I must have missed something in the lkatest generation of design....my 2001 has fold flat seats!
Interesting to see they stretched the length by 20"!!! And added 2" of legroom to the 2nd row, that was sorely needed. Now that the Sub is as big as the X was, they gotta do it justice with a 2500 version!!! The press release makes reference to the 2500 with 6.2L, maybe it will only be available as a GMC...who knows?
Maybe I missed it, but it looks like the new model is 2" longer, not 22" (current length -- 222", 2015 -- 224"), and the wheelbase is the same as it has been for a few generations now -- 130". BTW, the X was only 226", so it has never been that much bigger than the 'Burb.
Looks good, though -- I'm glad they aren't changing things too much. Because there will almost certainly be one of these in our driveway in the next few years, unless one of the competitors comes up with something that blows it out of the water (ie, a diesel).
Thanks guys. I will to the drain and fill as you have recommended. I will use the approved TEC 295 Castrol Transynd.
Other than draining the fluid and filling it are there any special directions, tips, or tricks to make sure it is done correctly? Thanks.
It is as easy as changing the oil in the engine.
My only recommendation is to get fluid and parts from an Allison dealer or service center rather than a GM dealership. The one near me sells the fluid for about $40/gal, and their spin-off filters were about $7, so far cheaper than getting them from a GM dealer.
Elevation: 3,600 ft
Towing: 7,500 lbs
Target Speed: 55 mph
Variable: RPM and Gear #
Sounds like respectable quantitative numbers to me! :W
Sure. I just thought it was funny when the driver was making his 'reports' about the feel of the truck, that's all.
Advice asked for is not always advice taken. The OP may have simply wanted to see if he could be talked out of doing what he was thinking of doing. SOMEbody's going to end up buying that truck and taking their chances. Why not him?
...Ever wonder why someone traded it in?There are numerous reasons, with many of them being no cause for concern. Perhaps the previous owner cashed in on something and decided to trade this one in for a new truck. People don't always keep vehicles just because they were in too good of shape to unload.
Agreed. We got rid of our perfectly good LBZ Duramax due to a 4th child arriving. Nothing at all wrong with the truck, and I thought I'd keep it another 50k miles at least, but, well ... turns out we needed a new Suburban instead!
Still not sure if I like the 4th kid or the Duramax better!
When we drive around Casa Grande AZ during the winter months and then drive on I-10 and I hit the throttle hard we get black smoke but it is not for long and then I can not get it to smoke if I do it again. Nothing new just a diesel doing what diesels can do.
Yep, my '06 Duramax would blow a little cloud of black smoke if I hadn't gotten on it in a few days. It would last for a second, maybe (ie, getting on the freeway on-ramp),and then wouldn't smoke anymore no matter what I did. Just had to blow some stuff out every so often, I guess.
Here's a video of the EcoBoost vs. the competition in a towing test.
First and foremost, not bashing the Ecoboost. I like the idea and hope it is a successful engine that only gets better...
I'm not sure what that proved... The Tundra (in 4th gear) and the Ram (in 3rd gear) both pulled the weight fine, albeit at slightly higher RPMs. The GM engine was unable to maintain speed without getting close to redline in 2nd gear. Thats interesting...
Gas engines are designed to spin at higher RPMs, so I'm not sure what this test "proved". 3500 RPM's isn't maxed out, in fact Tundra doesn't get max torque until around 3700 RPMs and max HP is closer to 5000 RPMs. Sounds to me that the Tundra had plenty of power to spare, not like it was maxed out. I don't know the Ram stats, but I am sure they are quite similar. The Ecoboost may be spinning at slower RPM's, but I am sure the gas mileage is the same or WORSE than the Tundra and Ram which were able to pull the same weight at the same speed.
This seems to be a test to confuse the stupid amongst us who assume that anything over about 2500 RPMs means that the engine is about to have a catastrophic failure and possible commit a gang rape of a nun. Granted, there are plenty of stupid people amongst us, so maybe its a worthwhile video demonstration after all.
Did you watch the same video I did?
To me, the video was an advertisement for Ford, demonstrating how relaxed and casual the drivetrain in the Ford performed, especially in comparison to the 'tried and true' (read: seriously outdated and outclassed) 5.3 in the chebby.
What I thought the video showed was that the GM was giving 100% of what it had, and couldn't give any more. The Ford on the other hand, upshifted and could still accelerate the load.
Of course, the quantitative terms used in the Ford video were great -- "that's about almost all it's got" or "doesn't feel like it has much left ..." Pretty persuasive, particularly coming from Ford's engineers! Even though all of the trucks appeared to be doing the job (going the predetermined speed up the hill) they were asked to do, albeit in their own way.
