Jump to content

Any updates to GM researching on how to improve the towing capability of the 3.0L Duramax??

beauso79

By beauso79
in Modifications, Wheels & Tires

 Share

Recommended Posts

topgear1224 Enthusiast

topgear1224

Posted
Posted

GM is always focused on ease-of-use. that's why for the longest time they have the lowest tow rating of the duallys

but the difference was is when you max them out to their limit they performed much better than any of the others at their claimed max.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted
Keep in mind GM is ultra conservative trailer waiting and has pushed for an industry standard with no luck.  The ratings are established based up the capability of a 7% grade on I70 called Ike Gauntlet.  Look it up.  Not saying you should exceed the Published recommendations, but be informed how they are established.
Give credit where credit is due. GM isn't running the Ike Gauntlet. That's The Fast Lane Truck on YouTube. And, TFL Truck praises the GM 3.0 Duramax over Ford and Ram.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...
topgear1224 Enthusiast

topgear1224

Posted
Posted
Pewterliftedz The trailer weight of the 1500 3.0 diesel drops to 7100 lbs for a gooseneck.
Payload limited, gooseneck is rated with a much higher tongue weight percentage than conventional. Per SAEdfd63c04267581e53c90884a73a751e4.jpg

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Bluvalentine Enthusiast

Bluvalentine

Posted
Posted

topgear1224: tongue weight conventional = 10%; gooseneck = 15%. But the diesel looses 3,300 lbs of trailer weight on the gooseneck? Why? I always thought you could haul more on a gooseneck than bumper pull? The weight limits seem reversed to me.

Bluvalentine Enthusiast

Bluvalentine

Posted
Posted

My GOOSENECK horse trailer with gear and 3 horses weighs approximately 7,500lbs. Can I safely tow it with the 1500 diesel?

topgear1224 Enthusiast

topgear1224

Posted
Posted
topgear1224: tongue weight conventional = 10%; gooseneck = 15%. But the diesel looses 3,300 lbs of trailer weight on the gooseneck? Why? I always thought you could haul more on a gooseneck than bumper pull? The weight limits seem reversed to me.
Maybe cross member strength, or it failed the SAE handling test (gooseneck has an awfully high CG compared to bumperpull).

Ultimately I would guess it's limited by handling, the rear is too soft and the sway bar too tiny.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Transient Senior Enthusiast

Transient

Posted
Posted

I look at a lot of the questions in this thread and wonder if people are aware of the sticker at the bottom of B pillar on the driver's side

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
pewterliftedz Enthusiast

pewterliftedz

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/16/2020 at 9:21 AM, Bluvalentine said:

My GOOSENECK horse trailer with gear and 3 horses weighs approximately 7,500lbs. Can I safely tow it with the 1500 diesel?

Depending on length of trailer and how the trailer is loaded, you’ll be over on tongue weight with a 7,500lb gooseneck.  If it’s more than just you and a full tank of diesel, you’ll probably exceed the trucks GVWR and rear axle too.  The max Goose tongue weight is 1080lb on my truck 

D1FB2148-CFE6-47D6-98B1-14B2B9B107F2.jpeg

Edited by pewterliftedz
Bluvalentine Enthusiast

Bluvalentine

Posted
Posted

I decided the 3.0 diesel was not a safe bet to haul my trailers, so I have purchased a 2020 2500 HD with the 6.6 gas engine. It won't get much better mileage than my 2005 2500 HD 6.0 gas, but I won't have to worry about towing.

  • Like 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,778
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    daveishi
    Newest Member
    daveishi
    Joined

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,166 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Because that is IDIOTIC, much like this question. They've already been forced to do it by past administrations - why would you roll that back when it's a GOOD thing?  WHO IS ARGUING FOR LOWER MILEAGE???? 😂  NOBODY IS!!   I'm certainly not! What I want is RELIABLE vehicles again that are worth the price paid!    I don't get your logic here ...   In 2003 I paid $2,200 for our '86 Grand Marquis. It's STILL running and I've never been inside the engine, aside for the timing cover since it was leaking, so I threw a new timing set in since that makes sense. Transmission is ORIGINAL. Electric pump in the gas tank is ORIGINAL. Rear end is ORIGINAL. I'd have to hit my head REAL hard to want to pay $60k or more for a car that still can't come close to the comfort, seating and storage space, or reliability of this one. Nothing is even in the ball park! Hundreds of thousands of brands and models have been built and sent to the crusher while this one keeps on going!   https://postimg.cc/Z9XRrCSg   I've got a whole fleet of cars, motorcycles, and a truck close to this age for summer and winter. No one could pay me enough to buy anything built this century. I have zero use for any it.
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Since I'm the one who has to fix them when they break, I'll take vehicles over 30 years old all day, EVERY day, over ANY modern crap. Have you attempted any repairs on anything built after 2006? It's a friggin nightmare, and gets worse the newer the model year.    If I had the will or desire, I can make any car of any age outside of a Model T (I don't have THAT much will ...) just as powerful, comfortable, and have all the tech the new stuff does, and get pretty close in mileage, too. I prefer SIMPLICITY. The less the vehicle has, the less to fix WHEN it breaks, not IF.   I'm glad you snot-nosed punks don't like them. More for us, plus that keeps the prices from climbing more than they already have.👍
    • cautious optimist
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By cautious optimist · Posted

      Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • cautious optimist
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By cautious optimist · Posted

      Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.
    • cautious optimist
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By cautious optimist · Posted

      Bringing this thread back on topic. I just noticed the incredible lack of bright chrome across the entire new lineup. Even the Denali has tinted the brightwork in the grille and has none elsewhere. None of them have chrome bumpers. As far as I can tell there aren't even chrome mirror caps. I'm curious if this also happens out back? Are there no chrome rear bumpers either? This is quite the departure for GMC.

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...