Jump to content

2014 HDs

97CAIVIAROSS

Recommended Posts

97CAIVIAROSS Enthusiast

97CAIVIAROSS

Posted
Posted

Has anyone heard if or when a K2 HD will be out or if they are gonna keep them the "Classic" body style for the first year?

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted

Current HD body style will stay for 2014. New HD body style, along with the utilities, will be here for 2015. Just 1500 series pickups will be on the CK2 platform for 2014 model year.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

I've seen a couple HD trucks driving around with camo'd front ends that have M license plates so they must be a bit different than the 1500s style-wise.

Zane Senior Enthusiast

Zane

Posted
Posted

I could be wrong but I want to remember that a GM engineer mentioned to me the current HD's are already on the next gen platform. The 2015 update should be mostly a specs boost and new styling.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

I could be wrong but I want to remember that a GM engineer mentioned to me the current HD's are already on the next gen platform. The 2015 update should be mostly a specs boost and new styling.

 

 

I remember reading that when they redid the trucks in 2011 as well.

ChevyTech77 Senior Enthusiast

ChevyTech77

Posted
Posted

Correct, the HD chassis set update in 2011 is carrying over to the CK2 platform therefore, the HD update in 2015 will just be frame up, for the most part.

2017HD Enthusiast

2017HD

Posted
Posted

Yes that sounds right - when they re did the HDs in 07 they did not change the frames like they did on the 1500's but they changed the body. In 2011 they re did the chassis and left the body alone. Now for 2015 they will probably make a few minor tweaks to the chassis - maybe the engines (6.2L) and transmissions (8 speed??) along with the body changes.

 

Now that they have made the 1500's look more like the HD's I wonder what they are going to do to the HDs to set them apart???

  • 2 weeks later...
C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

I am hoping that GM will offer HD chassis-cabs up to at least 19,500# GVW and 120' cab-to-axle wheelbases. I can't believe GM is just going to give up that market to Ford and Ram. It is funny that GM has been putting an emphasis on commercial fleet sales, when they have a such a weak product line. Sounds like the old GM isn't quite dead yet.

Prokopchuk_9 Senior Enthusiast

Prokopchuk_9

Posted
Posted

I am hoping that GM will offer HD chassis-cabs up to at least 19,500# GVW and 120' cab-to-axle wheelbases. I can't believe GM is just going to give up that market to Ford and Ram. It is funny that GM has been putting an emphasis on commercial fleet sales, when they have a such a weak product line. Sounds like the old GM isn't quite dead yet.

I don't think gm has a weak HD lineup at all, the new ones have the best/stiffest frame, hands down the engine/tranny is the best, front end beefed up as well. I drive 1 tons and 3/4 tons everyday at work. Fords are tough I give them that, but fuel eating unreliable engines. Dodges are gutless lumber wagons. GM has the perfect mix.

Badass69 Senior Enthusiast

Badass69

Posted
Posted

I don't think gm has a weak HD lineup at all, the new ones have the best/stiffest frame, hands down the engine/tranny is the best, front end beefed up as well. I drive 1 tons and 3/4 tons everyday at work. Fords are tough I give them that, but fuel eating unreliable engines. Dodges are gutless lumber wagons. GM has the perfect mix.

 

However GM does not offer anything beyond a 3500HD and even that is limited to what you get configuration wise. They used to build actual HD trucks for commercial type use..... but I guess that costs too much. You don't see Chevy anything anymore.... not even tow trucks, and there is a reason for that. Ford and Dodge must be going broke in the lighter duty commercial market, lol. No for GM it makes more sense to build 2 of the same pickup truck line with different badging and minor sheetmetal differences instead.

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted

GM does sell more half and three quarter tons than Ford when you account for both brands but Ford kills them in OE ton sales and obviously the medium duty 450 and 550s only increase their share. But it does seem odd that GM won't step up and offer the upfitter sizes you mention, I wasn't aware that was the case.

C/K Man Enthusiast

C/K Man

Posted
Posted

I don't think gm has a weak HD lineup at all, the new ones have the best/stiffest frame, hands down the engine/tranny is the best, front end beefed up as well. I drive 1 tons and 3/4 tons everyday at work. Fords are tough I give them that, but fuel eating unreliable engines. Dodges are gutless lumber wagons. GM has the perfect mix.

GM's lineup is weak for commercial use. GVW's are not high enough, longest wheelbase is too short for a lot of commercial applications.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...