Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 4/9/2020 at 5:18 PM, Like-A-Rock44 said:

A Honda Ridgeline maybe a better fit for you it has a small fuel tank too! it will be great for you because you get to stop fill up all the time. Keep in mind a Tesla has a short range too with a long charge time. This forum is for serious truck enthusiasts you may have better luck pushing your small tank justification somewhere else. Long hauls, heavy towing, even the soccer moms likes a large fuel tank so your not wasting time at the pump. The Chevy 24 gallon tank is just too small for Truck Enthusiasts! Lets make a good truck great GM needs a large fuel tank option! 

This kid is single-handedly proving that there really is nothing to do in Wyoming.  

  • Like 1
Posted

Good news for those who care--Titan is looking at making a bigger tank for the CCSB 3.0 Duramax.  I of course get this info as I inch toward a CCLB on the lot :(.  Of course I could turn that CCLB into an effective CCSB by adding a tank and bringing myself up to 70 gallons total.  

 

If the 2021 F150 offers an update to the 3.0 powerstroke that offers the 36 gallon tank and a payload equal to GM's mini-diesels, I'll probably head that way.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 hours ago, LDM said:

Regardless of whether someone owns a truck to just drive it around like a car or use it to tow/haul, what difference does that make to you?  You keep pretending GM gas tanks are small yet they aren't any smaller than the Ford or RAM offerings.  2020 RAM 1500 has a 23 gallon tank, no options for a larger one.  2020 Ford 150 has a 23 gallon tank standard with an option for a 36 gallon tank.  Silverado/GMC 1500 are 24 gallon tanks.  Gee, looks like GM has a 1 gallon larger thank by default than Ford or RAM.  Not that 1 gallon really makes any difference.

 

I use my truck to tow and haul plenty of stuff yet the 24 gallon tank is more than sufficient for what I do.  I don't do much in the way of long distance towing but even if I need to, its not like I can't stop at a gas station and fill up as needed.  While I'm sure there are people who might use the larger tank, most people don't drive 300+ mile distances towing with a 1500 truck.  If you are doing that you probably bought a 2500/3500 with a diesel.  There is a lot more to designing and building a truck than just a large fuel tank.  You want a big fuel tank?  Buy a truck with dual tanks.

Wrong F150 has a 26 gallon tank standard with a 36 gallon option, Rams tank is also 26 gallon. Ford super duty also offers a 48 gallon tank and Ram has a 50 gallon option. GM bumps there 2500 up to 36 gallons but they are still bottom of the pack in the 3/4 ton. Chevy and GMC don’t offer an option for a larger tank but they need too.

Posted
On 4/17/2020 at 8:48 AM, LDM said:

 2020 RAM 1500 has a 23 gallon tank, no options for a larger one.  

I'm pretty sure Ram 1500 has an optional 33 gallon tank

  • Like 1
Posted

So they increase the fuel mileage and reduce the fuel tank. I’ve never been able to last a fuel load with out stopping. Unless pulling I’d usually see 400 until empty. In my trip vehicles I wouldn’t be all that excited carrying more gas than that . My 3/4 ton pulling diesels I just added a tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
On 4/17/2020 at 7:05 AM, swathdiver said:

Yes!  When you're competing against Ford and Ram, if you want a higher payload capacity, you want your rig to weigh less than the competition.  Curb weight includes a full tank of fuel.  In sales literature, the payload is based on a truck with no options.  My truck has 158 pounds of options which reduces its payload capacity as much down to 1499 pounds.

 

 

Both Ford and Ram offer optional larger fuel tanks. They are getting the best of both, payload based on smaller tank, optional larger tank if you want/need it. I guess my question is why does GM not offer an optional larger fuel tank?

  • Like 1
Posted
21 hours ago, 3737 said:

Both Ford and Ram offer optional larger fuel tanks. They are getting the best of both, payload based on smaller tank, optional larger tank if you want/need it. I guess my question is why does GM not offer an optional larger fuel tank?

Well, maybe the bean counters at GM reckon it's not a good profit center.  Probably not enough people want the larger tank compared to what it would cost to make it happen?

Posted

The argument "you need to go to the bathroom anyways" is bunk.  The additional range means for lunch you stop where you want to eat on a cross country tow instead of stopping for gas and food (not always the same exit).  I've had the pleasure of towing with a 22-26 gallon tank and with 115 gallons total between expanded main and aux tank - it spoiled me even with a smallish trailer.  Having a smaller tank, hitting headwinds, etc just isn't fun.  With the 115 gallons we fueled where we wanted and when we wanted.  Skip over two states for cheaper gas? no problem.  Choose where you eat by what you want to eat, not what is close to cheap fuel.  

  • Like 5
Posted
On 4/17/2020 at 1:10 PM, MaverickZ71 said:

This kid is single-handedly proving that there really is nothing to do in Wyoming.  

That's a little harsh. I take it you've never been to Wyoming. Even along I-80 there aren't that many fuel stops, let alone getting into the interior. Nothing to do in Wyoming? Ever hear of Yellowstone Park, Devils Tower? Course maybe you're a city dweller with a gas station on every corner and fixated on Brokeback Mtn.

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 4/19/2020 at 9:31 AM, 3737 said:

I'm pretty sure Ram 1500 has an optional 33 gallon tank

Yes Ram has a 33 gallon tank. They make it easy pick the options you want/need. Low gearing options too.  

B4263A44-D866-452E-9006-8A6C766ABFDA.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, ChuckTaylor said:

The argument "you need to go to the bathroom anyways" is bunk.  The additional range means for lunch you stop where you want to eat on a cross country tow instead of stopping for gas and food (not always the same exit).  I've had the pleasure of towing with a 22-26 gallon tank and with 115 gallons total between expanded main and aux tank - it spoiled me even with a smallish trailer.  Having a smaller tank, hitting headwinds, etc just isn't fun.  With the 115 gallons we fueled where we wanted and when we wanted.  Skip over two states for cheaper gas? no problem.  Choose where you eat by what you want to eat, not what is close to cheap fuel.  

