Jump to content

Payload sticker on door jamb for 2020 Sierra Denali 6.2L with Ultimate package and tech package?

GMCnoob
 Share

Recommended Posts

GMCnoob Enthusiast

GMCnoob

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi everyone, I’m wondering if anyone can help me with the payload sticker on a 2020 Sierra Denali with ultimate package and tech package, short box and 6.2L. I’m thinking of buying one but there are none on the lot here. There was a 3.0 diesel Denali Ultimate that only had payload of 1350 so I am hoping the 6.2L has a little more. Thanks to anyone who can help!

Edited by GMCnoob
Kaze Morrissey Enthusiast

Kaze Morrissey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don’t know if this’ll help or not, but I was looking at identical specked Silverado high countries and noted a difference of 144 lbs if my math is correct. Both were identical except for the engines. They were 4x4 short box crew cabs. This was read directly from the “b” pillar door sticker. I’ve been able to call around and asked sales guys to run out to the truck and send me a photo of it. 
 

 

Edited by Kaze Morrissey
GMCnoob Enthusiast

GMCnoob

Posted
  • Author
Posted
37 minutes ago, Kaze Morrissey said:

Don’t know if this’ll help or not, but I was looking at identical specked Silverado high countries and noted a difference of 144 lbs if my math is correct. Both were identical except for the engines. They were 4x4 short box crew cabs. This was read directly from the “b” pillar door sticker. I’ve been able to call around and asked sales guys to run out to the truck and send me a photo of it. 
 

 

You are saying the difference was that the 6.2L had 144 lbs MORE payload than the 3.0L diesel in an identically spec’d truck? I am wondering if the diesel Powertrain weighs that much more. And yes, that definitely helps, they didn’t have any gas Denalis and the next nearest dealership is 100 miles. 

Kaze Morrissey Enthusiast

Kaze Morrissey

Posted
Posted

To add further upon it, looking up that configurator calculator. Going to the 6.2L added 82.8 lbs on the front axle and 2.6 lbs to the rear axle from a base 4.3L 6 speed, I think, but the 3.0L added 183.6 lbs to the front axle and 79.8 lbs to the rear axle. I also leaned the difference in short to standard box is 50 lbs from the configuration page. I was in a similar boat to you, but trying to figure out differences in weight from a standard to short box. Hope this gives you what you were looking for. With that gm calculator, I just flipped through the screens to read the weight differences. 

GMCnoob Enthusiast

GMCnoob

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, Kaze Morrissey said:

To add further upon it, looking up that configurator calculator. Going to the 6.2L added 82.8 lbs on the front axle and 2.6 lbs to the rear axle from a base 4.3L 6 speed, I think, but the 3.0L added 183.6 lbs to the front axle and 79.8 lbs to the rear axle. I also leaned the difference in short to standard box is 50 lbs from the configuration page. I was in a similar boat to you, but trying to figure out differences in weight from a standard to short box. Hope this gives you what you were looking for. With that gm calculator, I just flipped through the screens to read the weight differences. 

That’s a major help, appreciate you looking that up. Had trouble navigating the site you linked on my phone so will check it out on PC later. 
 

Ram has a site you can input the VIN of any truck and get the VIN specific payload and towing numbers but GM makes it a little bit harder on us if we don’t have the truck right in front of us!

 

I should add I just realized the truck I pulled the payload sticker off was a standard box Denali 3.0 diesel (they had the exact same truck in short box that I had been looking at but when I went back to check the payload sticker i checked the standard box one. So 1348 lb payload is for Denali ultimate package standard box with diesel. Short box must be closer to 1400.

GMCnoob Enthusiast

GMCnoob

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One more thing, the GVWR of the CC short box 3.0 diesel is 7200 lbs compared to GVWR of CC short box 6.2L of 7100 lbs (non-max trailering model). So if the 3.0 diesel is about 260 lbs heavier than base and the 6.2L is about 85 lbs heavier than base, the 6.2L should have about 75-80lb more payload in an identical truck based on the 175 lbs higher weight of the diesel but 100 lbs higher GVWR of the diesel model.

