|
angryrobots posted:That's the OP that was interested in the modded truck, I just co-opted the thread with my own story. I was never looking for a Cummins of any variety poo poo, I have no idea how I missed that. 
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
   Picked this fucker up for 4,000. 90' 7.3 Idi, ZF5, Kingpin 60 front, 10.25 rear. 134,000 miles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Tow rigs, post 'em if you got 'em 2005 F-350 6.0 studded and deleted  10,000 pounds, no problem
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
My company truck:  8900#, No problem, and 15MPG highway:  100% stock aside from lighting and jumper cable hookup. Warranty, tough to beat. That 8.1 must be a monster. Good thing fuel is so cheap for now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
cursedshitbox posted:
sharkytm posted:That 8.1 must be a monster. Good thing fuel is so cheap for now. And yes, it's laughably powerful. Like a truck that big shouldn't have that much get up. It will probably do much better than my poor Tundra that I sometimesoverloaded.  How do you like the new GMC 4 door extended cab? I think it's great, our mechanic just got one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:That is an awesome truck, love the custom flatbed. TBH, I liked my old suicide-door extended cab better, it was more convenient to load long stuff into the cab. That said, the inside of the truck is insanely nice... far far FAR nicer than my old '04. It's a loving luxury interior, inside a solid working chassis. I wish there was a little more room in the back for passengers, but I can barely fit the truck in the garage as-is, and another 18" of length to move up to the crew cab wouldn't work. Mine is an SLE, with minimal options. Vinyl floors, cloth bench seats, the Duramax, plow prep, Z71, running boards, 18" AT Tires, and the "SLE Convenience pkg", which is power pedals, ultrasonic parking detectors, and maybe something else. I had to have the headlight bulbs swapped and BCM reprogrammed because the stock lights were terrible. It's a known issue on the '14 and early '15's. Other than that, a recall on the glow plug programming, and a radio reflash (which was very useful), it's been great. I've got a little over 10,000 miles since August.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Does an avalanche count as a truck for the purposes of this thread? Not that I've done anything trucky with it lately outside of hauling poo poo to the dump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I hate the Avalanche because it looks like a police spec Yukon in my rear view mirror. Then after it passes and I realize my mistake I get to look at it's tiny stupid bed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Real trucks only. I don't have a pic with the trailer on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:Does an avalanche count as a truck for the purposes of this thread? Not that I've done anything trucky with it lately outside of hauling poo poo to the dump. Sure. My dad tows a 30' RV with his all the time. It pulls it pretty well with the 5.3. It's nice knowing that it's harder to steal the stupid $400 cooler he carries in it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
8ender posted:I hate the Avalanche because it looks like a police spec Yukon in my rear view mirror. Then after it passes and I realize my mistake I get to look at it's tiny stupid bed. Its longer than the bed on most SUPER KING SIZE RANCH EDITION trucks you see people buying now.  EDIT: (And it comfortably fits an 8ft fishing rod in that bed.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Elmnt80 posted:Its longer than the bed on most SUPER KING SIZE RANCH EDITION trucks you see people buying now. I'm sorry for harshing on your truck. I don't even own a truck but for some reason I'm a grumpy traditionalist about them. I remember all the trucks my family had when I grew up so a Toyota T100 single cab with a big rear end bed or a brick nose F150 is what I would consider a useful truck, and all these newer trucks confuse me because they just seem like a large SUV that has a tiny lip service truck bed on the back instead of a hatch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Nah, Its cool. I'm used to it by this point. And I honestly get a kick out of it being set on an SUV platform, but still having effectively a full 8ft bed once I drop the midgate along with some pretty handy storage areas and lights in the bed. There is actually a ton of neat design ideas in the avalanche and suprisingly for it being a GM vehicle, they all work really well. And the tailgate has cup holder recesses in it so its perfect for setting a beer in when the tailgate is down.
