Next truck

[Kaisen]

I like the durability of 3/4 tons. I like that era Chevy 2500’s. Do all 2500HD’s have 6L90e and full-floating axles? And the locker? How can I tell?

Yes, all 2007-2014 GM 2500HDs have the 6L90e 6 speed automatic, and have AAM 14 bolt full-floating rear axles. 10.5" in the gasser, 11.5" in the diesel.

The RPO codes on the SPID label in the glovebox tell you which ratio (GT4 = 3.73, GT5 = 4.10) and G80 equals mechanical locker

That all said, I don’t know if what I need or want merits a 3/4 ton. I think it’s overkill. Good 1/2 ton should do the job while keeping the ride comfortable for everyday driving and light load campouts. While keeping the (highway) MPG tolerable. Stock, I’d think the F150 with any engine, or the Silverado 5.3 should get close to 20, if not more. My father has a Tahoe with the 5.3 and it gets 22 highway. Not bad.

But again, not quite getting why I’d need a 3/4 ton. Maybe I’m missing something.

I’ve actually even thought a 3.5/3.7 N/A V6 in the Ford (or 4.6 in the GM—are those any good?) wouldn’t be too bad either.

You buy a **GM** 3/4 ton because:

Wheel bearings are stronger
Brakes are larger
Stock E load range tires and shock/spring tuning for same
HIGHER PAYLOAD RATING -- better control carrying your overlanding gear
Stronger transmission, transfer case, u-joints, shafts, etc
Full-floating rear axle is better than semi-float, especially if you've ever had one break on the trail
14 bolt G80 locker is bulletproof, the 1/2 ton G80 locker is called "gov bomb" for a reason
ENGINES DO NOT HAVE PROBLEMATIC DoD/AFM - -the GM Gen IV 6.0L is bulletproof, and powerful
Better axle gearing, typically 3.73 or 4.10 versus 3.23 or 3.42... helps with intended taller tires

Fuel mileage is similar if you're laden. By the time you run 33"-35" tires, lift to clear them, regear for them, and add the stuff you want to carry... the delta between a 1/2 ton 5.3L pickup and a 3/4 ton 6.0L pickup might disappear completely. In fact, in my experience the larger 6.0L can get better fuel economy at the ~7,000-9,000 total weight range. Ride at that point will also be better, as the 1/2 ton will be at the bumpstops and generally not well controlled.

Just my opinion, having owned about a dozen of these things

 

[Martinjmpr]

Getting 20mpg on the highway isn't all that difficult for a modern vehicle. But as soon as you take that exit off the freeway expect MPG to plunge.

It's simple physics. A vehicle that weighs 3+ tons is going to require a lot of fuel every time it starts from a dead stop.

That's the MPG killer, right there and no amount of gears or high tech engine doodads are going to change it.

Turbochargers don't to a darn thing to help MPG. What they do is allow more power to be pulled out of a physically smaller engine.

The reason the EcoBoosts get better mileage overall isn't because they run on magic beans or fairy dust, its because they don't weigh as much as a truck with a bigger engine. Smaller engine = less metal = less weight = better MPG.

The fact that the Fords now have aluminum bodies (something like 750# lighter than the previous steel bodies) is another factor.

The fact that someone may be able to get 20mpg out of a 3/4 ton gasser on the freeway is only relevant if all or most of your driving is highway. My commute to work is suburban, not urban, long straight roads with a stop light probably every mile to mile-and-a-half. In that kind of driving my 2004 Suburban rarely exceeded 13 mpg. I'd expect a PW or similar 3/4 ton gasser to do the same or slightly worse.

Under the exact same driving conditions I'm getting 16 - 18 in the F-150 and I don't think it's because it's particularly "high tech", I think it's because I have a 3.31 final drive, a 10 speed transmission and at least 500lbs less weight that I'm carrying around.

 

[LovinPSDs]

Do you have a general idea of what kind of payload you'll be at?

You can get the newer Ecoboost w/ 36 gallon tanks. On a 2.7 Eco that's some SERIOUS range. I think the payloaded can come in around the high 1000's.

2.7EB with 36 Gallon Tank and the Payload Package (2018+) would be REALLY nice. 18+ gives you the 10sp Auto and I believe you can get an E-locker. They are selling new for low to mid 30s so not sure what a used one goes for.

 

[Martinjmpr]

Do you have a general idea of what kind of payload you'll be at?

You can get the newer Ecoboost w/ 36 gallon tanks. On a 2.7 Eco that's some SERIOUS range. I think the payloaded can come in around the high 1000's.

2.7EB with 36 Gallon Tank and the Payload Package (2018+) would be REALLY nice. 18+ gives you the 10sp Auto and I believe you can get an E-locker. They are selling new for low to mid 30s so not sure what a used one goes for.