Kaze Morrissey Enthusiast

Kaze Morrissey

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I’m finding some discrepancies even with the door stickers. Comparing identical trims on a lot and a standard to short box showed only a 9lbs differnce, when everywhere else is saying it should be 50lbs. Good luck in your hunt. Your other option that I found was helpful was calling dealerships that had the trucks I wanted to compare and having them take a picture of the door sticker and sending it to me. Could help I your shopping if you’re that far away from dealerships. All the dealerships I spoke with were happy to help, but then of course I have been barraged with sales calls ever since.

Kaze Morrissey Enthusiast

Kaze Morrissey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah, good catch. The 144 lbs difference from the 6.2l to the 3.0l Duramax accounted for the difference in the GVW. The door stickers I compared were for a 6.2L 7100 vs a 3.0L 7200, but the 6.2L had 144lbs more payload. 
 

finally Figured out how to upload the files. So the first pic I believe is the 6.2L high country deluxe package and tech package, bottom pic is identical except for the 3.0L Duramax, both short boxes. Mind you these are silverados and I even found the GMCs will weigh differently, the carbon bed I think increases payload 40-50lbs along with possibly the carbon leaf springs, but the multi-functional tailgate adds a bit of weight as well. I’ve been banging my head against a wall trying to understand all these payload configurations and how they’re figuring them out

45E51484-85C4-4B30-B2E3-540CC1167EBF.jpeg

1959B475-60E5-4D37-BE06-1CBEA32BA21D.jpeg

Edited by Kaze Morrissey
Jay P Enthusiast

Jay P

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here is my 2019 CC/SB Denali ultimate 6.2l. I can't imagine there is any difference between 19 & 20.

 

Jay

2019 CC:SB Denali.jpg

Edited by Jay P
AlaskaErik Enthusiast

AlaskaErik

Posted
Posted (edited)

If payload capacity is important to you, consider other trim levels.  I needed more payload capacity because I tow a travel trailer so I wound up getting an LTZ with the 6.2L and max trailering.  I now have the power and payload capacity I need to tow my travel trailer.  This is my sticker...

    

Trailering Information.jpg

Edited by AlaskaErik
  • Like 1
GMCnoob Enthusiast

GMCnoob

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, AlaskaErik said:

If payload capacity is important to you, consider other trim levels.  I needed more payload capacity because I tow a travel trailer so I wound up getting an LTZ with the 6.2L and max trailering.  I now have the power and payload capacity I need to tow my travel trailer.  This is my sticker...

    

Trailering Information.jpg

That’s awesome. Payload matters to me because need to make sure I can fit enough passengers and have enough payload for a small trailer but I don’t need as much payload or trailering as you have with that max trailering package. Was following this on the Ram forum and there are a lot of guys with loaded 1500 trucks coming in at 1000-1100 payload because they didn’t consider that when choosing options. It’s crazy. I need about 1450 or so to be comfortable. 
 

Ram actually makes it really easy to find VIN specific payload and towing info online but doesn’t have the nice stickers on the side with trailer capacity like GM has. Hopefully GM will set up an online database and then have best of both worlds in the future. 

Cece Boyle New Member

Cece Boyle

Posted
Posted

We bought a 2020 because the increased payload.  This is the limits for a GMC 3500 Denali.  Plus you get the 360 when you go Denali - 6.6L 10 speed Allison - also has auto engine braking!

35D2233B-E032-4775-9C48-FE7ABEFD60F0.jpeg

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Kaze Morrissey said:

Yeah, good catch. The 144 lbs difference from the 6.2l to the 3.0l Duramax accounted for the difference in the GVW. The door stickers I compared were for a 6.2L 7100 vs a 3.0L 7200, but the 6.2L had 144lbs more payload. 
 

finally Figured out how to upload the files. So the first pic I believe is the 6.2L high country deluxe package and tech package, bottom pic is identical except for the 3.0L Duramax, both short boxes. Mind you these are silverados and I even found the GMCs will weigh differently, the carbon bed I think increases payload 40-50lbs along with possibly the carbon leaf springs, but the multi-functional tailgate adds a bit of weight as well. I’ve been banging my head against a wall trying to understand all these payload configurations and how they’re figuring them out

45E51484-85C4-4B30-B2E3-540CC1167EBF.jpeg

1959B475-60E5-4D37-BE06-1CBEA32BA21D.jpeg

Digit 8 of the VIN is the engine code. 

Top pic is a D - L84 5.3L

2nd pic is a T - LM2 3.0L

 

The L87 6.2L would be L

 

Fwiw, first digit is country of manufacture.

