Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 9/26/2023 at 7:54 PM, Jettech1 said:

From my research and from what newdude said, the 5 leaf spring packs are identical in the 2500 and 3500 trucks.  The only difference is the 3500's get the 2 extra springs above the spring pack and the overload bumpers for them.  Those 2 extra springs are what increases the payload over the 2500's.  I could be wrong as I've been before, but my research says I'm right.

I don’t think that’s correct Jettech based on what MTU said on the post pasted by Pryme. He said the bottom leaf on the main pack, which is shorter, thicker, and does not have its ends clamped with the other four springs and engages progressively, is different and engages (touches  the next spring and begins to apply additional spring force) earlier than on the 2500 spring.  
 

The one ton feel stiffer in rear suspension when empty and the overloads do not engage when the truck is empty unless you go over a large bump at speed. In fact, with my 3500 with 2000 lbs in the bed the overloads are still an inch from their bumpers. 

Posted

If you install bags on your 3500 it will never touch the overload springs again and it made an immediately noticeable ride quality improvement for me when not loaded down. Obviously, it also improves loaded ride quality too. I run my tires at 70 to 80 psi all the time and the ride is fine. YMMV

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 9/29/2023 at 5:04 PM, Another JR said:

I don’t think that’s correct Jettech based on what MTU said on the post pasted by Pryme. He said the bottom leaf on the main pack, which is shorter, thicker, and does not have its ends clamped with the other four springs and engages progressively, is different and engages (touches  the next spring and begins to apply additional spring force) earlier than on the 2500 spring.  
 

The one ton feel stiffer in rear suspension when empty and the overloads do not engage when the truck is empty unless you go over a large bump at speed. In fact, with my 3500 with 2000 lbs in the bed the overloads are still an inch from their bumpers. 

How about we compare pics?  This is from my 2500 a front and rear pic of my spring pack.  Lets see yours if you have the time sir because this topic intrigues me.  Not of your overloads on the topside, just basically the same pic from your 3500 spring pack as mine.

20231001_175534.jpg

20231001_175546.jpg

Edited by Jettech1
Posted

You showed me yours so I guess it’s only fair to show you mine …

 

Unfortunately I have my pop up camper in the bed, sitting at 1500 lbs with empty water tanks and no food or gear (I’ve weighed it.)  Nearly all of that weight (1400+) is on the rear axle. As you can see my secondary springs (not the overloads) are in contact at that weight. One of the pictures looks like maybe there’s a gap but the plastic pad is in hard contact. When the truck is empty there is a gap.  My payload rating is 4055 and RGAWR is 7250.   Spring pack part number is 84992006. My overloads are about 1.75 inches from the bumpers with the camper on at this weight.  

44DEBD70-6946-4CB2-9057-F080850DE45D.jpeg

E97DC284-464C-42FD-B1FF-AD4CE23DD50E.jpeg

57FBCEF5-7C84-4D6D-A5E3-DF980E58EE6B.jpeg

Posted
1 minute ago, Another JR said:

You showed me yours so I guess it’s only fair to show you mine …

 

Unfortunately I have my pop up camper in the bed, sitting at 1500 lbs with empty water tanks and no food or gear (I’ve weighed it.)  Nearly all of that weight (1400+) is on the rear axle. As you can see my secondary springs (not the overloads) are in contact at that weight. One of the pictures looks like maybe there’s a gap but the plastic pad is in hard contact. When the truck is empty there is a gap.  My payload rating is 4055 and RGAWR is 7250.   Spring pack part number is 84992006. My overloads are about 1.75 inches from the bumpers with the camper on at this weight.  

44DEBD70-6946-4CB2-9057-F080850DE45D.jpeg

E97DC284-464C-42FD-B1FF-AD4CE23DD50E.jpeg

57FBCEF5-7C84-4D6D-A5E3-DF980E58EE6B.jpeg

Would I be wrong saying your main spring pack looks identical to mine sans the overloads?

Posted
Just now, Jettech1 said:

Would I be wrong saying your main spring pack looks identical to mine sans the overloads?

It’s hard to tell from the picture, but the part number is stencilled in big numbers on the bottom of the spring.  They certainly are very similar. 

Posted
Just now, Another JR said:

It’s hard to tell from the picture, but the part number is stencilled in big numbers on the bottom of the spring.  They certainly are very similar. 

That's my point.  They are identical.  You have the 2 overload 3500 helpers on top of your spring pack.  But our basic spring packs are identical.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Posted

I just realized the rear axle rating on my 2021 3500hd is higher the overall gross vehicle weight rating of my 93 K2500. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Another JR said:

I just realized the rear axle rating on my 2021 3500hd is higher the overall gross vehicle weight rating of my 93 K2500. 

