Jump to content

Opinion on "must haves" for new built family/work truck

Stephen Groesser
 Share

Recommended Posts

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted

I would only get camper springs or the plow package if you really need it. While the ride is still acceptable with the heavier front springs, it is best with the standard springs if you drive lightly or moderately loaded. I have the camper springs on a 3500hd cclb srw gas, but now that I’ve driven it a while with my 2000 lb slide-in camper, if I was doing it again, even with a bit heavier camper, I’d go with the standard springs. 3000 lbs camper weight is about the point where I’d go with the camper springs.  Note that, with my 2000 lb load, the rear suspension has about 2 inches of travel left before the 3500hd rear overload springs engage, so my impressions of the ride would apply to a 2500. 

03 Cobra Enthusiast

03 Cobra

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Another JR said:

I would only get camper springs or the plow package if you really need it. While the ride is still acceptable with the heavier front springs, it is best with the standard springs if you drive lightly or moderately loaded. I have the camper springs on a 3500hd cclb srw gas, but now that I’ve driven it a while with my 2000 lb slide-in camper, if I was doing it again, even with a bit heavier camper, I’d go with the standard springs. 3000 lbs camper weight is about the point where I’d go with the camper springs.  Note that, with my 2000 lb load, the rear suspension has about 2 inches of travel left before the 3500hd rear overload springs engage, so my impressions of the ride would apply to a 2500. 

 

JR, it's good that you are enjoying your new truck and getting in some camping!  Question about your statement on the overload springs.  Do I understand correctly that even with your one ton camper in the bed the frame mounted pads are still not touching the top overload leafs that come on the 3500s?  Wow!  I would have thought you would have at least been putting at least a little pressure on the overloads.  The strength of the main leaf springs is no joke! 

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yes you understood correctly.  I looked at the frame pad clearance again just now. The suspension has about 1.5 inches more travel (capacity for more weight) before the overload springs contact the frame pads. It’s actually a little annoying because whenever I go over a large dip or bump and the suspension moves that much I hear a slight clunk when the springs make contact. 
 

My sticker payload is 4054 lbs, and the fender heights front and rear are equal with the camper on. Unloaded the rear is about 1.5 inches higher. 
 

The camper is pretty light compared to most because it’s a pop up. Factory says the weight with options and the tanks full is 1800, and I figure I have nearly 200 lbs of stuff in it. 

Edited by Another JR
03 Cobra Enthusiast

03 Cobra

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Another JR said:

Yes you understood correctly.  I looked at the frame pad clearance again just now. The suspension has about 1.5 inches more travel (capacity for more weight) before the overload springs contact the frame pads. It’s actually a little annoying because whenever I go over a large dip or bump and the suspension moves that much I hear a slight clunk when the springs make contact. 
 

My sticker payload is 4054 lbs, and the fender heights front and rear are equal with the camper on. Unloaded the rear is about 1.5 inches higher. 
 

The camper is pretty light compared to most because it’s a pop up. Factory says the weight with options and the tanks full is 1800, and I figure I have nearly 200 lbs of stuff in it. 

 

Nice looking rig!  I guess if your payload is 4054 then it makes sense that half of that wouldn't have you touching the overloads.  Would something like this help?  https://www.etrailer.com/Vehicle-Suspension/TorkLift/TLA7202.html.  If you watch the video that shows the 2017 Chevy 3500 long bed it shows how they are installed and how they work.  

03 Cobra Enthusiast

03 Cobra

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, 03 Cobra said:

 

Nice looking rig!  I guess if your payload is 4054 then it makes sense that half of that wouldn't have you touching the overloads.  Would something like this help?  https://www.etrailer.com/Vehicle-Suspension/TorkLift/TLA7202.html.  If you watch the video that shows the 2017 Chevy 3500 long bed it shows how they are installed and how they work.  

 

Replying to my own post.  Who does that?!  JR, you might want to consider these as well.  I found these when looking through the comments of the Torklift pads.  They might solve your issue without messing with the overload system at all.  One benefit of these I can see is you won't be on your overloads as much which might help with the ride.  https://www.etrailer.com/p-TGMRTT35D.html#exp-productdetails=.reviews

CT Chevy Connoisseur Enthusiast

CT Chevy Connoisseur

Posted
Posted
On 9/29/2021 at 7:28 AM, Kjduvall said:

I have the x-factor synthetic leather and the fit is amazing. my truck is a reg cab so i only have front pics. I dont think you could go wrong with the neoprene covers either, vertex makes a high quality product. 

IMG_20210928_153336.jpg

IMG_20210928_161209.jpg

Were the original seats leather?

 

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 03 Cobra said:

 

Replying to my own post.  Who does that?!  JR, you might want to consider these as well.  I found these when looking through the comments of the Torklift pads.  They might solve your issue without messing with the overload system at all.  One benefit of these I can see is you won't be on your overloads as much which might help with the ride.  https://www.etrailer.com/p-TGMRTT35D.html#exp-productdetails=.reviews


The ride of the rear suspension is fine, particularly with the camper installed - I just don’t like the little clunk I hear when going over big bumps when the camper is on and it hits the overload springs. The front suspension (I have the camper springs, so one step up from standard) feels a little stiffer than the rear as I drive over anything that causes significant suspension travel, which feels a little “off” relative  to an ideally balanced suspension. I like the increased lateral stiffness to reduce roll, but it would be a better balanced suspension with the standard front springs. As I said, I think if I had 3000 lb in the back and was on the overload springs it would be balanced. 
 

These are relatively subtle feel issues that many people probably wouldn’t notice. The truck really does drive very nicely, and the increased roll resistance is nice if I inadvertently enter a curve too fast. It drives sort if like a giant 9500 lb sports car on windy paved roads. 

03 Cobra Enthusiast

03 Cobra

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2021 at 11:47 AM, Another JR said:


The ride of the rear suspension is fine, particularly with the camper installed - I just don’t like the little clunk I hear when going over big bumps when the camper is on and it hits the overload springs. The front suspension (I have the camper springs, so one step up from standard) feels a little stiffer than the rear as I drive over anything that causes significant suspension travel, which feels a little “off” relative  to an ideally balanced suspension. I like the increased lateral stiffness to reduce roll, but it would be a better balanced suspension with the standard front springs. As I said, I think if I had 3000 lb in the back and was on the overload springs it would be balanced. 
 

These are relatively subtle feel issues that many people probably wouldn’t notice. The truck really does drive very nicely, and the increased roll resistance is nice if I inadvertently enter a curve too fast. It drives sort if like a giant 9500 lb sports car on windy paved roads. 

 

Understand.  Just thought those might be options that would prevent the pad to overload clunk.

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks. Both of those products would cause my overload springs to be engaged earlier, causing the truck with the camper to be on the overload springs when at rest. That would make the clunking occur less often, but would make the highway ride more stiff. I’d prefer not to do that. Maybe something like the stableloads but smaller to keep the gap and softer to make the contact silent. 

Edited by Another JR

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

    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...