Yes Sir! Large tanks are the best. Ram and Ford offer larger tanks GM gives no option for a larger tank. 

Posted

Looks like GM put a 50 gallon tank on there prototype desert race truck... 3:32 in. There is a need for larger tanks, come on GM put this 50 gallon under the bed and in production. 

 

 

 

Posted
On 4/20/2020 at 7:12 AM, swathdiver said:

Well, maybe the bean counters at GM reckon it's not a good profit center.  Probably not enough people want the larger tank compared to what it would cost to make it happen?

I don’t think there is much cost to using the 26 gallon tank they already had, down sizing it to 24 gal added cost. My point earlier was they add weight for all kinds of things people want but aren’t that popular... just seems like they need a large tank option. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Like-A-Rock44 said:

I don’t think there is much cost to using the 26 gallon tank they already had, down sizing it to 24 gal added cost. My point earlier was they add weight for all kinds of things people want but aren’t that popular... just seems like they need a large tank option. 

My take is that the T1s are about 150 pounds lighter than the K2s and 300 lighter than the 900s.

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

    • It's official. Chevy pulled the covers off the next-gen 2027 Silverado 1500, and we got the first official look.   Full breakdown here: https://www.gm-trucks.com/2027-chevrolet-silverado-official-first-look-specs/   The quick hits: LT is dead. The new core trim is just called "Silverado." Two new V8s, a 5.7L and a 6.6L. No horsepower or torque numbers yet. The 2.7 TurboMax finally gets the 10-speed. ZR2 moves to standard 35s with front and rear lockers. Over 60 inches of dash display on ZR2 and High Country, passenger screen included. Seven trims, three lifted from the factory: ZR2, Trail Boss, and a new Custom Trail Boss.   So let's get into it: 5.7 and 6.6 instead of holding out for a 6.7. Right call? Killing the LT name after all these years: bold, or a mistake? Does the new look land for you, or is it too safe? No power numbers at reveal. Smart tease, or frustrating? What are you ordering on day one?   Drop your first impressions below. 
    • LOL west coast they need to see what the midwest actually has.  We have been holding at 2.99 for a few weeks now.  Even by work they have come down to 3.02 for the past week.
    • Diesel or gas?  The 37s will obviously, drastically reduce mpg, but the gasser will take a bigger hit to mpg, and power.  Rough guess, but I'd estimate at least a  2mpg hit on the diesel, and up to 4on the gasser. Maybe more.    I wouldn't sweat a gear change on a duramax at all, and unlikely on the gasser either. You're obviously not concerned with acceleration or towing, and the 10spd will find itself in the right gear without much hunting, if any.    If towing, mpg and acceleration are a concern, you're doing the wrong mods.  Either leave it alone, or do the lift/tires and let the chips fall where they may. 
    • I understand. It is disturbing to think a manufacture asks so much and gives so little in engineering support. This is not a GM issues, this is a greed issue and one the ALL practice.    My intent was not to remove the wind from anyone's sail but rather to point out the areas deficient so that they can be discussed with improvements the goal. But to do that you have to know the truth and what that truth is.    The commercial interest are honed in on a few select issues in which they control all the variables and are not forthcoming in the least with their customers about the details. Failure is the only thing that drives these people to improvement. One way not to fail it to manage public "expectations". The set a bar they can clear and put their thumbs under the suspenders with chest puffed.... Only the internal data tells the story fully. As we don't have access to that for decades then we have to generate it ourselves. UOA's with data that matters.  
    • I had skimmed through that article when you posted the link and honestly I felt rather defeated in a sense and realized that all these years in changing oil that in fact putting in what I was told was a good quality oil was probably not filtered as well as it should be although the filter put on the engine would be what ( as long as it never went into bypass mode ) would be the final filtering of the new oil that the engine components would first see, but then the filtering media itself is not up to par to what is ideal because a full flow filter would be too restrictive to filter fine enough for the engines best outcome in the long run. Only one of our tractors over the years which was a Versatile with a 855 Cummins had a separate bypass filter, some engine manufacturers did spec a partial bypass system within the main oil filter but I don't believe any other trucks or equipment I was servicing used such a filter. No doubt a product like the Amsoil bypass system is of benefit as long as nothing goes sideways with the extra plumbing and filter such as a rupture/leak that could cause the oil to pump out of the engine ( yes that Versatile had a remote canister with hoses routed to it as well ). With the idiot egr system on a diesel and as a result forcing a lot more soot into the oil, that certainly isn't helping the diesel engines cause or as you pointed out the GDI engine issue with creating more soot and aside from having a fancy secondary filtering system, changing the oil more often helping lower the total soot load.     So oil manufacturing and the end product is not something one can control and I wonder if there are specs on what various oil packaging companies produce in particle count or size. As to the filtering, if the OEM is not designing a filter size and spec that is really what it could be, they too are short changing the end user and so what is the answer. Of course as you say the oil side can only do so much if the air side isn't keeping up its end of the picture and air filters are only so efficient and if in a dusty environment such as farm or construction or driving gravel roads there is a lot of dirt to filter out and some of that ends up into the air stream.    Of course the irony in places like where I am where they dump the salt on the highways but also will mix in some calcium or outright pure calcium for problem road area's, or using calcium as dust control on gravel roads, the vehicle that gets used in that environment may rust out before a properly engineered engine and maintenance finally wears out so one has to face that reality in the rust belt. 
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...