Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 8/16/2019 at 6:48 PM, 17Allterrainx said:

Installed the AT4 Rough Country 2” leveling kit. These are the after results!

461AA8EB-2EEF-48DE-8DB0-ABB40C46D9D4.jpeg

How do you like the Rough Country kit I was thinking about going with it for my RST

On 8/16/2019 at 6:48 PM, 17Allterrainx said:

Installed the AT4 Rough Country 2” leveling kit. These are the after results!

461AA8EB-2EEF-48DE-8DB0-ABB40C46D9D4.jpeg

 

Posted
2.5" level kit and 1" wheel spacer up front.
Rear left stock.
 
OEM LT rims with 35x12.5's
8970.thumb.jpeg.05e40c5a5378a654c1de057284009794.jpeg
8955.thumb.jpeg.a177e7cc8b5c083ca6202b689dfb2659.jpeg
Look great! Any rubbing issues with the 35s? Did you use the spacers for clearance issues or just for looks?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Posted
8 hours ago, Rwood1 said:

How do you like the Rough Country kit I was thinking about going with it for my RST

 

For the price you can’t beat it. I haven’t had any issues but I have noticed a slight humming coming from the front wheels at like 90+ mph. Idk if its the wind hitting it or what. Haven’t really looked into it.

Posted

If anyone is interested I have  a brand new Suspension Maxx leveling kit for the 2019 denali 1500. It is a 2.5 in front and 1.5 in back. I have the full kit still in box Im just deciding against putting it on because I do not think it will fit in my garage if I install it. If anyone is interested let me know.

Posted
On 11/13/2019 at 8:21 PM, JR09country said:

Look great! Any rubbing issues with the 35s? Did you use the spacers for clearance issues or just for looks?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 

Rubbing? Oh yeah! The spacers were needed for clearance at the upper control arm. Could've got by with 1/2" but I wanted the front out a little bit. Along with that and the front only lift/level, I was shooting for a stance similar to the baja trucks. Without the mudflap mod, I still had only 22-23° of turn availible till I could hear rubbing. After removing the rear fender mounting bracket and pulling the inside of the mudflap to the frame rail, I get 35ish° which is almost full lock.

Posted (edited)

2” Motofab up front. 2” Motofab blocks on rear.
(I like a little rake)

Cooper Discoverer ATP 275/60R20

295880B3-9F7C-46A6-8030-4045259785C8.jpeg

Edited by Method2Madness
  • Like 4
Posted
On 11/21/2019 at 2:01 AM, 17Allterrainx said:

Replaced the OEM Bridgestone Duelers for 35” Nitto Ridge Grapplers. 2” RC AT4 leveling kit. Zero rub.

97993EB1-C1CC-4AAC-A2D9-A4C1CF08E6F2.jpeg

FB05DC62-029B-4613-9BD5-022D39DB26F6.jpeg

Are those 11.50’s or 12.50’s? 

Posted (edited)

Went back out and took a pic in nearly the same spot as I took the before pic. 
 

(2” leveling up front, 2” block in rear)

 

 

5E8209A2-C183-4A27-8DC3-564BFA870A18.jpeg

 

 

D40B591D-DB21-4949-AFC5-8A79E38BCD9E.jpeg

Edited by Method2Madness
  • Like 4
  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 11/4/2019 at 11:03 AM, Silver2019 said:

Please do!

 

On 11/7/2019 at 9:10 PM, econometrics said:

Yeah! More pics, please! I have the exact same truck and have been wondering what it would look like with a 1.5” and 285 or 295 tires! 

Can you post some additional pictures? Id be doing a similar setup. 

Posted
On 11/21/2019 at 2:01 AM, 17Allterrainx said:

Replaced the OEM Bridgestone Duelers for 35” Nitto Ridge Grapplers. 2” RC AT4 leveling kit. Zero rub.

97993EB1-C1CC-4AAC-A2D9-A4C1CF08E6F2.jpeg

FB05DC62-029B-4613-9BD5-022D39DB26F6.jpeg

How does the ride and handle compare to the OEM duelers? I have an older Tahoe that rides like crap since I added 10 ply tires...wanna avoid that mistake with my new truck...

Posted
On 11/7/2019 at 9:13 PM, Chance1025 said:

This is my Trailboss, with the black parts deleted, and a 1.5” level on 285/65r20 KO2’s. Love the ride. Feels like stock.

