2020 Chevy HD Pickup
- Thread starter 02SE
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
The Duramax engine was heavily revised last year. It is competitive.
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
The Duramax engine was heavily revised last year. It is competitive.
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
That is like saying the small block push rod engine is not competitive anymore. Isn't the new Camero in the top ten at Nuremberg?
I am more interested in the new gas engine. It is really hard, impossible maybe to drive enough miles in a year to justify one of these diesels with all the emissions stuff on them. Cost of repair is just too large.
Rod
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
That is like saying the small block push rod engine is not competitive anymore. Isn't the new Camero in the top ten at Nuremberg?
I am more interested in the new gas engine. It is really hard, impossible maybe to drive enough miles in a year to justify one of these diesels with all the emissions stuff on them. Cost of repair is just too large.
Rod
Originally Posted by FlyNavyP3
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
Duramax is tried, tested, proven and refined... this is a ludicrous statement that it's been the same since 2001. It's been revamped, refined and improved several times since 2001. The L5P shares almost nothing with the original anymore save for the basic architecture displacement and name.
This statement is akin to saying the Cummins in a Dodge/Ram is the same engine since 1989 because they're both inline 6 engines made by the same manufacturer.
Originally Posted by mrsilv04
The Duramax didn't have 2 generations of duds, like one of the other manufacturers did.
I knew my post was a little too open ended to not be critiqued. Ford, GM and Dodge/Ram are different points of the diesel truck spectrum. Dodge stuck with a tried and tested design, the Dmax was pretty cutting edge when it debuted and in 2018 is still solid but isn't as competitive on power levels as it once was. Ford has tried new designs but they keep getting worse for some reason, they would have been 1000x better off had they, like GM just stuck to the 6.0.
GM is a solid option, but not the go to. However if I wanted a diesel 3/4 ton the first thing I would consider would be a Cummins so I could live the legend, brand loyalties aside.
I love the Dmax and I would love a GMT800 2500HD RCLB, especially with a manual trans. That's pretty much the ultimate modern stock diesel truck for me. Dmax/Allison was (is) also a pretty reliable combo in stock form, combined with a GMT800 especially makes an excellent work truck.
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Dmax is not competitive anymore. They need to move on from it or redesign it. It debuted in 01 right? That was seventeen years ago, it's like the SBC of diesel engines!
It looks like they took the tailgate trim from a GMT400 and slapped it on the front. I really wish they would go retro instead of trying to make the biggest looking truck.
Duramax is tried, tested, proven and refined... this is a ludicrous statement that it's been the same since 2001. It's been revamped, refined and improved several times since 2001. The L5P shares almost nothing with the original anymore save for the basic architecture displacement and name.
This statement is akin to saying the Cummins in a Dodge/Ram is the same engine since 1989 because they're both inline 6 engines made by the same manufacturer.
Originally Posted by mrsilv04
The Duramax didn't have 2 generations of duds, like one of the other manufacturers did.
I knew my post was a little too open ended to not be critiqued. Ford, GM and Dodge/Ram are different points of the diesel truck spectrum. Dodge stuck with a tried and tested design, the Dmax was pretty cutting edge when it debuted and in 2018 is still solid but isn't as competitive on power levels as it once was. Ford has tried new designs but they keep getting worse for some reason, they would have been 1000x better off had they, like GM just stuck to the 6.0.
GM is a solid option, but not the go to. However if I wanted a diesel 3/4 ton the first thing I would consider would be a Cummins so I could live the legend, brand loyalties aside.
I love the Dmax and I would love a GMT800 2500HD RCLB, especially with a manual trans. That's pretty much the ultimate modern stock diesel truck for me. Dmax/Allison was (is) also a pretty reliable combo in stock form, combined with a GMT800 especially makes an excellent work truck.
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Ugh! Reminds me of the family truckster that Clark Griswold had in Vacation. Only its exaggerated ugliness is far past what that film's producers could have imagined.
I agree with that comparison
Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I am more interested in the new gas engine. It is really hard, impossible maybe to drive enough miles in a year to justify one of these diesels with all the emissions stuff on them. Cost of repair is just too large.
Yes, the ridiculous cost to repair "modern" diesel engines when they (DO) fail, negates any advantage to having one.
Ugh! Reminds me of the family truckster that Clark Griswold had in Vacation. Only its exaggerated ugliness is far past what that film's producers could have imagined.
I agree with that comparison
Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I am more interested in the new gas engine. It is really hard, impossible maybe to drive enough miles in a year to justify one of these diesels with all the emissions stuff on them. Cost of repair is just too large.
Yes, the ridiculous cost to repair "modern" diesel engines when they (DO) fail, negates any advantage to having one.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Another pic of the hood
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by silveravant
I like the headlights down low. Better in snow and fog and most importantly don't shine right in my rear view mirror when I drive my car, like most people should.
I would like to see a side cut-a-way to see how much empty room is above the engine in the front. It would be more aerodynamic and you could see the road closer to the front if it was low as possible. I guess it wouldn't look as "macho".
Really ugly to my eye, YMMV.
I live in an area with farming, ranching, oilfield, construction, and heavy industry … so this series of truck is what I live with … but not drive. The Ford Super Duty (entry level/WT) has the most annoying factory headlights in history …
They blind you … but driving in the same direction with them … my GM projectors reach down the road better …
Poor engineering and lack of safety concerns just so Bubba likes them? … hope this is not what I'm seeing on the HD2500/3500 from GM …
I like the headlights down low. Better in snow and fog and most importantly don't shine right in my rear view mirror when I drive my car, like most people should.
I would like to see a side cut-a-way to see how much empty room is above the engine in the front. It would be more aerodynamic and you could see the road closer to the front if it was low as possible. I guess it wouldn't look as "macho".
