Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, karmasoft said:

Interesting... so do you think that means, the package may include a larger fuel tank?

Not according to the Owners Manual.  The only way to get a larger Factory installed tank is to buy the Long Bed .

Posted

This is the competitor's description of their max trailer package (below). Wouldn't it make sense, despite what the owner's manuals indicates, that the GM equivalent would also upgrade the fuel tank size?

 

Includes:
• 3.55 Electronic-locking rear-axle
• 4-pin/7-pin wiring harness
• 36 Gallon fuel tank
• Auxiliary transmission oil cooler
• Engine oil cooler
• Class IV trailer hitch receiver
• Pro Trailer Backup Assist with Tailgate LED
• Smart Trailer Tow Connector (standard on LARIAT and higher)
• Integrated Trailer Brake Controller
• Upgraded front stabilizer bar
• Upgraded rear bumper

Requires 3.5L EcoBoost® engine. 
Does not include Trailer Tow Mirrors. Trailer Tow Mirrors are a standalone option and must be ordered separately.
Max GCWR/Max Tow achieved on SuperCrew® when equipped with 20-inch Wheels. This configuration will also come equipped with max springs, steering gear, and upgraded stabilizer bar.

Posted
11 minutes ago, karmasoft said:

This is the competitor's description of their max trailer package (below). Wouldn't it make sense, despite what the owner's manuals indicates, that the GM equivalent would also upgrade the fuel tank size?

 

Includes:
• 3.55 Electronic-locking rear-axle
• 4-pin/7-pin wiring harness
• 36 Gallon fuel tank
• Auxiliary transmission oil cooler
• Engine oil cooler
• Class IV trailer hitch receiver
• Pro Trailer Backup Assist with Tailgate LED
• Smart Trailer Tow Connector (standard on LARIAT and higher)
• Integrated Trailer Brake Controller
• Upgraded front stabilizer bar
• Upgraded rear bumper

Requires 3.5L EcoBoost® engine. 
Does not include Trailer Tow Mirrors. Trailer Tow Mirrors are a standalone option and must be ordered separately.
Max GCWR/Max Tow achieved on SuperCrew® when equipped with 20-inch Wheels. This configuration will also come equipped with max springs, steering gear, and upgraded stabilizer bar.

Does not include tow mirrors.  What is the point of getting the rest of it if you can't see around your trailer. 

  • Like 1
Posted

After more homework, and to DougFL's point, seems like there is no increased capacity available.  For example, in GM's own press release, linked here.  Seems pretty clear cut.

 

Definitely a head scratcher... guess only time will tell if sales are impacted.

Posted (edited)

So they have 3 tank sizes available. Small, really small and average.  Obviously it's not a cost savings deal as if that was the case they'd only have 1 size.  So what possible reason could they be so narrow minded and just plain stupid?

 

All trucks should have a 26 gallon.  Offer a upgraded 34-38 gallon.  Problem solved and then you only have to make two tanks!

Edited by shift_grind
Posted

Yeah its puzzling. Why design a class leading truck then take a step backward with fuel tank size? The Colorado has a 21 gallon capacity... and the Silverado is only +3 over that?

Posted

Weight savings, CAFE requirements, gas mileage, etc, They have to trim weight with each new design.  Smaller gas tanks, Auto start/stop, Aluminium panels, front air dams only inches off the ground, awful driveability.  I'm not sure why everyone doesn't understand this..

 

I for one could care less about a few MPG... I would rather have great driveability and real steel, but there are many truck buyers that choose solely on this, they could care less if it's Ford, GM, Dodge. 

Either way, no need to complain.  Either keep your 1999 truck, or adapt. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, GMC-AT said:

Weight savings, CAFE requirements, gas mileage, etc, They have to trim weight with each new design.  Smaller gas tanks, Auto start/stop, Aluminium panels, front air dams only inches off the ground, awful driveability.  I'm not sure why everyone doesn't understand this..

 

I for one could care less about a few MPG... I would rather have great driveability and real steel, but there are many truck buyers that choose solely on this, they could care less if it's Ford, GM, Dodge. 

Either way, no need to complain.  Either keep your 1999 truck, or adapt. 

Why does everyone use CAFE requirements as a end all excuse for everything, relevant or not?  Did the MPG go up with the new truck?  numbers indicate - no.  So why use a smaller tank? They're lowered the expected fuel range.  They were already criticized for using a 26 gallon unit and their response is to go smaller?  Why not offer a larger tank option like everyone else does, does it not solve all the complaints?  They offer their smaller tank for that .01mpg improvement, but people who tow can have 3-400 mile range without issue. They are stressing how important towing is with these trucks and are going to ignoring one of the most important aspects of towing, being able to tow a decent distance without stopping for fuel.  I don't know about you but if I'm pulling a camper across country, i don't want a 220 mile range. 

 

I've never seen or heard of a manufacture having different MPG ratings for different tank sizes, I doubt they even need to fill it completely during testing.  So if offering a larger tank as an option has LITERALLY NO EFFECT on the mpg rating, how is CAFE requirements even relevant?  Same thing goes for a number of things people who don't understand CAFE like to blame CAFE for.  

