Jump to content

6.2 Max Tow vs 2500 Duramax

INTJ
 Share

Recommended Posts

INTJ Enthusiast

INTJ

Posted
Posted

I had a 2020 1500 6.2 Max Tow CC Std Bed 4WD with factory performance intake and exhaust for 21 months and 27,000 miles.  I traded it two months ago for a 2022 2500 HD Duramax CC Std Bed Z-71.  I have almost 3000 miles on the 2500. I thought I'd give my impressions between the two trucks while I still remember the 1500.

 

I loved the 6.2 Max Tow.  It had a little heavier payload than the standard 1500, and the 3.42 gears with the 10-speed made it very peppy.  It was strong off the line and would give me 19-21 mpg empty on the freeway, depending on how I drove and where I was.  

 

The downside to the 6.2 Max Tow was ground clearance and payload.  I even raised mine an inch front and rear, but would still drag the nerf bars on stuff.

 

Late last year GM was giving insane trade in values on used trucks.  I traded the 1500 in for $3k more than I paid for it.  Twice in the last 20 years I have stepped out of 3/4 Ton Duramaxes for gas rigs and even though the 1/2 ton gassers fit what I do better, I just haven't been totally happy with them.  I guess I just "identify" as a 3/4 ton diesel truck guy. 😉

 

The Duramax is much bigger truck.  It's taller, wider, longer, and much heavier. The standard bed is even a couple inches longer.  It doesn't turn as tight, though since it has the standard bed I have no problem parking close.  

 

It rides rougher than the 1500, but not excessively so.  Surprisingly, the 2500 handles washboard logging roads as well as the 1500.  It also handles hard corners as well.  Where the 2500s heavy duty suspension is noticeable  is on rough paved roads--the 1500 handles those much better.   

 

The Duramax is lazy off the line, as is the norm for a turboed engine.  It needs a little boost before it moves well.  Once the turbo is loaded it's power is seamless and accelerates well.  Since my 2022  isn't even broken in yet and I am still getting winter fuel, I am not getting great mileage.  Probably 2-3 MPG less than the 6.2.  However, past experience with 2500 DMaxes leads me to think it will settle in to 18-20 MPG at highway cruising speeds of under 75.  If I keep driving at the posted speed limit of 80 on my trip from Post Falls to Missoula, mileage will be less than that.  

 

While the Duramax has twice the payload of the 6.2 Max Tow, and will undoubtedly tow heavier loads much better; it would lose a drag race (empty) to the 6.2.  The 6.2 with factory performance puts around 400 HP to the rear wheels and with me, my truck stuff, and a full tank of gas; it weighed 5900 lbs.  The DMax also puts around 400 HP to the rear wheels but mine weighs 8500 lbs with a full tank and my accessories.  Do the math.  The DMax would need something like 575 RWHP to have a similar HP per pound as the 6.2.

 

Now I know the turbo changes the acceleration profile a bit, and a DMax can be hopped up easily with a Banks Derringer or an Edge Pulsar.  Still, I suspect the 6.2 Max Tow would hang with my 2011 Duramax that was tuned to 500 RWHP.   The 6.2 would NOT run with my 2002 with 500 RWHP, 4.1 gears, and 33" tire.  (My 2002 was also 1000 lbs lighter than my 2022).  

 

The 2500 HD is more comfortable to drive in bad weather as being a little higher gets you out of the spray and much a little better.  

 

I really like both trucks.  I would say if you are going to tow frequently or haul heavy frequently, get the 2500 DMax. If you only tow or haul on occasion, get the 6.2 Max Tow.

 

 

Ezekiel2517 Enthusiast

Ezekiel2517

Posted
Posted

Thanks.  I have a 6.2 Max Tow with added air bags.  its tows my 7000lb loaded RV without any issues.  I can even pass with it while towing.  Power to spare and the 10 speed is seamless.   My only complaint is the amount of fuel it sucks while towing.  I can, like you, get around 20 unloaded.  But with that trailer more like 8mpg.  7 in wind.  If I have a tailwind and keep it under 65, maybe 10.    Thats not much, especially with such a small fuel tank.

 

What kind of mpg do you get when towing with the 2500?

 

My bottomline was operating expenses.  The deisel adds $10K to price.  Thats a lot of fuel.   Plus def, plus maintenance, plus fuel additioanal costs (though deisel and 93 are pretty close in price).  Seems like pre-DEF deisels got much better MPG towing than the new ones.

f8l vnm Senior Enthusiast

f8l vnm

Posted
Posted

Yeah i agree GM really needs to give us a bigger fuel tank option. I believe every other manufacture does or has something bigger then 24 GAL.  People would be more than happy to pay more for a bigger tank.  We just bough another truck for our farm and its a 2022 F150 and gladly paid little more for the bigger 36GAL tank. 

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted

Doesn't help if wanting to run a 1500, but the 25/35's have a 36 gallons tank. 

 

In a 1500, the 3.0 diesel is less than the 6.2.

 

  • Thanks 1
RPaul Enthusiast

RPaul

Posted
Posted

Speaking of fuel tank too small for towing on 1500, if there’s no option for bigger tank, looking into the auxiliary in the bed with 12v valve. Anyone done this yet?

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I always ran a tank in the bed with a toolbox. On some trucks I drilled a hole in the bed hooked into the return fuel line with a manual switch beside the driver seat in the floor. It’s been a few years on that setup, may not be possible on new trucks. Otherwise I have a electric fuel pump on the tank for refueling. 

INTJ Enthusiast

INTJ

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I haven't towed with this 2500, but based on past experience and what others report,  I would expect around 12 MPG when towing 7k.  

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

    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Did have to make 1 modification because of the WeatherTech rear mud flaps and that was needing 3 longer screws than what came with the install package. 😄
    • SFC Retired
      2023 DRW Wheel Liners

      By SFC Retired · Posted

      Picked up the liners yesterday. Installed passenger side WITHOUT any modifications. All mounting holes lined up perfectly. Rain is interfering today with drivers side. Very Happy! Will add pics when finished
    • KARNUT
      OCI, not when but why?

      By KARNUT · Posted

      As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • bluev8
      Intermittent no-code issues on 2022.5+ V8 trucks — what did the shop fail to capture?

      By bluev8 · Posted

      That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...