Jump to content

diesel to gas

buelldude

By buelldude
in 6.6L Gas V8 (L8T)

 Share

Recommended Posts

buelldude Enthusiast

buelldude

Posted
Posted

I don't do much towing anymore, thinking of going back to gas 3500 dually. I am running into a problem, I can't find any trucks that have a high enough pin rating??? Can any of you that have a 3500 gas dually post pics of your door jam sticker. My pin weight is 3300 on my gooseneck. I think its strange that the payload goes up for the gas trucks but the pin weight goes down. Yes the tow rating goes down as well but the numbers seem to go the other way.

 

So my numbers (diesel/HC)

payload- 5600

pin- 4660

 

The trucks that I can find at the dealer is (gas /HC)

payload- 6100

pin-  2640

 

The numbers are all-over the place, like I said above I want to go back to gas but 

MORSNO Enthusiast

MORSNO

Posted
Posted

That is odd!  Us truck camper guys all know the payload goes up with a gasser, but I've never looked at the pin weight and I'm guessing it is tied to the max towing weight, so it goes down.

AndrewF Enthusiast

AndrewF

Posted
Posted (edited)

Seems to be that the pin rating that they assign is just 15% of the total towing capacity, whatever that may be without regard for payload capacity. Not to get into a debate on exceeding factory specs but that one doesn't make a lot of sense, I always thought gooseneck tongue weight could be up to 25% as long as you don't exceed rear axle/spring capacity.

Edited by AndrewF
  • Thanks 1
newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, buelldude said:

I don't do much towing anymore, thinking of going back to gas 3500 dually. I am running into a problem, I can't find any trucks that have a high enough pin rating??? Can any of you that have a 3500 gas dually post pics of your door jam sticker. My pin weight is 3300 on my gooseneck. I think its strange that the payload goes up for the gas trucks but the pin weight goes down. Yes the tow rating goes down as well but the numbers seem to go the other way.

 

So my numbers (diesel/HC)

payload- 5600

pin- 4660

 

The trucks that I can find at the dealer is (gas /HC)

payload- 6100

pin-  2640

 

The numbers are all-over the place, like I said above I want to go back to gas but 

 

 

Pin rating is 15% of the trailer rating on the sticker.

 

So max 5th/goose tow rating on a High Country gas is 17,600lbs, which 2640lbs is 15% of that.  

 

Now.  To make things interesting, the stickers, I can only assume to please the lawyers at GM, are rated at 15%.  GM however in their tow ratings table for these says:  "15 to 25% of the trailer weight is the recommended 5th Wheel or Gooseneck kingpin load."

 

Vehicle Order Guide

redwngr Senior Enthusiast

redwngr

Posted
Posted (edited)

These are from 2023 ratings but they'll be same/similar as other 2020+ 3500's.

Rating labels are struck specific, depending on what trim/options they are born with.

 

 

3500 L5P (SRW and DRW)  have significantly higher gooseneck / 5th wheel tow ratings than the LT8's 

So higher 'pin ratings'.

 

Automatic Transmission Ratings with 5th Wheel or Gooseneck Hitch
Model Engine Axle Ratio Maximum Trailer Weight lbs. (kg)
CC30743 w/SRW (L8T) 6.6L V8 gasoline 3.73 16700 (7575)
(L5P) Duramax 6.6L Turbo-Diesel V8 3.42 21500 (9752)
CK30743 w/SRW (L8T) 6.6L V8 gasoline 3.73 16530 (7498)4
(L5P) Duramax 6.6L Turbo-Diesel V8 3.42 21300 (9662)5
CC30943 w/SRW (L8T) 6.6L V8 gasoline 3.73 16700 (7575)
(L5P) Duramax 6.6L Turbo-Diesel V8 3.42 21330 (9675)
CC30943 w/DRW (L8T) 6.6L V8 gasoline 3.73 16200 (7348)
(L5P) Duramax 6.6L Turbo-Diesel V8 3.42 31400 (14243)

 

 

Yes, the LT8's have higher payload ratings. 

image.thumb.png.0b6f796354a186d377047bf01c3fe52d.png

Crew Cab
 
 

 

 

Edited by redwngr
lineman1234 Enthusiast

lineman1234

Posted
Posted

I just checked my door WT camper/plow prep package 3500 srw. 2024 6.6 gasser. 