Really ugly to my eye, YMMV.
I live in an area with farming, ranching, oilfield, construction, and heavy industry … so this series of truck is what I live with … but not drive. The Ford Super Duty (entry level/WT) has the most annoying factory headlights in history …
They blind you … but driving in the same direction with them … my GM projectors reach down the road better …
Poor engineering and lack of safety concerns just so Bubba likes them? … hope this is not what I'm seeing on the HD2500/3500 from GM …
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by Zee09
It's a work horse not a pageant queen.
And you don't see the front while driving but for $60K + you should at least be able to stand to look at it. The big chrome bar above the lights isn't anything like the '60s trucks.
The majority of these trucks are not going to end up as workhorses..
It's a work horse not a pageant queen.
And you don't see the front while driving but for $60K + you should at least be able to stand to look at it. The big chrome bar above the lights isn't anything like the '60s trucks.
The majority of these trucks are not going to end up as workhorses..
...
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
I didnt like it when I first saw it, but its growing on me. Looks like something that would look natural in like...Fallout 3...Retro-futuristic.
The low headlights does help the blinding other vehicles thing, which is drawing attention lately.
idk I wouldnt buy one but I wouldnt complain if I was given one as a work vehicle.
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
I'd disagree. The 6.4 is definetly worse. The DPF and the using of the back two cylinders to spray flames through the turbo to clean said DPF eventually results in their untimely demise with no good core to repair from. The 6.0 shouldve had OAT from the getgo, would have prevented problems with silicate dropout from the G05 causing EGR and oil cooler failures. That was a significant amount of the issues with it.
The low headlights does help the blinding other vehicles thing, which is drawing attention lately.
idk I wouldnt buy one but I wouldnt complain if I was given one as a work vehicle.
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
6.0?? I knew you were taking advantage of Canada making weed legal. The 6.4 was a monster for Ford; never before or since have I ever seen an engine capable of 500rwhp from nothing but a tuner and high flow intake (Cummins may be close, but the transmissions have always been the weak link). Ford 6.7s are OK but have about zero usefulness to generate more power than stock, the turbo is sized almost exactly to the stock power output. However, give me a 2007 Super Duty any day over a newer body style- the front ends just look so much cleaner than 2008-newer (just like this awful-looking Chevy).
6.0s were OK, if you eliminate the VGT, EGR, and factory head bolts and head gaskets. Short blocks were typical International tough but it shouldn't take $5k in aftermarket parts to make the thing live when you've dropped $60k on a truck.
I was under the impression that the 6.0s are the best because they have the least amount of emissions and it just got progressively worse after that? I'm no expert. 10-4 on the old Super Duties, they are sweet. I remember them when they were new.
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
I'd disagree. The 6.4 is definetly worse. The DPF and the using of the back two cylinders to spray flames through the turbo to clean said DPF eventually results in their untimely demise with no good core to repair from. The 6.0 shouldve had OAT from the getgo, would have prevented problems with silicate dropout from the G05 causing EGR and oil cooler failures. That was a significant amount of the issues with it.
Last edited:
I'm a GM truck guy and with that being said, there's one good thing about this design.
If someone does buy one of these as a work truck, that first dent may be an improvement on the looks.
I'd say it was a face that only a mother could love, but surely this thing's momma is in jail for child abuse. Whew!
Unlike Chevy, I hop somebody on the GMC HD design team visited their optometrist in the last decade.
If someone does buy one of these as a work truck, that first dent may be an improvement on the looks.
I'd say it was a face that only a mother could love, but surely this thing's momma is in jail for child abuse. Whew!
Unlike Chevy, I hop somebody on the GMC HD design team visited their optometrist in the last decade.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 02SE
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
Cool. You quoted me but didn't even read what I wrote.
Duramaxes have always been considered the "fuel economy" diesel engines, and make decent power. Hopefully the 10-speeds don't have the same teething problems the early Allisons did.
The 6.0 Powerstroke was the worst engine by far of any of them. In terms of Super Duty Diesel reliability of the last 20 years, the order from best to worst is 7.3, 6.7, 6.4, 6.0. Some have been lucky with a 6.0 that was kept stock. Usually they need to be 'bulletproofed' (you can research all that entails) before they can be considered reliable.
Cool. You quoted me but didn't even read what I wrote.
Duramaxes have always been considered the "fuel economy" diesel engines, and make decent power. Hopefully the 10-speeds don't have the same teething problems the early Allisons did.
Originally Posted by GMBoy
Ugly. It is even uglier than the new F250's. Ram sales should go up even more.
Front end reminds me of the griswold's family truckster.
Makes me want to keep my avalanche even longer.
Ugly. It is even uglier than the new F250's. Ram sales should go up even more.
Front end reminds me of the griswold's family truckster.
Makes me want to keep my avalanche even longer.
Last edited:
I like my 2003 2500 better....in every way.
That is horrible. That truck is so ugly my dog won't even want a ride.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Cool. You quoted me but didn't even read what I wrote.
Duramaxes have always been considered the "fuel economy" diesel engines, and make decent power. Hopefully the 10-speeds don't have the same teething problems the early Allisons did.
My reply was directed at 'maxdustington' who replied to your comment. I left your comment in my quote of 'maxdustington' for context. I guess I would've removed it if I had known it was so sensitive a subject.
So you can put your little stick away...
Cool. You quoted me but didn't even read what I wrote.
Duramaxes have always been considered the "fuel economy" diesel engines, and make decent power. Hopefully the 10-speeds don't have the same teething problems the early Allisons did.
My reply was directed at 'maxdustington' who replied to your comment. I left your comment in my quote of 'maxdustington' for context. I guess I would've removed it if I had known it was so sensitive a subject.
So you can put your little stick away...
Last edited:
- Status
