...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Lateral-G Open Discussions > Open Discussion
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 09-02-2013, 11:20 PM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,692
Thanks: 87
Thanked 215 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Isn't it true that modern diesels suffer from short trips due to new emissions standards?
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-02-2013, 11:51 PM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,080 Times in 388 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas69 View Post
Isn't it true that modern diesels suffer from short trips due to new emissions standards?


Diesels are NOT good choices for driving to the grocery store and back.... They like to WORK....so if you're not putting the boots to 'em once in awhile -- towing etc -- then why would anyone have one?

Even towing a 24' trailer and a stinky little Camaro isn't really making 'em work hard. I agree with the others when they say -- if you're not putting very many miles on a tow rig... then it's kind of a waste. The motor option alone is like 5 grand.... a guy can burn a lot of 6 MPG fuel for 5 grand... for the two or three times a year he hauls a 2,000 mile round trip. And if you're just going 500 miles round trip.... the whole conversation just doesn't pan out.


My personal hauling is Seattle - to LA - or to No Cal - or to AriDzona - or even back and forth to Sun Valley.... those are FREQUENT trips with lots of mountain climbing (almost monthly - so figure 9 trips like that per year) so a diesel is a must...

Do the math -- a gas truck gets 6 mpg -- a diesel will get 10 or 12.... Diesel costs more than regular and the difference will take forever to use up the cost of the diesel motor. Not to mention the resale value you'll get back for the diesel.... but a guy really has to think about the true costs for the amount of time spent using it correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-03-2013, 12:37 AM
ironworks's Avatar
ironworks ironworks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 5,155
Thanks: 4
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas69 View Post
Don't forget cooling systems and gearing. I agree with these guys, you are biting off more than you can chew with an Avalanche and a 24' enclosed going any real distance. Appears your truck is rated at 7200-8000 lbs. You will likely exceed it with the car and gear.

I've really liked our Tundra. For a real farmer or puller, it's not the right truck. I really think their target market was a city slicker like myself with some toys and a Wife that needs to drive it. It fits right in between a half ton and 3/4 for pulling. Drives more car like than any other truck I've driven and has a back up camera for tight parking lots along with nav and bluetooth. Interior is nice quality and it's been reliable. I wanted to buy a Chevy but they just don't have many 1500's capable of pulling a 24" enclosed so it was impossible to find one used. I just don't need a 2500.
They do make a better 1500 and its called the mighty max package. It has the 6.2l engine with the 6 speed and the bigger rear axle. My 1500 would pull my Camaro up the Grapevine as fast as I want to go. I let off at 85mph the max my old f450 would go one time. It really no difference with an enclosed. The problem with the 2500 with the gas engine is that is the same engine in the 1500. So it gets worse mileage then a 1500. To me it's either a 1500 or the Duramax 2500. The gas powered 2500 is a waste of time. My old dually would be more stable then my 1500 in crosswinds or passing traffic. But my 1500 gets 11mpg towing and my f450 got 8mpg empty or loaded. My Freightliner gets 7mpg.
__________________
www.ironworksspeedandkustom.com
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-03-2013, 08:34 AM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,080 Times in 388 Posts
Default

So ---- remember the old horse power wars??? The ratings were always "fudged" by the OEMS picking the RPM's they used to show HP.... we know now that those numbers were mostly marketing BS or a way to trip up the insurance companies....


Now here's the latest OEM fudge factor.... "the tow ratings"



The 5.3-liter V8 Crew Cab 4x4 we're sitting in can tow 9,600 pounds thanks to optional zero-cost 3.42 axles. An optional Max Trailering package with 3.73 axles and stiffer leaf springs will boost that to 11,200 pounds: The 11,500-pound advertised maximum tow rating requires the 4x2 Double Cab configuration. Add the mighty 6.2-liter V8 and it nudges to 12,000 pounds.