Elmnt80 fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Picked this one up a couple of weeks ago. 2006 GMC Z71. It has a 6" Fabtech lift that I had planned on removing - until I looked up the install instructions and saw what had to be done to install it.   I removed all the camo stuff and cleaned it up. Looks much better. It's getting a topper with a roof rack and a roof top tent. No immediate trailer plans for it, but it's going to flat tow a Jeep wherever we go exploring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
So is this the general truck thread? What are the expectations for the diesel in the new Colorado/Canyon? I know that engine has been used in other markets over the world, but not with our emissions poo poo. It also bothers me that the 4cyl in both the GM twins, and the Tacoma, don't get better mileage. In both cases you might as well just get the V6, similar mileage but way better power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
stevobob posted:So is this the general truck thread? What are the expectations for the diesel in the new Colorado/Canyon? I know that engine has been used in other markets over the world, but not with our emissions poo poo. It also bothers me that the 4cyl in both the GM twins, and the Tacoma, don't get better mileage. In both cases you might as well just get the V6, similar mileage but way better power. They're very expensive, and the mileage isn't great due to the emissions stuff. I'd never drop 40K+ on a diesel Colorado... I only paid $49K for my 2500HD Duramax. 25% more upfront cost for 3x the truck. If they were available in WT trim, without a thousand options, I think they'd have a great seller. Instead, it'll be for people who don't have room for a fullsize, but want to tow a boat reasonably well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
General truck chat: I like the idea of the new ridgeline. Is there any legitimate downside to a FWD truck? Like maybe the transmission needs to be physically smaller so it's theoretically less robust. I honestly can't think of a good reason. Unfortunately, it's going to be just as expensive as a stripper fullsize truck so since parking is not an issue I have, I'd probably still just get a fullsize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Well the upside is it is a minivan so it rides like a dream. The downside is it has a lower towing capacity. It will use much less gas though since you are not dragging around a ton of steel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:Well the upside is it is a minivan so it rides like a dream. The downside is it has a lower towing capacity. It will use much less gas though since you are not dragging around a ton of steel. Around town, yes. On the highway it doesn't really matter that much. I was rather surprised, but the best fuel economy I've ever gotten in my truck was 23mpg... 200+k miles, automatic, engine/trans never rebuilt, through the hills of pennsylvania and NY on i81 and i84, with 3/4 of a ton of cargo in the bed. A well designed efficient drivetrain, a low coefficient of drag, keeping your tires properly filled, your air filter clean, and most importantly, your foot out of the drat throttle (I did 55-65 the entire way with as little throttle as possible due to the world-ending hangover I was experiencing) affects fuel economy far more than vehicle weight when you're talking about long-haul. If you're driving it around town, of course it's going to use more if it weighs more. I can make the same truck get 13-15mpg pretending it's a racecar on the highway... with an empty bed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Yea I'm not really impressed with any truck highway ratings these days, they're all so tall they catch wind like crazy. Elephanthead posted:Well the upside is it is a minivan so it rides like a dream. The downside is it has a lower towing capacity. It will use much less gas though since you are not dragging around a ton of steel. The towing capacity is more because it's unibody construction. I've heard estimates from 5000-7000lbs. Payload is supposed to be around 1600lbs, which is apparently quite competitive. I was curious about that if it was a benefit to being FWD, less running-gear-weight already over the back so it can enjoy an increased payload? I dunno, I don't really understand the cause and effect of a lot of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Tow ratings (other than Toyota) are just a manufacturer estimate. I don't think anyone really knows all of what goes into the numbers they throw out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
rdb posted:Tow ratings (other than Toyota) are just a manufacturer estimate. I don't think anyone really knows all of what goes into the numbers they throw out. There's an SAE standard for towing. I'm not sure as of today who adopted it. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/that-dam-towing-test-new-sae-trailering-standards-explained-tech-dept That's an older article but it seems like the big 3 are slowly getting on board: http://articles.sae.org/13365/ Some guys would look at the towing numbers at not realize the rating may be only for a 2 door stripped down model with minimal weight, short bed, 2wd, with a max speed of 35 MPH  Hopefully SAE J2808 puts an end to that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
