Another JR

https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/263711-is-there-a-difference-between-the-frames-for-a-2500-and-3500/

Diesel or gas engine?

Is the 2024 box different from the 2020-2023 box?

Payload rating is simply GVWR minus curb weight. The camper rating in the glove box is trying to keep you within the GVWR by giving a margin for people and gear in addition to the camper. On my 3500 hd cclb srw gas, 11,500 lbs GVWR, the payload rating is 4,054 lbs and the camper load rating is 3304 lbs. That looks like an arbitrary 750 lbs reduction below the payload limit to account for two people and gear. It doesn’t seem to be driven by the rear axle 7250 lbs rating which has nearly 1000 lbs of margin even if all 3304 lbs of the camper weight is on the rear axle.

Towing 8 to 12 k lbs would rule out the 1500 for me, and I would be more focused on deciding if I had truck load plus trailer tongue weight situations that might call for a 3500 rather than a 2500 from a payload rating standpoint.

Is your pin located behind the rear axle?

GCWR is gross combination weight rating. It’s your truck weight plus any weight it is carrying plus trailer gross weight. You are well under GCWR as you showed because your trailer is light. Another concern will be whether you are exceeding the payload rating with your passengers plus cargo plus camper plus trailer tongue weight. Finally, you will want to ensure you don’t exceed the rear gross axle weight rating because your camper puts most of its weight on the rear axle and your trailer tongue puts more weight on the rear axle. In fact, because the hitch is several feet back from the axle, the load added to the rear axle by your trailer tongue is about 20% higher than the tongue weight itself, depending on the wheelbase and the rear axle to trailer ball distance. I suspect this will be the limit you are potentially going to run into. You might exceed it by a few hundred pounds. This is why most people with heavier slide in truck campers buy a one ton or even a dually. That’s without adding trailer tongue weight into the situation. Does your little trailer have brakes? If not, from a braking standpoint you would exceed the design intent by having the truck near max GVWR and having the brakes have to stop 3000 more lbs.

The extra alternator capacity allows you to charge camper batteries while running without overloading the alternator. I think the base alternator is 170 amps, so the 220 gives you 50 amps of extra output capability. I assume they include the higher capacity alternator in the plow package because electrically driven hydraulics are involved in a plow system. Have you weighed the truck with the loaded camper and without it to see actual weight added on each axle? That’s basic info you really want to know. Truck stops have scales you can use. My local one charges $12 for two separate weighings up to 24 hours apart. With 3000 lbs almost entirely on the rear axle you are probably a bit into the overloads and might want to consider air bags. What you do in the front, if anything, would depend on how much weight your camper is putting on the front axle.

Weird. Try this: https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/256818-project-report-front-torsion-springs-remove-and-replace/

If you are going to use a poll with only two options, you might get more meaningful info for your purpose if you asked people to check if they have to add oil between changes or check whether they believe their consumption is above or below some level like 1 quart per 4000 miles. On my truck I lose less than a pint in my 3750 change interval. I suspect a certain amount of fuel absorption offsets the actual oil usage rate on these engines. I received my truck with two miles on it. Nobody drove it but the delivery process people prior to me, and I broke it in very conservatively. That may be why mine uses very little oil. Or maybe I was just lucky.

You should be able to click on the box that shows my old post. The forum imbeds the link. $570 plus sales tax was the price for the parts only. I did the installation myself. The linked post was me describing what was involved.

Here is a link to the post where I described changing out the front torsion springs.

No height change with different spring ratings. They adjust them to the same nominal truck height. If you can only find trucks with camper or plow springs, it’s about as easy a diy job as rotating the wheels/tires. $600 out the door from the dealer for a new pair of springs, and it took me two hours. A lot of that time was spent figuring out how to safely jack and support the front of the truck for the first time. Once I had the front tires off the ground actually changing the springs was 30-40 minutes. No realignment needed if you set the truck to the same height as before.

I started out with 5600 lb bars on my 3500 hd cclb srw as “camper springs.” I did not like the suspension dynamics. The front would bounce up faster than the rear when going over dips at highway speed. I changed mine to the standard 5200 lb springs for that model. The ride is better and the front pitch up over dips is gone. If you are not actually going to put the extra weight on the front I would recommend staying away from camper or plow springs. If anyone has questions about what is involved in changing them I can answer questions or direct you to my post describing the job. It was easier than I expected.

