Jump to content

5.3 with 3;42 has higher tow rating than 6.2 with 3:42???

seamonster

Recommended Posts

seamonster Enthusiast

seamonster

Posted
Posted

This is strange to me the 5.3 has a 100 lb higher tow rating with 3:42 than the 6.2 with 3:42.

I realize the 6.2 truck is a little heavier because of the different rear axle but still

with the big difference in power I would think there would be a bigger difference

in favor of the 6.2.

What do you guys think?

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
Does the 6.2 weigh any more than the 5.3? I thought they were the same block just bored or stroked different???

 

Same block I think. Power has little to do with it I'd bet. It's all weight. Between the beefier axle and related stuff, a 6.2 truck is probably ~100lbs heavier so that has to come out of the capacity.

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

Suspension package as well. Are you comparing z71's or z85's?

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

Who knows

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

It will have a larger rear axle according to my conversation woth AAM at SEMA. That and a different transmission could cause that

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

I believe at least in 2009-2013 it used the 6L90 but not 100% sure

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
I believe at least in 2009-2013 it used the 6L90 but not 100% sure

 

Nope.

Chris Senior Enthusiast

Chris

Posted
Posted

Well I do kmow that the axle will be heavier.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
Well I do kmow that the axle will be heavier.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro

 

It likely is.

Jon A Senior Enthusiast

Jon A

Posted
Posted

According to the specs, only the Max Tow 3.73 trucks got the heavier axle--and that's with either engine.

 

The 6.2 could add weight in many ways--larger diameter exhaust tubing adds a lot of weight as would a larger muffler. I'm guessing most of it is right there. There could be differences in things like the driveshafts, springs, radiators, swaybars, etc, that are small enough they don't make it into a brouchure but add up to make a noticable difference in weight.

 

So much of these payload and towing capacities are arbitrary anyway, I think people put way too much stock into them. Get the max tow package with the bigger axle and stiffer rear springs and your payload capacity goes down. Huh? It just doesn't work that way in the real world, regardless of what the specs say.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...