1 = US

3 = Mex

 

 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      I hope to high heaven this is wrong. My Chevy farm trucks frame is lasting way longer than a newer Nissan Titan XD I got for a steal, and it only pulls trailers. A decade younger and it's frame is already way rustier than the waxed Chevy I drive across longs and ditches. Also, hasn't Ford been having tones of troubles with rusted frames? 
    • Coastie05
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      Batteries don’t always show signs of a few years ago my vehicle started fine in the morning and took me to work. After work the battery was completely dead and I needed a jump. No, I didn’t leave anything on and the battery was only a couple months old. It was replaced under warranty. 
    • Jake87
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jake87 · Posted

      AFM is confirmed in the Corvette engine, so I'm assuming the higher volume trucks will get it as well
    • NDKoze
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By NDKoze · Posted

      If his battery was that bad I would think it would have been showing signs before this that were ignored. Stinks that it happened the way it did in rush hour traffic, but this seems like a pretty fringe scenario. I don't mind it that bad and never turn it off. The only slight annoyance for me is the slight delay between brake to gas, but I have gotten used to it and figure if it can save a little gas why not.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a good correction. I think “severity” was probably the wrong word for what I meant. What I really mean is closer to event priority, relevance, and actionability — not “this code is severe” or “replace this part.” I agree that a truck can have a lot of trivial or historical communication codes, and if the product starts pushing alerts for every stored or low-value event, people will ignore it very quickly. So the alert logic would need to be filtered. For example, I would not want a random old communication code to generate a push notification by itself. A useful alert would probably need to be based on things like: - new vs historical - active vs stored - repeated vs one-time - duration of the event - whether it happened near the driver-marked symptom - whether it happened together with voltage drop, reset, bus-off, misfire, oil-pressure change, etc. - whether the same pattern repeats under similar conditions So instead of saying “severity,” maybe the product should organize events by affected system and priority. For example: Misfire event: Show misfire counts / roughness first, then fuel trims, RPM/load, DFM/AFM state if available, coolant/oil temp, voltage, and related DTCs. Oil-pressure event: Show oil pressure first, but only in context — RPM, load, oil temperature, coolant temperature, DFM/AFM state if available, voltage, and baseline comparison. Communication event: Show which module/network/message dropped, whether voltage dropped, whether the recorder reset, whether it was active or historical, and whether it repeated. Voltage/reset event: Show battery voltage, crank/wake/sleep state, module reset, communication dropouts, and what came back online first. That also solves the display-order problem you mentioned. The main report should not always show the same fixed list first. It should show the system that appears abnormal first, and then the supporting values for that system. I also agree that the truck already has an oil pressure gauge and MIL. The point would not be to duplicate those. The value would be in showing what else was happening before and after the warning or symptom. For example, if the MIL comes on for a misfire, the truck already told the driver there is a problem. The useful part would be: - which cylinder or bank looked abnormal first - whether it happened after an AFM/DFM transition - whether fuel trims were already moving - whether oil pressure or voltage changed at the same time - whether the same pattern happened previously without a MIL On the OBD port point, I think you may be right for a consumer-facing version. OBD is much easier for the average owner: - easier install - easier removal - inside the cabin - easier phone connection - easier data download - easier to include a pass-through port for another scanner OBD is also the right place for DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration information, Mode 6, and normal scan-tool parameters. The reason I was looking at ECM-side recording is that some events may be gone by the time someone plugs in a scanner, and some powertrain-side network evidence may not be available the same way through the DLC. But I agree that if an OBD-based version can capture enough useful evidence for most owners, that is probably the cleaner consumer product. Maybe the split is: - OBD/DLC version for most consumers - ECM-side version only if it proves it adds evidence that the OBD version cannot get - shop/pro version if deeper powertrain-side event evidence is actually useful So I would not want to force the inline approach if the OBD workflow solves most of the real-world problem. Your last point is probably the key product requirement: the report should be specific to the system showing the abnormality. Not “here are 50 parameters.” More like: “Misfire-related event detected. Here are the misfire/fuel/DFM/context values.” or “Oil-pressure-related event detected. Here is oil pressure compared with RPM/load/temp/baseline.” or “Communication event detected. Here is what dropped, when, and whether voltage/reset happened first.” That is a much better way to think about the report.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...