F9148B14-14ED-43C1-B2EC-05E0368AEF7E.jpeg

Dang, that looks nice. Did you notice a big drop in power with the heavier tires? How about ride quality and handling? I want the exact same look on my 5.3 LTZ. I wanna go with the same tires as you or the 35x11.5x20 ridge grapplers. Thanks!

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, ausomecasey said:

Dang, that looks nice. Did you notice a big drop in power with the heavier tires? How about ride quality and handling? I want the exact same look on my 5.3 LTZ. I wanna go with the same tires as you or the 35x11.5x20 ridge grapplers. Thanks!

Thanks man! I have always loved these BFGs. I got the 285’s and honestly they do look a hair small. They are a tall tire, but just a tad skinny in my opinion. I did that on purpose though, because they offer a little less weight (drag) and better fuel economy than the 35x12.50’s in the same tire. Power loss is negligible. Ride is close to stock, but with the 10plys and the leveling kit it’s a bit stiffer. I’m running them at 35psi cold, which has helped some. Handling is nearly the same. A touch more body roll, but that’s bc the center of gravity is higher, and I kinda like that fee anyway.
 

I have had BFGs on my last three trucks, and know how great a tire they are. But I LOVE the way the Nitto Ridge’s look. If they weren’t so heavy I prob would have bought the Ridge Grapplers in 35x12.50’s.

Edited by Chance1025
Posted
Thanks man! I have always loved these BFGs. I got the 285’s and honestly they do look a hair small. They are a tall tire, but just a tad skinny in my opinion. I did that on purpose though, because they offer a little less weight (drag) and better fuel economy than the 35x12.50’s in the same tire. Power loss is negligible. Ride is close to stock, but with the 10plys and the leveling kit it’s a bit stiffer. I’m running them at 35psi cold, which has helped some. Handling is nearly the same. A touch more body roll, but that’s bc the center of gravity is higher, and I kinda like that fee anyway.

 

I have had BFGs on my last three trucks, and know how great a tire they are. But I LOVE the way the Nitto Ridge’s look. If they weren’t so heavy I prob would have bought the Ridge Grapplers in 35x12.50’s.

 

I’ve had two sets of Nitto Ridge Grapplers, both had their siping wear very fast and started slipping with almost 15k - 16k miles on them, you’d be better off with KO2’s.

 

KO2’s have siping that runs straight through the lugs

d75e86c0a9d4863ef0a8a0dce13a5900.jpg

 

The Nitto Ridge Grapplers siping reminds me of an after thought and wear quickly

New

915a04da4c56ae8e728990d7c69844d5.png

 

With 16k miles on them, siping wearing prematurely creating slippery nerve racking moments.

8bc6cbaa28ad96de1dd1a3d1a0fe6944.jpg

 

There was a study done by a marketing firm some years back, people prefer the chunky sidewall and that’s why Nitto Ridge Grapplers became such a big hit but it’s a phase, stick with experience and you’ll be fine.

 

 

 

Sent from Above

 