I had a GM truck I bought new years ago that after about 5 years I realized the outer right side of the truck bed had no clearcoat on it. The dealer said they’d seen it before and he attributed it to clogged nozzles in their automated paint facility and poor QC inspection. It was past warranty when i figured it out and they wouldn’t cover it. I eventually had it repainted because it got too ugly.

Check out the GM vs Ford hd truck frame twist comparison videos on YouTube. I suspect some of that extra 600 lbs is in the GM frame. My 2021 L8T drops less than halfway down the dipstick marking range between oil changes at 3750 mile intervals, so I have not yet had to add oil between changes. I don’t tow heavy though.

If someone connects the phone to a computet with a USB/lightning cable, the phone normally asks if you want the computer to be able to access the phone and you have to unlock it. By changing the setting I described, you are telling the phone to allow accessories to connect when the phone is locked. I was warning you that changing that setting may allow a computer to access the phone. I don’t know if that’s the case because I haven’t tried it. You could change the setting and then try connecting the phone to your own computer via USB/lightning cable and see what the phone does.

Settings - Face ID and Password - Allow access when locked - switch on “Accessories” The bad thing about leaving your phone in this configuration is if someone connects it to a computer they would have at least some access to your phone data.

Make sure you hang onto that evidence that they billed you for two quarts but said they only added one in the oil consumption check records. Their credibility will be damaged by that if you get to arbitration or a lemon law case.

I apologize for coming across as “calling you out.” I meant no offense. You are right I read the part wrong about the screw that keeps the rotor from falling off when you take the wheel off. I put antiseize on that too. Most manuals call for it I believe when you replace the rotors.

There are important reasons not to put antiseize compound on the hub/wheel interface and on the wheel studs or bolts. The wheel bolt/stud torque is specified based on an assumed level of friction to achieve a desired bolt/stud tension and thereby a desired clamping force between the wheel and the hub face. If the torque is specified for dry threads and you apply that torque with a lubricant of some kind on the threads, the bolt/stud tension induced will go up significantly, and you may yield or even break the bolt or stud. If the specified torque is for dry threads and you decide to use antiseize compound or some other lubricant, you need to use a lower torque, targeting the same clamping force. There are tables on the internet that provide guidance for adjusting torque to achieve the same clamping force with different thread conditions. The reasons you are trying to achieve a certain clamping force are 1) to hold the wheel on with preload so no gap opens between the wheel and hub under any wheel load condition, and 2) to create sufficient friction between the hub and wheel so that the wheel does not shift on the hub under any load. This friction interface is intended to take the torsional and lateral loads between the wheel and hub so that the bolts/studs are not subjected to significant bending loads, which can cause them to fail. There is no practical increase to the existing lug torque and clamping force you can do that will restore the intended friction if you have lubricated the wheel/hub interface with antiseize or grease. Will using antiseize on your wheel/hub interface actually cause your lug bolts/studs to eventually fail from bending fatigue? Who knows, but by adding compound there you have seriously altered the joint conditions intended by the engineers. I would respectfully suggest you not do that.

Check this thread out:

They seem to sell a lot of “standard bed” HDs new, but it seems like over half of the people I’ve run into hoping to find a used late model HD truck (GM or Ford) want a long bed. Different markets I guess.

I have had two cases like you described where, in a right curve, an oncoming car switched to the center left turn lane, pointing their car at me briefly and setting off the red warning light. In both cases, if the car had actually been coming at me at that speed and distance, a head-on would have been unavoidable, so you’d think any automatic braking would have been applied immediately. However, in both cases, the brakes were not applied by the vehicle. I was reacting and covering the brake in each case, but both times the threat went away before I applied much brake if any. That makes me wonder if it’s not programmed to apply AEB in a head-on detection, maybe due to the false alarm propensity. Just a guess, though. None of the material I’ve found addresses behavior of the system in head-on warnings. I will say the system has given me numerous legitimate rear end warnings, zero rear end false alarms, and only those two well understood head on “false” alarms, that really were legitimate warnings until the other car changed direction away from pointing at me. The only brake inputs I’ve experienced were in the recent potential rear end event I described in the first post here, and as you said those may have been just IBA and not AEB. No unwanted braking. That’s in two years and 8,000 miles of mixed driving. Nothing about that record makes me distrust the system, so I’m leaving mine turned on.

Jettech, your new truck should be a 2024. You know you love the larger center display. Anything less and you will just be back to lusting again in 6 months. The rest of us are just trying to look out for you, and don’t really want to deal with another round of you denying you want a new truck in the next two years. Just do it, but do it with a 2024+.