change IMO
iirc both upper and lower are fordge units.

hopefully the change the the front hub bearing assembly as well.

So you're saying they changed the lug pattern for 2011 purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid? Pardon me if I misunderstand, I'm having a rough time deciphering your posts.

sven that may not be too far off. I think GM hates it when you put bigger tires or wheels on their trucks. They usually have an odd width on their wheels anyway, eg: Dodge and Ford have 16x7 and GM has 16x6.5 so you can't put anything like a 265 or 285. Than with the NBS they put 17x7.5 instead of 17x8. Geeez always with the oddball sizes, what gives? I wonder if the 20's are going to be 20x7.75 or maybe 20x7.78 just to be brave, oooooooo. GM just has some issues with that wheel thing if you ask me.

LA DMAX

purely to annoy people????? IDK

i am saying the rear AXLE is NOT new.

now the '11 IFS is different.. starting with the foundation of them fordge A-arm from stamped steel variants thats a BIG change IMO
iirc both upper and lower are fordge units.

hopefully the change the the front hub bearing assembly as well.

well gee ya think so? Its a much bigger all new lug pattern, how the F would they use the same front bearing hub assembly as the 2001-2010 trucks.

the front axle is completely different. The rear axle isnt all new, but some parts are changed to accomodate the higher ratings.

You are ridiculous adam, to insinuate that GM changed it "purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid" (as sven_502 said) is flat out stupid.

ben

well gee ya think so? Its a much bigger all new lug pattern, how the F would they use the same front bearing hub assembly as the 2001-2010 trucks.

the front axle is completely different. The rear axle isnt all new, but some parts are changed to accomodate the higher ratings.

You are ridiculous adam, to insinuate that GM changed it "purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid" (as sven_502 said) is flat out stupid.

ben

Just to clarify that's not actually my opinion, just what I think he was trying to say.

well gee ya think so? Its a much bigger all new lug pattern, how the F would they use the same front bearing hub assembly as the 2001-2010 trucks.

the front axle is completely different. The rear axle isnt all new, but some parts are changed to accomodate the higher ratings.

You are ridiculous adam, to insinuate that GM changed it "purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid" (as sven_502 said) is flat out stupid.

ben
no that is not my reasoning..
IDK why GM kill pontiac and olds and kept buick:confused:
why they killed the B-body, F-body car leaving ford with a manopoly of a market!!!!!!!!!!! for almost 20 years on both platforms.:confused:

they had a viable rwd full size sedan G8 that competed on a world scale and killed it with in 3 years. that would either hang or out run a BMW 5series for less money.
some time GM has some great epifanies(sp)... other times you wonder what happend to common sense.

IDK why they would change tooling when esepcialy the rear axle 8x6.5 pattern has proven it can handle even the new '11 ratings. with rims capable have handeling upwards are 3700lb on a 8x6.5 bolt pattern on you common 16-20" rims and 5000 on a 19.5 rim with 8x6.5

i dont see the legit reason to increase the bolt pattern.. it will cause alot of busniss to increase their overhead no doubt.

yes the front desprately need redone. and
i think it could have been reasonable done inside the 8x6.5 pattern it would cost the end user ALOT less

You are ridiculous adam, to insinuate that GM changed it "purely to annoy people that want aftermarket rims and just as a marketing aid" (as sven_502 said) is flat out stupid.

ben


x2 I work in Corporate america and know better than that. It was changed for a mechanical reason.

so say that the rear could handle all the new weight ratings with the "old" lug pattern.....now GM finally wants to get the weight rating for the front end up to where it can "compete" with Dodge and Ford.....to do this they need to redesign the A-arms and front axle housing, tubes, CV Half Shafts and BEARINGS in the spindles and probably the spindles them selves as well....to accommodate the new ( probably much larger ) bearings the center hub had to be made larger and so that relates to the size and spacing of the lugs...so stay with me here......now GM would need a rim to fit this larger pattern for the front, but for the rear thy could still use the smaller "old" pattern....I have NEVER seen a manufacturer produce and sell a vehicle with a different bolt/lug pattern on the front and back of a vehicle....so to keep things easy on the masses they up-sized the rear assembly to match....