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

    • There is a p/n called out in the one PI that GM has.  Curt 57003 inline load adapter that is used for LED trailers that are having trouble with these newer trucks.  No cutting, no splicing, etc.  GM did update the lighting module around 2023 to better pick up trailers with LED lighting, but it still can happen.     Here's the link to the Curt site for it - 7-Way RV Blade LED Electrical Adapter (Not a Wiring Extension) SKU #57003 by CURT   The PI I am referencing - MC-10208985-9999.pdf   Its not just a GM deal either.  Newer Fords and Rams have this same problem.       In another PI, they recommend that the trailer has a Pollock brand 7 way on it as that is who makes the truck sides for the OEMs.  GM is also big on making sure the trailer is trouble free.  So no wiring issues, all lights are functional, better quality 7 way plug, etc.     The other PI I am referencing - MC-10178359-9999.pdf   The model year range is older but it is the current PI for 2014-2026.  It calls out the Pollock RV HD 7 way they recommend.  
    • That's part of the problem...the EGR has already been replaced, and I've already had the complete intake assembly removed, and the EGR passages were clear at that time. That leaves wiring, PCM, or another variable that I wasn't expecting. Best I can tell, it's not wiring or the PCM, so I'm grasping for straws.   The PCM uses the MAP reading to confirm the requisite loss of vacuum in the manifold when the EGR activates. Since that's vacuum related, it involves a lot of other systems which could play a role.   The overall diagnosis has to be considered too. The fuel lines in the intake had rubbed through and were dumping fuel into the intake, drowning the cylinders in fuel, and putting raw fuel into the sump and cat converter. The fuel system has been fixed but the complete path of damage may not be. If the cat was damaged and melted the internals, it could be partially obstructed and also playing into the EGR issue.   I'm retracing my steps; trying to go back to thinking thinking Horses not Zebras based on the clues I've been given. These engines aren't *that* complex.   Could it be, now that the truck is running well, that carbon and crud from being run with the fuel system in disarray is now dislodging and clogged my clean EGR passages where I can't see?  That's what the code is actually saying. The flow is restricted, dummy. Retrace step 1.   I may just need to remove the lower intake again. Before I do that I'm going to try removing the EGR and running the engine for a few seconds to see if it will blow anything lodged in the egr passages out through the open ports.     That's been helpful in the past. For the spider injector, there's no guarantee I'll get a working one. The spider I have seems fine now that the high pressure fuel line isn't making an early delivery via large hole. SO at least I'm not marooned and looking for one of those.   Row52 (dot com) is also a good one for watching for vehicles at local yards.  
    • Disassembly may be Required!   Every blender makes claims but do  you ponder those claims? What was really said? Was it true?  Motive for saying it? What does in infer?  Is that inference true?    Let's do one.    Claim: Made from shear stable base oils.    What was said: Base Oils are shear proof.   Was it true: Yes.  ALL base oils are Newtonian.    Motive / Inference: To imply the fully formulated product is Shear Proof.    Is the Inference true?: Most fully formulated multigrade oils contain Viscosity Modifiers or VM's, sometimes called VII or Viscosity Index Improvers. There are four types. One is in fact shear proof but it also has a bad effect on extreme cold flow and is restricted to use in specialty oils. A second has limited shear called a 0-5 SSI polymer. Meaning its shear is limited to a range of zero to five percent as reported by the ASTM D6278 Shear Stability Index test. A few high end oils, like Torco SR-5, use them and brag about it profusely. Actually all that use it point it out. The last two shear dramatically and are often marketed as a 'feature' of the product aiding the oil to meet fuel standard requirements of ever stricter rules. One shears more than 5% and the other up to 20%. As you make guess, cost is directly linked to shear down and as such the majority of oils use the cheapest organic polymers sold to make grade and pass stringent tests.    PPD's or Pour Point Depressants also shear a bit, only a few percent and hide inside the 0-5 SSI capabilities.    The blender knows he can not out engineer Stribeck. Physics is not a suggestion. But he can wordcraft the unsuspecting toward believing a false claims INFERENCE. This is LEGAL. It is COMMON, and it is EFFECTIVE.         
    • I don't recall ever dealing with one on an '06 and back. It may not even exist on that. I can't remember for sure.   Any kind of ice in or after the evaporator is normally due to low charge with both a clutch-cycling orifice tube system, and a TXV system.
    • Engines wear. It is unavoidable. So the question isn't if it will wear out but rather WHEN it will wear out. That question is about rate and RATE is a HUGE problem for almost everyone; but not in the way we may think.    Unless there is something drastically wrong with your powertrain, wear is exceedingly slow. It doesn't wear out in minutes or hours or days or months but in years or even decades. Ditto sludge and varnish. Humans are an impatient lot so to see the benefit of a truly superior product you may have to wait a very long time. Most will get bored first and trade before they reap the benefit.   Humans are not companionate creatures when it comes to those we do not know. We don't care what happens to the second or third owner as long as it doesn't happen to us or someone we know and actually like.   Sad commentary on humans but it is what it is. That thus, then, there is no advantage...to or for you if the above paragraphs adequately describe you.    BUT if you are a buy and hold type and patient enough to reap the rewards of your labors then that thing that is happening that you haven't yet seen, but will; can be abated by such products. Seals harden and leak with time and lots of it. Rings stick after thousands of miles of a slowly building plaque of varnish.    Then there is this. This didn't happen over night and this poor fellow knew when he removed the cover and not one second before.   Not "aware' isn't the same thing as "isn't happening".        The above was typical of the Ford 361 and 391 bus motors on Bulk Pennzoil Mineral Oil products on 3K mile OCI's at about 60K miles back in the 60's and 70's at the Anamosa School District when my Uncle took over their maintenance program.    This is Pepper at @ 165K on 5K OCI's using Group IV/V Full Synthetics.      HM oils will help the first but not the second.    Then again if one used..... ah, ya know.....
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...