heymrdjCW started following GM Waiting to Fix Transmission on my 1 Day old AT4, Update of my interior in my 2020 1500 Denali, Liking the 6.6 gas and and 3 others
heymrdjCW replied to Carolina's topic in 6.6L Gas V8 & HD Transmission Powertrain (L8T/MYD)Thanks for sharing your experience. There seems to be some all over the place experiences between Ford and Chevy. For our department, hands down the 6.2 truck has been the longer lasting truck over the 6.0 Chevy. That’s not just a powertrain view, that’s a whole truck view. We have many of them over 250,000 and the truck has held together. Had issues with both models, the Chevy stuff being a little newer, but that’s our experiences. Mainly dump and service bodies. I really don’t think you can go wrong with either truck. Money saved on one issue will get lost on another.
I don’t think you’re a fanatic at all. I know they changed the 2020 stuff on the Fords but I wasn’t sure how much. Haven’t had a chance to play with one [emoji16]. I generally get good info out of the Elkhart teams, but I haven’t had a chance to talk about the 2020 Fords with anyone. And as I said, my dealer doesn’t have any decently loaded ones that aren’t sold already. I appreciate the first hand experience.
I’m curious what tools were different from the two. From what I’ve seen, all big three are offering the same packages when it comes to trailer mounted cameras, above cab cameras, trailer TPMS etc. I haven’t had a chance to check out a loaded out 2020 Ford as they have been selling them basically as they come in, but online I didn’t see much of a difference.
Probably because it’s designed for it. There’s a good few threads of people taking delivery of 2020’s and seeing 210-220F fluid range on the empty truck. We aren’t seeing what the computer sees and decides in terms of fluid flow. Modern transmissions have been designed to run hotter and hotter because that’s where efficiency is. A lot of them even take engine coolant to get the transmission to operating temperature faster. The MerconLV fluid is rated at 250F, and over 250F for 30 minutes before causing harm. The powertrain engineers probably have it figured out a lot better than the armchair engineers.
My Canyon will be ready to trade in about 2021, so I’m watching the Yukon not XL Diesel closely.
When I got my 2019 Canyon Denali, the first thing that happened, with less than 200 miles on it, was swap out those Dueler tires with Michelin Defender LTX. I drive on road and gravel trails, and they have handled it just fine. The wet road handling is miles above the Duelers it came with, and they have great road manners for eating up the miles. I used to do the whole off road tire deal in college, then got tired of having tires that were more expensive and louder but worse handling and rougher riding than a tire that matched the terrain I drive on. Didn’t have any issues driving out in a field with 6” of snow on it with the Defenders either a few weeks ago. They have just enough off road grip to do the job for me.
2.7 has better driveability because the 4.3 takes over double the RPMs to make its torque. Much of the US outside of the Midwest doesn’t have easy accessibility to E85, so it’s kind of silly to use the numbers like your average every day driver is pumping that. My guess is the limitation on towing comes from maxing out the intercooler, where as a 4.3L doesn’t need one. In the real world, there won’t be any difference in the use case for either engine. I personally believe that the 4.3L will be phased out for a gen 2 2.7 eventually. They don’t make much sense in the stable together. I do think GM made a mistake going for 4 big cylinders instead of 6 smaller ones on the design. I think a 2.7 6 banger would have delivered better MPG. Either way, having driven both quite a bit now, I wouldn’t take a 4.3.
Some tinfoil theory that if your truck has an issue, they can remote in via OnStar access to your computer and suppress the errors until after your warranty is up so that you have to then pay for a repair that GM should have put out as a recall to everyone in warranty.
Interesting. I’ve never increased my speed due to wearing a seat belt. I’ve never swerved wildly wearing a helmet. I’ve never swung chainsawed a lot over my knee thinking that my chaps will protect a miss. Do sane humans really not contemplate physics. NEVER in my life have I talked to an ordinary human being and then tell me they aren’t nervous about an accident because there’s enough safety to prevent it. Even linemen use probes and grounders on verified disconnected lines. Your main example, falling at the GC. I was recently there again. No one says this nonsense, NO ONE. They climb the rail because it offers a more amazing vantage point. No normal person says “this rail protects me if I climb over it.” Circumventing safety doesn’t allow safety to work, amazing discovery! Sweet Jesus...
We’ve been doing this for a century now. If I pulled you up to a horse this moment, could you bridle and saddle it professionally perfect? No google, I mean right this instant be done in under 5 minutes. How about weighing powder down to 2 grains in your hand and build a bullet with a press? Again under 5 minutes? These skills used to be vital, they no longer are. People tend to think highly of the skills they have today and call the next generation lazy. Truth is, the ones throwing shade are already the laziest generation to live full lives.
If you're ignoring the beeping noise and pushing through, that's not the fault of technology, that's a misuse of technology. A common problem. Companies are simply trying to find ways to help people cope with the go go go society that has been created, which strangely enough was created by the very ones that abhor the new tech. Just-In-Time is the name of the game, and individuals run their life at a fast pace. Mistakes are getting made. The tech is simply a crutch instead of resolving the root of the problem, and that is getting the whole world to slow down. Good luck with that one, though.
I’m with you there. My 2017 5.3 would get 24mpg tips pure highway with the counter set to 100 miles. But real measurements (400 miles which included mixed driving) would barely keep it at 18mpg. All city was still more like 14mpg. My 2019 Canyon is getting 19.8mpg so far in the same loop, but only has 1,300 miles on it. Still breaking in. A turbo would be amazing, the 2.3 Ranger was more impressive in that regard.
No, you just weren’t as high as I figured you were. Torque wise, the 2.7 reached its max output 3000 RPM ago. The 2.7 did it’s rated load in the same time as the 6.2. For the 99% pavement princess grocery getters around here, it’s more than enough.
Most OnlineNewest Member
Who's Online 119 Members, 1 Anonymous, 1,870 Guests (See full list)
- HK GUY
- William S
- Adm Cld
- Peter Thiessen
- 04 Commemorative
- Say When
- Marcel Almeida
- Dale Bielecki
- Jonathan Markel
- Texas Sandman
- Matt Robertson
- David Provazek
- Alan Higgins
- Daniel Brazzle