now following on the same theory of having to have larger center hub to accept the larger bearings, it would be reasonable to say that AAM up sized the axle shafts, maybe even the spline count..who knows until one is actually taken a part.....but on this theory that would make sense to have a now 4" tube to allow those larger shafts to sit in larger bearings, hence now the rear hub is larger forcing the bolt pattern to be of a larger size also.....matching the front and now GM can produce and sell a vehicle with the same size bolt pattern on all 4 corners

umm how do you say .... AMEN!!!!

so say that the rear could handle all the new weight ratings with the "old" lug pattern.....now GM finally wants to get the weight rating for the front end up to where it can "compete" with Dodge and Ford.....to do this they need to redesign the A-arms and front axle housing, tubes, CV Half Shafts and BEARINGS in the spindles and probably the spindles them selves as well....to accommodate the new ( probably much larger ) bearings the center hub had to be made larger and so that relates to the size and spacing of the lugs...so stay with me here......now GM would need a rim to fit this larger pattern for the front, but for the rear thy could still use the smaller "old" pattern....I have NEVER seen a manufacturer produce and sell a vehicle with a different bolt/lug pattern on the front and back of a vehicle....so to keep things easy on the masses they up-sized the rear assembly to match....

now following on the same theory of having to have larger center hub to accept the larger bearings, it would be reasonable to say that AAM up sized the axle shafts, maybe even the spline count..who knows until one is actually taken a part.....but on this theory that would make sense to have a now 4" tube to allow those larger shafts to sit in larger bearings, hence now the rear hub is larger forcing the bolt pattern to be of a larger size also.....matching the front and now GM can produce and sell a vehicle with the same size bolt pattern on all 4 corners

LtEng, GM used a different lug pattern front and rear on the old 3500HD's back in the 1980's and 1990's. That stupid 5 or 6 lug front and 8 lug (I think) rears. How lame was that? But I totally understand your point, it's a different game now days.

LA DMAX

no that is not my reasoning..
IDK why GM kill pontiac and olds and kept buick:confused:
why they killed the B-body, F-body car leaving ford with a manopoly of a market!!!!!!!!!!! for almost 20 years on both platforms.:confused:

they had a viable rwd full size sedan G8 that competed on a world scale and killed it with in 3 years. that would either hang or out run a BMW 5series for less money.
some time GM has some great epifanies(sp)... other times you wonder what happend to common sense.

IDK why they would change tooling when esepcialy the rear axle 8x6.5 pattern has proven it can handle even the new '11 ratings. with rims capable have handeling upwards are 3700lb on a 8x6.5 bolt pattern on you common 16-20" rims and 5000 on a 19.5 rim with 8x6.5

i dont see the legit reason to increase the bolt pattern.. it will cause alot of busniss to increase their overhead no doubt.

yes the front desprately need redone. and
i think it could have been reasonable done inside the 8x6.5 pattern it would cost the end user ALOT less

no offense...but Im done listening to your reasoning. You know nothing about mechanical engineering, and even less about business marketing/economy/profit margins/supply vs demand models and what is good and bad for a company and finally, how to even run a large business.

ben

What I am curious about is why GM has not gone to a SFA set up on their trucks? They are working up to making their trucks comparable to Ford with regards to towing but ultimately (IMHO) GM will need a SFA setup to keep up..

They all seem to be going in the right direction, so just a matter of time I am sure.

Here we go again with the SFA. There is a market out there that GM is satisfying with the IFS. GM is able to make this market work and most GM owners don't complain about it and the softer ride. Question have you driven a ford lately? they ride like a tractor.

the new IFS does everything a solid front axle can do. The big bitch about the 2010 and older IFS was that it couldnt handle a plow on a crew cab diesel. Now it is rated at the exact same FAWR as ford's solid front axle. So as far as im concerned they are equal/just as competitive with ford now in front axle capability.