Of course GMC, like Chevrolet, has decided to ignore the new SAE tow rating procedure that would make these numbers relevant to the competition. As it stands, the ratings are only useful for comparison within the GM family.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-03-2013, 09:08 AM
Ketzer's Avatar
Ketzer Ketzer is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Eads, TN.
Posts: 1,461
Thanks: 373
Thanked 176 Times in 116 Posts
Default

I bought a used Yukon XL 2500 to use for towing and sold my newish Duramax dually. We might tow to a show 2-3 times a year. Never more than 6-8 hours one way, usually less. The dually was very nice and would tow like a dream but we never used it for anything. Too big and too much coin tied up just sitting. The Yukon is a lot more useful for everyday stuff and even though as Rodger pointed out it only has the 6.0l gas burner, I've programmed and exhausted it up to respectable performance. Plus it has 3/4 ton chassis and brakes and the 4l80E with all the extra coolers and cooling. I can load all the gear (chairs, coolers, canopy) inside and not have to worry about that stuff being exposed in the open bed.

It also has the Quadrasteer. If you've never driven one, they are a hoot! It makes a lousy trailer backer like me look talented!



Jeff-
__________________
You remind me of the timing on a turbo engine...
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-03-2013, 09:32 AM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,692
Thanks: 87
Thanked 215 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironworks View Post
They do make a better 1500 and its called the mighty max package. It has the 6.2l engine with the 6 speed and the bigger rear axle. My 1500 would pull my Camaro up the Grapevine as fast as I want to go. I let off at 85mph the max my old f450 would go one time. It really no difference with an enclosed. The problem with the 2500 with the gas engine is that is the same engine in the 1500. So it gets worse mileage then a 1500. To me it's either a 1500 or the Duramax 2500. The gas powered 2500 is a waste of time. My old dually would be more stable then my 1500 in crosswinds or passing traffic. But my 1500 gets 11mpg towing and my f450 got 8mpg empty or loaded. My Freightliner gets 7mpg.
I hear you but try to find one in the used market. Three years ago, I couldn't find one.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:23 AM
DRJDVM's '69's Avatar
DRJDVM's '69 DRJDVM's '69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 1,299
Thanks: 2
Thanked 48 Times in 26 Posts
Default

My Ram 2500 diesel gets an avg 22-24 mpg.... When I tow my trailer with a car in it.... Around 14-16....
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-14-2013, 10:25 AM
onebad68 onebad68 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

If you are towing hard/heavy every day, a diesel is for you, if not, a gas will do. I choose a gas engine when I was looking for a new truck. It will tow anything I want. It is not my daily driver so gas is not a big issue. And believe me, the maintenance on a gas truck is much cheaper. And the cost of a diesel will buy a lot of gas! I am sure this will start a war, just putting out there that gas engines will tow big items with ease as well.
__________________
AKA - Member #434
Anyone selling a 67 - 69 Camaro in Florida, let me know!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-15-2013, 12:01 AM
John510's Avatar
John510 John510 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Ramon, CA
Posts: 1,345
Thanks: 1
Thanked 15 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Thanks for the replies. I will be looking for an open trailer since I dont have a giant truck.
__________________
68 Camaro "Bloodline". OZMO Twin DBW LS3 with TSP 231/236 cam, Speedtech frame, Ridetech coilovers, Chassisworks G Billet/Fab 9, Asanti 19's, Fesler brakes, Carbon Anvil everything, etc.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

65 Fastback "Maddo" @ Meanstreets Performance. Ridetech, crate 306/T5, tubbed, Forgeline
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-16-2013, 11:22 AM
B Schein's Avatar
B Schein B Schein is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Fallston, MD
Posts: 251
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRJDVM's '69 View Post
My Ram 2500 diesel gets an avg 22-24 mpg.... When I tow my trailer with a car in it.... Around 14-16....
Are you hand calculating that or is that off the overhead console. I have an 06 2500 with exhaust tunner and intake work and only get 15-16 around town and 9-10 towing on flat ground with a 24 ft enclosed. The overhead say the numbers you are a talking about but that computer is way off.
__________________
Brian
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net