whoa whoa whoa, standards?!?!?!?! That tell us how we can specify the towing limits on a vehicle we want to sell???!?!?!??!?!?!! We can't have that. It doesn't let us make up numbers. - Sincerely, the marketing department
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:There's an SAE standard for towing. I'm not sure as of today who adopted it. Haha, still timely! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Last I knew only Toyota has adopted the standard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
stevobob posted:So is this the general truck thread? What are the expectations for the diesel in the new Colorado/Canyon? I know that engine has been used in other markets over the world, but not with our emissions poo poo. It also bothers me that the 4cyl in both the GM twins, and the Tacoma, don't get better mileage. In both cases you might as well just get the V6, similar mileage but way better power. I was going to buy a new Tacoma but even the v6 gets less than 25 mpg. I bought a 97 4runner instead, it gets 23 hwy and cost me less than 5 grand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Truck chat! Here's my LT 5.3 2WD. I think it was around $7-8k, 125k miles. Surprisingly little rust for a Michigan truck but the bed was repainted at some point, not sure why. Color match isn't perfect which I didn't even notice when buying it.   I bought it last summer and haven't driven it much, but I've fixed nearly everything that was wrong with it. It's super comfy (heated leather  ) and will hopefully have race car hauling duties when I finally buy a race car and trailer. I still need to flush the trans and install a bigger cooler and change out some other fluids but it's mostly done. I'll probably pull the bed again to do the rear brake line and fix my ghetto fuel pump wiring job when it gets warmer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:I was going to buy a new Tacoma but even the v6 gets less than 25 mpg. I bought a 97 4runner instead, it gets 23 hwy and cost me less than 5 grand. That's why it's so disappointing. They tout the new twin cycle timing system as a HUGE DEAL for fuel economy but the economy of the v6 is absolutely mediocre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I read some fluff article about it last year that was all "omg twin cycle!! Great economy in the new v6!" and of course I got all stoked thinking "ooh I bet its up near 30 hwy" so imagine my disappointment when I saw the epa ratings. gently caress you Toyota. I mean seriously, the full size f150 gets 25 hwy. With over 300 HP! wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
I towed at the max un-braked trailer towing limit on an Impreza and let me tell you how much fun it is to have your car pushed a foot or so forward coming to a stop on wet pavement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Trailer brakes are the best. When I was bringing my XJ to my new house on my 7x20 trailer, I had a young guy attempt to pass with oncoming cars. Guess he didn't realize how long my vehicle was, anyhow, the only way he got around was by me and the oncoming car slamming on the brakes. If I was brakeless he'd have eaten my front quarter panel and spun into the ditch. It actually surprised me how effectively it slowed at panic. Fun times!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
rdb posted:Last I knew only Toyota has adopted the standard. Yeah, SAE J2807. The tow ratings are getting ridiculous, the manufacturers keep one-upping one another. I'm sorry, there's no way a RAM 3500 can be expected to safely tow 30,000# under the conditions of the standard. I'm not saying that the truck could never do it, but your average Joe can't be expected to accomplish it safely. The whole point of standards in the automotive world is to give an even ground for consumers to base their purchasing decisions upon. Trailer brakes are wonderful, I towed a 12,000# boat trailer from Massachusetts to as far away as northern Maine, Georgia, and Ohio, both with and without trailer brakes. The thing about trailer ANYTHING is that you should plan on it failing. Our old F350 dually could stop the trailer reasonably well without the trailer brakes, but the Berkshires got pretty hairy at times. Those aren't poo poo compared to the Rockies. The new standard also lists an Unbraked Trailer Weight Rating (TWR). That means there's an enforceable number in the event if an accident. Here's an article that has some of the tests listed: http://www.trucktrend.com/features/1509-sae-cargo-volume-and-towing-standards-whale-watching/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
sharkytm posted:Yeah, SAE J2807. The tow ratings are getting ridiculous, the manufacturers keep one-upping one another. I'm sorry, there's no way a RAM 3500 can be expected to safely tow 30,000# under the conditions of the standard. I'm not saying that the truck could never do it, but your average Joe can't be expected to accomplish it safely. The whole point of standards in the automotive world is to give an even ground for consumers to base their purchasing decisions upon. This x 100000000. Too many people hauling overly large loads they don't know how to tow. People try to drive the same with a 30' trailer behind their F150 Ecoboost that they do with it unloaded. Guess what? It don't handle the same. loving idiots with trailers are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