That said, I think the EB sounds like a great truck. Even if the mpg isn't proving to be superior to the competition, the idea of the same mpg and more torque than the competition by a wide margin is certainly appealing to me. If I were in the market for a 1/2 ton truck, it would be my first test drive, without question.
Given my family dynamic (4 kids under the age of 8), it would be difficult. My first drive would be a '14 RAM 3500 Megacab CTD, with visits to the GM and Ford dealers to drive their comparable 1 ton diesels shortly thereafter (I love the MC's room, though).
For the TT, a '14 Suburban 2500 would have to do, I guess, or the Megacab.
Hopefully my budget would allow for said 1 ton truck to be converted to a 6-door so everyone has their room and no kids have to sit in the front seat!
Andy and his cult of followers (wrongly) assume that the vehicle designers and engineers in Dearbporn who spend years designing, developing, and testing the exact combination of chassis, suspension, and drivetrain are simply overruled by marketing folks pushing those who want to tow into more profitable trucks. And those folks couldn't be more wrong.
Have you been involved in meetings and discussions between the engineers, marketing execs, lawyers, accountants, and everyone else involved in bringing these vehicles to market? If so, I'd love to hear some stories (honestly, I have no idea about your background, but would love to hear stories if you have been involved!). If not, how do you know that one department has no bearing on the other?
Maybe "not recommended" for towing means that Ford hooked a trailer up to the Taurus and it was not up to the task whatsoever. Or, more likely, maybe a marketing or accounting exec determined that, since Taurus buyers aren't likely to see any value in a tow rating, Ford wouldn't pay a team of engineers to spend the time and money to evaluate and assign a tow rating to the Taurus.
I wouldn't want someone else's 8+ yr old truck, personally, so that would help make the decision for me.
But none of them are going to pull like your Duramax! You better temper your expectations just a little bit!
when looking at the 2010 and up 1/2 subs and Tahoe's be careful there a lot of them out there with 3.08 gears witch you will not like for towing also look for the k5l option which is the heavy duty tow package. It gives you the aux trans cooler and engine oil cooler mandatory 3.42's and the ability to tow 8200lbs other without ut you are rated at 6500lbs.
This. If you are shopping used, you have to be careful and make sure to get one equipped properly. Learn the RPO codes (found on the tag in the glove box) for the towing options you need, and don't rely on the salesman to give you information! 90% of the Suburbans/Yukon XLs we came across when shopping the used market had the 3.08 gears, which limits your towing to 5k lbs.
Our '10 Suburban handles 6k lbs just fine for the trips we take. The 6 spd is a noticeable upgrade over the 4-spd we had in our '05. That said, if we were towing much more often, or longer trips, I would have opted for the 3/4 ton and 6.0 engine.
I don't think I'd be inclined to go with a Denali version of the Yukon, FWIW. I believe they have a full-time AWD system, and with the 6.2, can be a thirsty combo. Plus, AWD means more parts always moving = potentially higher maintenance/repair costs. Pretty much all of the 'creature comforts' of the Denali can be found in a loaded Suburban LTZ or Yukon SLT.
Count me out! I thought I might want the manual when I was truck shopping, until I drove GM's 6 spd Allison. Sold me on autos in TVs forever!
I'll take a manual in a sports car. Otherwise, I'm auto all the way.
I cant imagine a 4.5 baby Duramax making 310 and 520 when the LB7 was just 300 and 520. That would require 2500 sized running gear(in a 1500) and unless they found an efficiency Genie somewhere, marginal mileage. I believe in order for this diesel in a half ton thing to work. It has to be a good bit cheaper than the HD version, and get real close to 30 mpg. I think 500 foot pounds defies both of those criteria.
I don't know, you might be right -- real world numbers of 22 mpg would kill sales, to be sure, especially with diesel costing more. But I can also imagine a 500 ft/lb engine with a low torque curve pushing along a 1/2 ton at 70 mph turning 1500 rpm in front of an 8 spd transmission. Probably wouldn't be a good towing gear, but I guess it might return pretty good mpg unloaded.
Heck, my grandpa's 2001 Dodge Cummins 2500 6 spd got close to 25 mpg unloaded on the freeway, and I think it had about the same power output as GM was predicting from the baby Max. A 1/2 ton would be 1500# lighter, with more technology to boot, so I think it might be doable. If I could get a 1/2 ton (hopefully a Suburban, since I have 4 kids) that got slightly better mileage than his truck did, with the same power, I think I'd be a buyer.
Where there is a fight for who has the biggest towing numbers in the HD market, I think this half ton diesel market will be a MPG race with towing capacity being less important. If they cant create significant mpg separation from the LD and HD pickups, their going to have a harder time selling them, even if they are cheaper.
Yep, this is kind of where I see things headed. Looking at the "typical" 1/2 ton series user (not the rv.net user), I don't believe towing is a priority, it just has to be a possibility.