Mid- to low 30's new? Trucks must be cheap where you live. Here in CO you can't touch a new EcoBoost with 4wd for under about $38k. And that would be a stripper and likely not have the options like locker, 36 gal tank, etc.

Last summer when shopping for that spec truck (CCSB, 4x4, 2.7 EB, rear locker and 36 gallon tank) the lowest quotes I got from dealers were in the low 40's and in most cases they didn't have the 36 gallon tank. I think the lowest quote I got that had everything I wanted was about $44k. And that was AFTER the Costco "discount" was applied.

That's why I ultimately ended up buying a used Canadian-spec truck from a dealer near Provo, UT. Got everything I wanted (EB, 36 gallon tank, E-locker, heated seats and built in trailer brake) for just under $35k. But it wasn't new, it had 17,000 miles on it.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The reason the EcoBoosts get better mileage overall isn't because they run on magic beans or fairy dust, its because they don't weigh as much as a truck with a bigger engine. Smaller engine = less metal = less weight = better MPG.

Weight matters... but not that much. I don't know how much lighter a twin turbo 3.5 really is than a Coyote anyway. Both are aluminum blocks and heads, one has two turbos, piping and intercoolers etc and one has two more cylinders.

Ecoboosts are fuel misers when unladen and driven easy because you are only feeding a 2.7 or 3.5 V6. If you need the power and get into the boost... you gotta feed them 350-400 ponies the same whether it is a twin turbo V6 or a V8.

 

[phsycle]

Here is a new F150, 2.7, Rear locker and 36 gal tank for $33.8k. In Colorado.

New Ford F-150 available in Brighton, CO for Sale

With new styling and updated technology, the 2024 Ford F-150 is more attractive than ever before. Of course, these light-duty trucks are also built tough, delivering power and performance gear for work or play.

www.brightonfordco.com

But not looking at going new.

Do you have a general idea of what kind of payload you'll be at?

You can get the newer Ecoboost w/ 36 gallon tanks. On a 2.7 Eco that's some SERIOUS range. I think the payloaded can come in around the high 1000's.

2.7EB with 36 Gallon Tank and the Payload Package (2018+) would be REALLY nice. 18+ gives you the 10sp Auto and I believe you can get an E-locker. They are selling new for low to mid 30s so not sure what a used one goes for.

I’ll most likely be around 1,500lbs when fully loaded up for camp outs. But not more than passengers typically on a day to day basis.

I will have to go test drive some 3/4 tons to see how tolerable it will be.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

I need to get a truck. It’ll be used as a family hauler (for camping trips. Wife has a minivan for road trips and daily stuff). Won’t need much in the way of extreme off road. I’d probably get a 2-3” lift and 33-34” tires.
I don’t tow much.

Things I need:
- 4 doors
- 4wd
- Good reliability
- Decent MPG (20+ Stock preferable. I understand this will go down when I lift and install bigger tires)

Things I want:
- Locker (at least rear)
- 6’ bed
- below 100k miles
- Large fuel tank
- spend less than $20k

Ford, Chev, Toyota. Ideally, something in the lower trim would be the target. I don’t like Laramie/Lariat/Limited/LTZ. Give me basic trim. Simpler, the better.

I see F150’s in the 2012-2014 era that are appealing and in the right price range. Probably would go for XL or XLT, 6’ bed, and hopefully FX4 pkg.
Early 2000’s Silverado’s have caught my eye as well. 5.3, 4wd. It’d be much cheaper. But no stock locker and would probably need some good maintenance. But as long as they’re reliable (which they seem to be), I’m good with that. I’ll just use the money saved for either a winch, maxtraxx, or locker.
05-06 Tundra could be a candidate but frankly, I hate the low payload. They sure do have a lot of aftermarket support.

Thoughts?

Compared to the domestic trucks you listed, the 05-06 Tundra is going to be kinda dissapointing. It's slower, tows and hauls less, has a weaker rear axle, weak suspension, has a shallow bed, higher insurance cost... but it uses the same amount of fuel...lol.

The 5.0 in the F150 is a good motor and loves to rev. The 3.5 EcoBoost is great stock and an absolute beast when tuned (it also won't care much about larger tires). The six speed behind both of them can take lots of abuse. Being the worlds most common truck, parts and accessories are available everywhere. They are being parted out on Craigslist all the time, so you can get all kinds of goodies cheap.

The 5.3 is a good motor too and since it's everywhere and in everything it's cheap to maintain, repair, and modify. Its the cheapest motor of any full size truck to rebuild (or to bore, stroke, and drop in a big cam if that's your thing). Since they share lots of parts with the Subruban and Tahoe you can get nicer seats pretty cheap.

 

[Deleted member 9101]

Ecoboosts are fuel misers when unladen and driven easy because you are only feeding a 2.7 or 3.5 V6. If you need the power and get into the boost... you gotta feed them 350-400 ponies the same whether it is a twin turbo V6 or a V8.