 

"No need to complain, keep your 1999 or adapt"?  I can only shake my head at comments like this.

Posted

When I was pulling I always added a tank- toolbox. Some fuel tanks I would tie into my return line to the truck tank with an on off switch. I wanted to avoid fuel stops as much as possible. It just kills the average speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted

The smaller tank = less weight. 2 gallons of less fuel in that tank = even more weight savings. Lower weight = more MPG

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, GMC-AT said:

The smaller tank = less weight. 2 gallons of less fuel in that tank = even more weight savings. Lower weight = more MPG

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

I don't think you got what I was getting at.  Would the EPA numbers go down if you could option out a larger tank?  They don't for Ram or Ford, because they don't test every variation of ever model.  They could easily offer a larger tank as an option and it would have no effect on the rating.  They already offer 3 sizes and could have covered all their bases with 2-3 sizes.  There is no excuse for GM on this.  

 

I don't tow a ton, so it's not a make it or break it option for me, but will be for others.  I'd rather they sell more trucks so they can spend more on updates or new trucks.  I can gaurentee with their poor decision making the 2019 model will never take the #1 spot.  It's a shame because they made a great truck and shot their own foot with a bunch of stupid easily fixed mistakes.  

Edited by shift_grind
Posted

I agree.  I think the reason they don't offer tank size options has to be production cost stay lower. They pinch every nickle.   I also agree GM will not be #1 anytime soon.. they are lucky if RAM doesn't overtake them as #2 in the next few years.  I would have ordered the 2019 RAM.. but as nice and as far advanced as they are over GM... they have a ton of issues right now.  So I went with a 2019 Silverado. 

 

 

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Monday looks like a good day for the dealer to test an ac issue. Hopefully it all turns out good.
    • Paid $2.72 for E85 today.
    • Welcome back! No, it definitely doesn't pass the sniff test. Even "ceasefire" needs an alternative definition these days.    $5.29 at Kroger today
    • That makes sense, and I think you are describing the real product problem. Capturing data is the easy part. If the owner or technician has to manually dig through five minutes of millisecond-level logs, the product has already failed. The device would be at the ECM harness, not at the OBD port, so I agree that data retrieval and event marking need to be thought through carefully. The way I am thinking about the architecture is: The recorder itself should not depend on a phone, app, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cloud connection to capture the event. It should always keep a local rolling buffer and lock the event locally. A button, phone app, or small cabin device would only act as an event marker. If the driver feels a stumble and presses the button 10–30 seconds later, the pre-buffer has to already contain the useful data. For data retrieval, the practical options would be a sealed service USB lead, Wi-Fi download, or a phone/cabin companion device. I would not expect the owner to remove the ECM-side module or work with raw files directly. The cloud or AI side would be for interpretation, not for capturing the event. The truck may have no connection when the issue happens, so the evidence has to be saved locally first. After that, cloud processing could help decode the data, compare it against baselines, and generate a readable report. For the first version, I would keep the automatic triggers conservative and objective: driver event marker bus-off error passive voltage drop / brownout device reset FIFO or queue overflow a normally periodic message disappearing side-to-side communication mismatch, if the topology supports that For “learning normal,” I agree with your point, but I would not want to overclaim it as automatic root-cause diagnosis at first. A realistic first step would be learned baseline comparison for that specific vehicle and operating condition. For example, a value would only be compared against similar conditions: RPM range load / MAP throttle position gear / vehicle speed coolant and oil temperature battery voltage AFM/DFM state, if decoded and validated Then the report could flag things like: this periodic message disappeared compared with its normal timing this value deviated from this vehicle’s normal range under similar conditions the same abnormal pattern repeated after the same type of event the anomaly occurred together with voltage, oil-pressure, misfire, or communication changes But I would still call that “abnormal pattern detected,” not “replace this part,” unless there is enough validated repair data behind it. So the intended product would not be “here is a huge log.” It would need to be an event package: what triggered the capture how much pre/post data was preserved what changed before and after the event whether the device itself reset, overflowed, or saw a bus error selected graphs around the event raw data only as supporting evidence From your perspective, what would make this kind of report useful instead of just another datalog? For example: What are the top 5 parameters or events you would want highlighted first? Would you trust a learned baseline for that specific vehicle, or would you prefer fixed thresholds? How much false-positive flagging would be acceptable before you stopped looking at the reports? What would a one-page report need to show for an independent shop to take it seriously? For misfire, AFM/DFM, oil pressure, or U-code complaints, what would you want the tool to flag automatically?
    • 2024 Silverado 2500 HD LTZ grille no camera Parts list   84603331 84913656 84913657 84913654 84913655 84911567 84911568 85646092 85646093 85797921 85797922   11570637  x10-15   grille/bumper bolts 11546500  x10      grille clips 11571006  x10      push/retainer clips 11546454  x6       nut retainers 11611609  x6       M5 bolts 11610700  x6       molding/trim retainers
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...