 

TT 14,500 towing 1,450 pin lbs

5ver/goose, 18,700 towing, 2,805 pin.

4111 payload. 

 

What is interesting, wile comparing my srw to a drw, is the payload and pin go up. Gasser to gasser......

So TT towing drw goes to 16,500, i dont know pin lbs, i dont have one. 

The 5ver/goose, payload on a drw of course goes up, as well as pin...... But,,,, the funny thing, on my comparison, the drw has 300lbs less towing on the 5ver/goose, than my srw. Per charts i have come across. 

 

So its very close at 300lbs pulling a 5ver/goose, but the dually looses out by the said 300lbs pulling vs srw, in my configuration. 

 

Its fun to fluff the feathers on the old rv forums of the you can only tow with a dually and diesel people, when one mentions a gasser dully tows less than a gasser srw. 

Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, lineman1234 said:

…

 

What is interesting, wile comparing my srw to a drw, is the payload and pin go up. Gasser to gasser......

So TT towing drw goes to 16,500, i dont know pin lbs, i dont have one. 

The 5ver/goose, payload on a drw of course goes up, as well as pin...... But,,,, the funny thing, on my comparison, the drw has 300lbs less towing on the 5ver/goose, than my srw. Per charts i have come across. 

 

So its very close at 300lbs pulling a 5ver/goose, but the dually looses out by the said 300lbs pulling vs srw, in my configuration. 

 

 

Limited by GCWR maybe?  If they have the same GCWR and the dually weighs 300 lbs more, it would come off the allowed trailer weight. 

Edited by Another JR
  • Like 1
bruceb58 Enthusiast

bruceb58

Posted
Posted
On 12/10/2024 at 2:46 PM, Another JR said:

Limited by GCWR maybe?  If they have the same GCWR and the dually weighs 300 lbs more, it would come off the allowed trailer weight. 

That would be it since the GCWR has nothing to do with suspension and it's total weight dictated by the engine/transmission/differential combo...which is the same between the DRW and SRW.

  • 2 weeks later...
buelldude Enthusiast

buelldude

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I talked to my dealer and they seem to think its just a legal thing going on for GM to cover their behinds. 

 

  • Like 1
Another JR Senior Enthusiast

Another JR

Posted
Posted
On 12/27/2024 at 2:26 PM, buelldude said:

I talked to my dealer and they seem to think its just a legal thing going on for GM to cover their behinds. 

 

I don’t think that dealer is correct.
 

It is driven by the test requirements of SAE J2807, as referenced on the weight sticker. Many different factors can limit the rated payloads, axle ratings, and GVWR and GCWR: suspension capability, braking, engine cooling, transmission cooling, rear axle cooling, acceleration rate, climbing speed, and handling characteristics in braking/turning tests. 
 

For the gas trucks, the GCWR appears to be limited by one or more of the performance tests. I don’t remember all the tests, but they do a climb test where you can be limited by speed, horsepower, engine or transmission cooling, or rear differential temperature. They also do an acceleration test replicating acceleration on a freeway on ramp.
 

So, while the suspension may be able to handle a higher pin weight, the overall vehicle fails to meet the industry standard. Apparently the tests they performed have not evaluated the case where the trailer is well under the maximum total weight but the pin weight fraction is much higher. As I said in the other thread, that is either because J2807 does not have a test for that or because GM chose not to test it. 
 

I’ll try to locate J2807 again to see if I can sort that out. 

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

      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?
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      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. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...