So to recap...it has the same rating as the ford.
Its IFS so it rides nicer (I know ford guys, you all think your solid front axles ride better than all the GM's you have been in, keep telling yourself that)

so remind me why they need a solid front axle. They finally have a legitimate and much improved IFS that has all of the capabilities to match a solid front axle. Solid front axle would be a big step BACKWARDS.

The reality is in stock application use the way GM intended their HD trucks to be used, the IFS is plenty strong enough and will last just as long if not longer than a SFA truck. The last 3 super duty's and excursion that I worked on in my shop all needed ball joints within the first 75,000 miles. The excursion also needed a front wheel bearing and TRE's. I have 150k+ on my truck and ive replaced both the wheel bearings and thats with beating on my front end a LOT more than those super duty's I worked on.

ok ford guys now lets hear it. Lets hear of your 500,000 mile super duty front ends that havent needed any service and your whole crew of GM friends who have had to replace every single front end part in the first 35,000 miles. :rolleyes:

ben

the new IFS does everything a solid front axle can do. The big bitch about the 2010 and older IFS was that it couldnt handle a plow on a crew cab diesel. Now it is rated at the exact same FAWR as ford's solid front axle. So as far as im concerned they are equal/just as competitive with ford now in front axle capability.

So to recap...it has the same rating as the ford.
Its IFS so it rides nicer (I know ford guys, you all think your solid front axles ride better than all the GM's you have been in, keep telling yourself that)

so remind me why they need a solid front axle. They finally have a legitimate and much improved IFS that has all of the capabilities to match a solid front axle. Solid front axle would be a big step BACKWARDS.

The reality is in stock application use the way GM intended their HD trucks to be used, the IFS is plenty strong enough and will last just as long if not longer than a SFA truck. The last 3 super duty's and excursion that I worked on in my shop all needed ball joints within the first 75,000 miles. The excursion also needed a front wheel bearing and TRE's. I have 150k+ on my truck and ive replaced both the wheel bearings and thats with beating on my front end a LOT more than those super duty's I worked on.

ok ford guys now lets hear it. Lets hear of your 500,000 mile super duty front ends that havent needed any service and your whole crew of GM friends who have had to replace every single front end part in the first 35,000 miles. :rolleyes:

ben

Wow.. Ben I am surprised at you. All I did was ask a question and you go on a cheerleading rant. You used to not be that way.

Also, after driving GM from 1998 to 2006 and everything that I drove having IFS and now driving a Ford with a SFA, I can 'personally' (this means this is MY opinion Ben, not all Ford owners) say that my truck rides better than my GM's did.

But I do like how you know that you have been harder on your truck than the trucks you worked on.

Oh well..

Wow.. Ben I am surprised at you. All I did was ask a question and you go on a cheerleading rant. You used to not be that way.

Also, after driving GM from 1998 to 2006 and everything that I drove having IFS and now driving a Ford with a SFA, I can 'personally' (this means this is MY opinion Ben, not all Ford owners) say that my truck rides better than my GM's did.

But I do like how you know that you have been harder on your truck than the trucks you worked on.

Oh well..

because they were all either friends' trucks, or local trucks where I do know how they are used... None of them are drag raced or anything else hard like that which beats on the front end.

the GM's ride 'smoother' and more like a car. The super duty's might have what their owners call a "better" ride...REAL translation: slightly rougher, but more "solid" and "positive". But from a strict smoothness/floating down the road point, the GM's win.

If you want an unbiased opinion have a girl that doesnt know anything about trucks ride in both trucks side by side and see what she says. Of course any ford guy is going to say fords ride better, duh.

the new IFS does everything a solid front axle can do. The big bitch about the 2010 and older IFS was that it couldnt handle a plow on a crew cab diesel. Now it is rated at the exact same FAWR as ford's solid front axle. So as far as im concerned they are equal/just as competitive with ford now in front axle capability.