I'm up working in Vancouver with all my toys and tools left back in California. I looked into getting a U-haul van to bring some stuff back down from Canada and was quoted around $2000 for a rental. So I picked up a co-workers C1500 for $700 instead.  1992 C1500 GMC SLE, reasonably good shape, cheap because the windshield was cracked allowing a leak into the interior causing the headliner to sag and the carpet to get musky [the truck sat for over a year]. Radio doesn't work and the clear coat on the hood was pealing off. Before it was parked it had about $2000 worth of work done, new brakes, new ball joints, new pitman idler arm, etc. Plus before that it looks like the owner upgraded the cooling system using a tow package cooler kit from Performance Radiators in AZ, HVAC was redone and upgraded to R-134a. There's some sort of transgo HD shift kit installed, the 1-2 shifts are pretty... not stock, but otherwise everything runs smoothly. So mechanically there isn't much to be done with it. Drives fine, wound up fixing much of the small odds and ends with a visit to a pick n' pull, Got a clean headliner out of Chevy truck, which was interesting because the other headliner was plastic backed where the one in my truck was cardboard and foam. 35 gallon tank too, the previous owner thought the fuel gauge was busted because he never saw it go below half. Interior cleaned up nice, I'll replace the windshield next month, pulled out the old headliner and will put in a new one once I get the new windshield installed. A few things left to do, I got to swap out the HVAC compressor bearing, and track down a possible EGR valve or vacuum leak. Truck is a 350 TBI with the 4L60/TH400. Drives smooth but if I'm.. say going up hill at highway speeds at low rpm's, I feel a slight hesitation in the engine, it's always consistent at a certain speed/rpm range. Hope to get that squared away before I drive down to California. Once I get back, it'll be an awesome truck to pick up parts in, I can put 2 sets of humvee tire/wheel assemblies in the back  That being said, I was hoping to get a unmolested 1980's-1990's cummins dodge, fat chance of that, most are basket cases with the stove pipe and issues for way too much money. Which makes me think of getting a 8.1L/Alison 2500 GMC to tow humvees around with on a flatbed and just use the savings buying gas instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Nice score for $700. Wish I could find them that rust free around here. I had a 1993 4x4 with the 4.3 v6, one of the best trucks I have owned. It had a bit of an EGR issue when I bought it as well, it turned out some idiot had bypassed the EGR solenoid, so the valve was constantly trying to open. Doubt that's your issue though. What trans is it? 4L60 is a 700R4, TH400 would be a 4L80. I think 1992 was the last year of the non electronic transmissions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
rdb posted:Nice score for $700. Wish I could find them that rust free around here. I had a 1993 4x4 with the 4.3 v6, one of the best trucks I have owned. It had a bit of an EGR issue when I bought it as well, it turned out some idiot had bypassed the EGR solenoid, so the valve was constantly trying to open. Doubt that's your issue though. What trans is it? 4L60 is a 700R4, TH400 would be a 4L80. I think 1992 was the last year of the non electronic transmissions. Thats correct, got that mixed up, 700R4, so 4L60 for sure. I'm hunting for a transmission pan with a drain plug so I can change fluid pretty easily in the future. One thing that threw me was the 5 bolt wheels, since most of the OBS style half tons seem to be 6 bolt wheels unless that was part of a package upgrade. I'd check the factory build codes in the glove box but all the ink faded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
rdb posted:TH400 would be a 4L80. A TH400 is a 3-speed, so surely not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Sorry for the wiki link but sorta: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_4L80-E_transmission
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:I was going to buy a new Tacoma but even the v6 gets less than 25 mpg. I bought a 97 4runner instead, it gets 23 hwy and cost me less than 5 grand.   Sup, sub-5k Runner buddy. I got 26 average in my 4cyl/5sp Tacoma, but I drive like a grandpa and that should be better in the 2010s. P happy w the V6 runner mileage--averages 20 mixed driving no matter what I do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:13 |
|
|
Big K of Justice posted:One thing that threw me was the 5 bolt wheels, since most of the OBS style half tons seem to be 6 bolt wheels unless that was part of a package upgrade. I'd check the factory build codes in the glove box but all the ink faded. Post the VIN, I can send you the full build sheet probably. Edit: Seems to only work on 96 and newer vehicles.  Sorry.
Suburban Dad fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:23
|
|