Jump to content

2015 3500 High Country Diesel

txcowgirl

Recommended Posts

txcowgirl New Member

txcowgirl

Posted
Posted

Hoping to get feedback to help make decision. We have a 2004 HD Silverado Duramax with 120,000 miles, which we love and have taken great care of. We pull a 5th wheel with it, and it has been wonderful. Now, however, we are wanting a bigger 5th wheel which we feel would require a bigger truck. My husband is a stickler for staying within load limits, and the RV I want is much heavier than he is uncomfortable hauling with our 2500. We are looking at a 2015 3500 High Country Diesel, with 50,000 miles which should have no problem pulling the heavier 5th wheel. My question is was this year model as reliable as our 2004?  Would you guys be comfortable making this switch?  He loves his truck and I wouldn't want to encourage him to do something he'd regret. If this was a bad year for this model, is there one we should be on the lookout for?  I love all the extra bells and whistles on it, of course, but he wants one which will last. Thanks.

Colossus Senior Enthusiast

Colossus

Posted
Posted

Welcome to the forum.  The 2015 is a good truck, will be a bit more powerful, have more bells and whistles, and would be a fine truck to use for towing, but the newer diesels (GM, Ford, & Dodge) are known to have emissions issues, so keep that in mind.  I would suggest going over to www.duramaxforum.com and taking a look at the posts over there for the 2014+ Duramax and soliciting feedback from them.  make sure you have a good per-purchase inspection done at an independent repair facility that knows trucks before you buy the thing.  Don't believe any of that "Pre-Certified" bull crap. 

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted

'11 thru '16 HD's use the same chassis and powertrain.  (engine code is LML)

 

Significant improvement to brakes/frame/front end from 20110 forward. Also added the exhaust brake with the LML (ie MY2011)

The body style changed in at 2007.5, but the chassis not til '11.

 

Next engine change didn't happen til MY2017 -- again out of cycle with the body style change. 

 

2004 was also an engine change year.  The early ones were the LB7, same as earlier years and the later ones (sometimes referred to as 04.5's were the LLY)

 

Is the one you're looking at a dually?  Dually provides a significant increase in towing ability and rating vs the 3500 SRW (single rear wheel)

 

txcowgirl New Member

txcowgirl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

To Colossus
Thank you for the feedback, it's a lot to consider. He saw your link for the duramax forum and will definitely be doing some searching there. We will certainly take and have it looked at thoroughly. This is always such good advice, it's so easy to get eager to get a new vehicle that you think with your emotions and not your head. The sales guy actually told me Chevy won't let them certify 1 tons, I thought it odd and wondered if this is true.

To redwngr
Thanks for the engine code info, we had seen this but weren't sure what it was, so this is helpful. The one we're looking at is a dually, it was suggested the 5th wheel we want would benefit from the stability of a dually, so this is one thing we were hoping to find.
 

Appreciate the replies very much!

  • 4 weeks later...
avalonandl Enthusiast

avalonandl

Posted
Posted

In my opinion you want the 15'. The interior is Sooooo comfortable and you do NOT want to deal with the Electric steering issues the 16's had (some of them)....

 

The power is amazing and they don't smell !!!!! 

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...