That is certainly the case for us and our 1500 Suburban. It gets used for a lot of jobs, from school bus to scout transport vehicle to road trip hauler to my wife's daily driver to towing the TT. It is at its max towing capacity only a few days and 500-1000 miles a year, as we do not take long trips anymore -- just a half dozen 2-3 night trips that are usually within 200 miles of home. So a 2500 (which would get worse mpg and ride rougher) didn't make sense for the 90% of the time when max towing isn't needed. But better mpg (although, in all honesty, I'm pretty happy with the current mpg of our 2010, particularly on freeway trips), with still the capacity to tow 7500-8500 lbs on occasion, would be a welcome development.
It seems to me that the great majority of 1/2 ton owners are in a similar situation as we are, at least the ones I know. So I think that increased mpg with similar/current tow ratings would be just the ticket.
If I remember correctly it was a V6 but I have slept since then. (Can't imagine a 4.5L V8 anyway). All of the Big 3 were rushing to get the market on light duty diesels. I am sure they all were struggling with some issues. The "band aid" as I call it was an adequate fix but I am sure that any delay would nave seen an improvement in regards to the original problem.
The GM 4.5 diesel was (is?) a V-8. http://www.duramaxdieselspecs.com/duramax_4500.html Seems like a great engine for 1/2 ton use -- 310 hp and 520 tq puts it close to the original 6.6 Duramax in output. If GM will put the 4.5 in a 1500 Suburban, I'll be first in line to buy one!
Chevrolet recommends Dex VI for my year...Allison does not recommend Dex VI anymore ( maybe since they are no owned by GM or however that went). They recommend Transynd or similar. Way too pricy for me at 70 bucks a gallon. I go with the full syn Dex VI and keep my intervals short. Virtually all of my mileage is towing 15000 lb fifth wheel.
I bought fluid and filters for my Allison transmission at Allison dealers, usually heavy truck shops. It was only about $40/gal (this is a couple years ago) for Transynd or other Allison-approved fluids, so it was actually cheaper than Dex VI from auto shops. Their spin-off filters were also very cheap -- $7 or so, where the Chevy dealers wanted more than twice that. Fluid change on the Ally is very easy.
The 6.2 is all mechanical so you just hook up the fuel line, return line and electrical things like starter ect and you're good to go.
This is true. The afore-mentioned 6.2 Suburban broke an alternator belt on our trip at about 3 am between Lakeview, Oregon and Winnemucca, NV, which is 212 miles of nothing! The battery eventually died, lights and radio went out, etc, but the diesel kept on chugging. We couldn't stop, because we knew we couldn't start it up again, and one can wait for hours on that road for someone to pass by. So we just drove the 150 miles to Winnemucca to get a new belt. Fortunately we had a full moon that night!
**sorry to get off topic, just good memories of that trip!**
But to put a basic 6.2 in your truck, no thanks. The HP/torque specs were on par with a 305 V8 from the time, and it was ment to be a high mpg305 equal, "IT DID" that very well, but with a 120/240 hp/torque amount, no its not going to tow anything big at a reasonable speed per say.
Yep, that is about right. Just out of high school, I drove a 6.2 diesel Suburban on a 2100 mile road trip with some friends. It got good mpg -- we averaged 20 mpg at speeds of about 60 mph (it didn't like to go much faster!), and it was kinda crazy being able to drive from Medford, Oregon to SLC, Utah on one tank of fuel, with a few gallons to spare (good thing, because diesel was a little harder to find then -- at least, we weren't used to looking for it in the right places, and drove around for about 45 minutes trying to find fuel once we got to SLC). That said, it was not powerful by any stretch of the imagination, and it was not very exciting to drive -- if anything, more gutless than the 305 Suburban my family had at the time. I would hate to have towed anything with it.
Kinda funny, now that I think about it -- that 6.2 and my grandpa's Ford 6.9 diesel were the first diesels I ever drove, and they turned me off to diesels for a long time! Those engines were dogs compared to the gas small block V8's of the same vintage. Times have changed!
"..... I find little practical use for a feature that limits downshifting or forces upshifting"
Have you actually driven a late model GM 6-speed. Mine has yet to refuse to downshift. What "limit" is that?
Ummm, yes, the 2010 Suburban in my signature. Have you ever driven an automatic transmission with true "manual" shifting capabilities? I own one of those as well, and the difference in operation is clear.
I don't know how to put it any other way than the GM auto does not have true manual shifting programming that other automatics have. The "M" setting really doesn't offer a feature that GM's 4 spd transmissions did not have -- it serves only to limit access to upper gears, and that is all. The button on the shift column is just a more elegant solution to allow the selection, which often leads to confusion as to what the "M" stands for.
Sorry I cannot explain it better.