So to recap...it has the same rating as the ford.
Its IFS so it rides nicer (I know ford guys, you all think your solid front axles ride better than all the GM's you have been in, keep telling yourself that)

so remind me why they need a solid front axle. They finally have a legitimate and much improved IFS that has all of the capabilities to match a solid front axle. Solid front axle would be a big step BACKWARDS.

The reality is in stock application use the way GM intended their HD trucks to be used, the IFS is plenty strong enough and will last just as long if not longer than a SFA truck. The last 3 super duty's and excursion that I worked on in my shop all needed ball joints within the first 75,000 miles. The excursion also needed a front wheel bearing and TRE's. I have 150k+ on my truck and ive replaced both the wheel bearings and thats with beating on my front end a LOT more than those super duty's I worked on.

ok ford guys now lets hear it. Lets hear of your 500,000 mile super duty front ends that havent needed any service and your whole crew of GM friends who have had to replace every single front end part in the first 35,000 miles. :rolleyes:

ben

Its not a super duty but my uncles has a 03 F150 with 650k on it, he has never even changed the shocks on the front end:eek::eek::eek: so nothing else has been touched, except for brakes. But wait that is a IFS front end isnt it.......

Its not a super duty but my uncles has a 03 F150 with 650k on it, he has never even changed the shocks on the front end:eek::eek::eek: so nothing else has been touched, except for brakes. But wait that is a IFS front end isnt it.......

and its torsion bar IFS to boot!!! :D

LtEng, GM used a different lug pattern front and rear on the old 3500HD's back in the 1980's and 1990's. That stupid 5 or 6 lug front and 8 lug (I think) rears. How lame was that? But I totally understand your point, it's a different game now days.

LA DMAX


yes the 3500HD's or 1.5 ton trucks used 5 lugs in the front with a 10 lug rear...the bolt pattern was the same thou just less lugs out front...

Hey do you guys know that the lug pattern is getting changed on the new 2011 !!!!:eek:

And the forum goes nuts!!!


:lol: Comedy !!!!



I know my idea...again idea, doesn't matter because I don't work for GM but I would have to side with the person that said it is due to more the upgrade of the front hubs than the rear axle. But again I am just posting my thought and I really have no inside at this time with the reason behind the change.


Man I hope BMF jumps on board with the 8x180mm, if they didn't that would make me sad. :(


Yep, they are on it.

Really? Well it was either:

A) keep the old lug pattern and be stuck with the same last-place (when compared to ford and dodge) GVWR's/towing capacity, and worthless front end capacity from the 2001-2010 HD's

or

B) change the lug pattern to something that can handle more weight/stronger, and thus allow the 2011 GM HD trucks to actually be competitive with ford in terms of GVW, FAWR, and towing capacity.

I chose B.

and plus, come on, the 8x6.5 pattern has been around since the LATE 1960's. So its not like you can say "oh, that stupid GM, theyre always changing things...".

ben


I choose Option C.

10 BOLT!!! FTW!!!

I choose Option C.

10 BOLT!!! FTW!!!

What he said.

LA DMAX

Ifs would be fine if it was coil sprung. IMHO

Is congito working on a lift already?

Ifs would be fine if it was coil sprung. IMHO

Is congito working on a lift already?

If they are it's hush hush, I talked to Chad at SEMA and they were all talk about the NTBD kit and that was their main focus. I know it's been 7 months since, but I don't think they have anything other than possibly on a drawing board. But I could be wrong.

LA DMAX

Umm - so I take it my Novakane's that I have on my current truck arent gona fit my new LML?????

Umm - so I take it my Novakane's that I have on my current truck arent gona fit my new LML?????

Correct.

Good news is that you will be able to sell them for a good price.

Correct.

Good news is that you will be able to sell them for a good price.


Dang it! That sucks! Dont really care to sell my wheels. Guess I have to though :(