Here's a weird factoid.  We weighed our truck at the CAT scales empty with a full tank of gas and just my wife and I in it.  The front axle weighs the same as our 21 Ford Explorer and the rear axle had almost the same exact weight as the 21 Ford Escape that we traded in on our truck.  So funny but I love it!!!

Posted
1 minute ago, Jettech1 said:

That's my point.  They are identical.  You have the 2 overload 3500 helpers on top of your spring pack.  But our basic spring packs are identical.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Is the part number on yours the same as mine?  My guess is it’s not. If you read what MTU wrote, he said the secondary springs on the 3500 engage earlier than those on the 2500 as you add load to the axle. My guess is that mine begin to contact the next leaf under static conditions at around 1000 lbs in the bed while yours don’t contact until some significantly higher weight, giving you a more compliant ride. 
 

I don’t hit my overloads statically until I have over 3000 lbs in the bed, so the overloads are not what is making the ride stiffer at mid-level loads. If the springs were identical the ride would be pretty much the same (except for small truck weight differences. When I test drove trucks the 3500 rear suspension felt noticeably stiffer to me, but that’s subjective. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Another JR said:

Is the part number on yours the same as mine?  My guess is it’s not. If you read what MTU wrote, he said the secondary springs on the 3500 engage earlier than those on the 2500 as you add load to the axle. My guess is that mine begin to contact the next leaf under static conditions at around 1000 lbs in the bed while yours don’t contact until some significantly higher weight, giving you a more compliant ride. 
 

I don’t hit my overloads statically until I have over 3000 lbs in the bed, so the overloads are not what is making the ride stiffer at mid-level loads. If the springs were identical the ride would be pretty much the same (except for small truck weight differences. When I test drove trucks the 3500 rear suspension felt noticeably stiffer to me, but that’s subjective. 

I don't know what the Part numbers are but let's give a shout out to other 3500 owners.  Can you take a pic of your rear springs unloaded like I did mine on my 2500 and please post the pics.  And let's put this issue to bed once and for all.  

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Another JR said:

Is the part number on yours the same as mine?  My guess is it’s not. If you read what MTU wrote, he said the secondary springs on the 3500 engage earlier than those on the 2500 as you add load to the axle. My guess is that mine begin to contact the next leaf under static conditions at around 1000 lbs in the bed while yours don’t contact until some significantly higher weight, giving you a more compliant ride. 
 

I don’t hit my overloads statically until I have over 3000 lbs in the bed, so the overloads are not what is making the ride stiffer at mid-level loads. If the springs were identical the ride would be pretty much the same (except for small truck weight differences. When I test drove trucks the 3500 rear suspension felt noticeably stiffer to me, but that’s subjective. 

The PN will be different because you have the extra 2 springs as overloads.  But the main spring pack is identical.....we will prove this eventually.  Look back at the pics we posted.  Although yours was loaded and mine wasn't.  They're identical.

Edited by Jettech1
Posted

Are you sure the part number 84992006 includes the overload assembly?  I honestly don’t know. 
 

i’m just trying to explain what I think MTU (who works at GM) said in his description on the differences in the springs. Maybe MTU can clarify this?  

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Another JR said:

Are you sure the part number 84992006 includes the overload assembly?  I honestly don’t know. 
 

i’m just trying to explain what I think MTU (who works at GM) said in his description on the differences in the springs. Maybe MTU can clarify this?  

They are definitely different part numbers only due to the overload spring pack that you have on top of the main spring pack.  Aside from that, the main 4 leaf spring pack with the overload spring under the 4 mains is identical on both 2500 and 3500's.  No extra ends clamped, nothing.  Same same.  If you look at the pics you and I just posted, we kind of just proved that point.

Edited by Jettech1

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    342,759
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    DM22
    Newest Member
    DM22
    Joined
  • Who's Online   7 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,667 Guests (See full list)


  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".    My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.    I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.    We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....   Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.    I do not see any advantage to disengagement.  But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. 
    • Trust me I appreciate the comments and concerns. It's what I was looking for to help me evaluate the situation and what I want to do. I have decided to move forward with the BORA hubcentric slip on 3/8" (.375") with the extended lugs nuts. Fedex says they should be here Monday :). Meanwhile, the dealer got the remote start and Patriot spray in bed liner done over the last couple of days. Also, I installed an inline stop/start eliminator today. Starts back up in what whatever mode you shut it off in, so you don't have to hit the button every time you fire up.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...