Nailed it. I get great gas mileage out of my 2.7 on the HW because I set the cruise at 70-71.... Starting at 72 it starts spooling the turbos to make more power.

I have learned that they are either Eco or Boost... But rarely both.

 

[Grassland]

If you are considering F150 i would shoot for a 15+ just to get the weight savings of the aluminium body.
However, the 3.7/3.5 cyclone NA engines are about tapped out on 33-34" tires and stock gears, once you throw 1500# in or on the truck. Especially if you are somewhere in the magical USA where 85 MPH is the normal.
In Canada where it's 60-65 MPH it's not quite as bad.
Same deal with a Ram 3.6

If you are thinking of having a topper and drawers and gear in/on the truck at all times, I'd look at a 3/4. The aforementioned 6.0 Chevy 2500, or an F250 6.2, but you won't be getting near 20 mpg.
If you don't plan to tow and stay stock size tires and are usually unladen an NA V6 Ford or Ram would be my choice. No locker in the Ram but limited slip was available in some trims in some years.

Chevy 4.6 is a joke, stay away. You'd think it's higher low end torque than the Ford and Ram six banger would be noticeable but it isn't.

 

[phsycle]

If I kept the tire size to 32-33”, what’s a realistic Highway MPG with a GM 6.0? Looks like they come stock with 36gal tank.

Also, is there a way to easily tell if it’s an HD trim from online pictures? Most GMC’s don’t specify whether it’s an HD.

 

[Kaisen]

If I kept the tire size to 32-33”, what’s a realistic Highway MPG with a GM 6.0? Looks like they come stock with 36gal tank.

Also, is there a way to easily tell if it’s an HD trim from online pictures? Most GMC’s don’t specify whether it’s an HD.

All GMT900 (2007-2014) 2500s are HDs. Look for "K2" in the VIN. Anything with 8 lugs is what you want.

Keeping to LT285/70R17E (32.8") with 3.73s would return around 16 mpg freeway 70-75 mph. If you slowed down to 60-65 you might get 17-18 mpg. These are realistic numbers.

 

[phsycle]

All GMT900 (2007-2014) 2500s are HDs. Look for "K2" in the VIN. Anything with 8 lugs is what you want.

Keeping to LT285/70R17E (32.8") with 3.73s would return around 16 mpg freeway 70-75 mph. If you slowed down to 60-65 you might get 17-18 mpg. These are realistic numbers.

Thank you. Got me confused because there were two choices when filtering search results—“2500” and “2500HD”. That makes it easy.

Those aren’t bad numbers. Better than a Tundra stock!

Also, I didn’t know some had manual transfer case levers. This one even has roll down windows! Bonus for me.

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD - Rocky Mountain Motors

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD **FOR SALE** By Rocky Mountain Motors - 960 Northgate Mile Idaho Falls, ID

www.rockymountainmotors.com

 

[Kaisen]

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD - Rocky Mountain Motors

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD **FOR SALE** By Rocky Mountain Motors - 960 Northgate Mile Idaho Falls, ID

www.rockymountainmotors.com

That's really a perfect spec. 2011-2014 got the upgraded frame, brakes, bearings. That one has integrated trailer brakes, full trip computer, leather wrapped steering wheel with cruise and steering wheel controls... but rubber floor and (if you like that) manual shift on floor x4 and 6 passenger seating. Even the factory tow mirrors and 2.5" receiver.

Really nice spec, under 100K miles, white is nice, black seats/floor is nice. I think that would make a great truck

 

[Buddha.]

I

If I kept the tire size to 32-33”, what’s a realistic Highway MPG with a GM 6.0? Looks like they come stock with 36gal tank.

Also, is there a way to easily tell if it’s an HD trim from online pictures? Most GMC’s don’t specify whether it’s an HD.

I get 13-14 highway with my 2011 Z71 with 4:10 gears and stock 32.5” tires. I don’t mind the ride except for the time I threw out my back and then my 45min commute was murder. I’m also on 20’s which are slightly more jarring than 16-17”.
If you’re looking at HD GM’s remember the body style changed in ‘07 but the chassis didn’t change until ‘11.

 

[Buddha.]

Thank you. Got me confused because there were two choices when filtering search results—“2500” and “2500HD”. That makes it easy.

Those aren’t bad numbers. Better than a Tundra stock!

Also, I didn’t know some had manual transfer case levers. This one even has roll down windows! Bonus for me.

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD - Rocky Mountain Motors

2014 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD **FOR SALE** By Rocky Mountain Motors - 960 Northgate Mile Idaho Falls, ID

www.rockymountainmotors.com

Looks good. That’s definitely less then I paid for mine but mine has more fancy ******** on it.