GM's 2020 tow rating question for all

[ACZL]

GM as we know recently announced their '20 tow ratings which is about time they upped things. Anyways, what get's me is how their SRW can now tow 18,000. Seems odd that there can be that much of a jump for a SRW to tow, so what did they do to achieve it?

For the longest time though, as it's been discussed here that anything over 15,000 was dually territory. How many folks want to tow 18K with a SRW?

[FishOnOne]

ksss wrote:
GM did offer different ratios in their Medium duty trucks in the mid 2k"s. My 5500 4X4 CC had 5:19's. I dont think the motor liked those high RPM's, outside of those trucks, they have been pretty adament about staying with the 3:73's. Whatever the internal reason for staying with that ratio, it was worth it for them to give up the higher ratings to Ford and Ram that would run 4:10's. Comparing like ratio trucks to each other, they were about the same as shown above. The one thing that 12V proclaims that I do agree with is that GM verbally justified their lower tow ratings by stating that their ratings capture all but 5% of the buyers requirements.

While that may be true (I have no idea how that data was captured), but all other things being equal, do you want a truck that is capable of 30K which maybe 15K more than what your pulling, or a truck that is speced at a max of 23K even though it still covers your 15K, it would appear that the 30K is more capable. More is better, even if your not using it. It would be like saying I may only need 750 pound/feet but why wouldnt I buy a truck with a 1000 cause more is better (all things being more/less equal). This point is made by the Nissan 5.0L Cummins motor option.

This flawed thinking in the HD headquarters of GM always bothered me. I am a 5% outlier that choses to run the GM trucks. My personal experience at max weight has been positive, but without that, I may have chosen something else. I didn't expect them to address their previous position and to somehow offer a Mia Copa. But, knowing the reason for the 3.73 only position would make me feel better, even if I didn't like the answer. Whatever their real rationale was in the past, it is obviously gone now. We can speculate on the why, but I doubt anyone outside of GM really knows. I built a 3500 DRW a couple weeks ago, and the build sheet showed that as I speced the truck, it would have a gross combined weight of 40K. It is about time that they came to compete, without excuses. The 2020 is without a doubt one heck of truck from a capability standpoint. I think it reflects what GM is really capable of from an engineering perspective. They just too took long to "Bring it".

GM advertised that there was a small market about ~24k lbs towing limit; therefore they decided not to pursue that market. Having said that the next gen trucks are now covering that supposedly small market above 24k lbs. My take is GM continues to loose sales because of their poor decisions and are not forced to pay the piper.

Now Chevrolet/GM needs to clean house on the designers and every single manager who approved the latest Blazer, Camaro, 1500, and 2500/3500HD truck designs need to be gone, and start from scratch. Oh and if there's any engineers who were responsible for the DEF tank hanging low behind the passenger tire is still around they need to go as too.

The new GM still has not cleaned up their act!

[ksss]

GM did offer different ratios in their Medium duty trucks in the mid 2k"s. My 5500 4X4 CC had 5:19's. I dont think the motor liked those high RPM's, outside of those trucks, they have been pretty adament about staying with the 3:73's. Whatever the internal reason for staying with that ratio, it was worth it for them to give up the higher ratings to Ford and Ram that would run 4:10's. Comparing like ratio trucks to each other, they were about the same as shown above. The one thing that 12V proclaims that I do agree with is that GM verbally justified their lower tow ratings by stating that their ratings capture all but 5% of the buyers requirements.

While that may be true (I have no idea how that data was captured), but all other things being equal, do you want a truck that is capable of 30K which maybe 15K more than what your pulling, or a truck that is speced at a max of 23K even though it still covers your 15K, it would appear that the 30K is more capable. More is better, even if your not using it. It would be like saying I may only need 750 pound/feet but why wouldnt I buy a truck with a 1000 cause more is better (all things being more/less equal). This point is made by the Nissan 5.0L Cummins motor option.

This flawed thinking in the HD headquarters of GM always bothered me. I am a 5% outlier that choses to run the GM trucks. My personal experience at max weight has been positive, but without that, I may have chosen something else. I didn't expect them to address their previous position and to somehow offer a Mia Copa. But, knowing the reason for the 3.73 only position would make me feel better, even if I didn't like the answer. Whatever their real rationale was in the past, it is obviously gone now. We can speculate on the why, but I doubt anyone outside of GM really knows. I built a 3500 DRW a couple weeks ago, and the build sheet showed that as I speced the truck, it would have a gross combined weight of 40K. It is about time that they came to compete, without excuses. The 2020 is without a doubt one heck of truck from a capability standpoint. I think it reflects what GM is really capable of from an engineering perspective. They just too took long to "Bring it".

[Me_Again]

Comparing diff gear ratios between a I6 and V-8 is a fools journey.

[ShinerBock]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
So why couldn't the Ram tow 30K with 3.73s?
I'm going to go with your logic and say the tranny was too weak to do it.

This is true. Also true RAM could tow around 3k more with same 3.73 (don't have exact numbers).

So why didn't GM put in a 4.10 so they could tow with the others?

Cooling has nothing to do with repeated hill starts.

Looking at the charts, the Ram 3.73 only tows several hundred pounds more than the 2017 GM 3500. I did not see any difference greater than 800 lbs.

[4x4ord]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Me Again wrote:
Gear Ratios (:1): 10L1000
     First 4.54
     Second 2.87
     Third 2.06
     Fourth 1.72
     Fifth 1.48
     Sixth 1.26
     Seventh 1
     Eighth 0.85
     Ninth 0.69
     Tenth 0.63
     Reverse 4.54

How does this compare to the 6 speed?

Allison 1000 (GMC and Chevrolet)
Specifications:
First gear: 3.10
Second gear: 1.81
Third gear: 1.40
Fourth gear: 1.00
Fifth gear: 0.71
Sixth gear: 0.61
Reverse: 4.49
Weight: 330 pounds (dry)

[Cummins12V98]

Me Again wrote:
Gear Ratios (:1): 10L1000
     First 4.54
     Second 2.87
     Third 2.06
     Fourth 1.72
     Fifth 1.48
     Sixth 1.26
     Seventh 1
     Eighth 0.85
     Ninth 0.69
     Tenth 0.63
     Reverse 4.54

How does this compare to the 6 speed?

[Cummins12V98]

Huntindog wrote:
So why couldn't the Ram tow 30K with 3.73s?
I'm going to go with your logic and say the tranny was too weak to do it.

This is true. Also true RAM could tow around 3k more with same 3.73 (don't have exact numbers).

So why didn't GM put in a 4.10 so they could tow with the others?

Cooling has nothing to do with repeated hill starts.

[Me_Again]

Gear Ratios (:1): 10L1000
     First 4.54
     Second 2.87
     Third 2.06
     Fourth 1.72
     Fifth 1.48
     Sixth 1.26
     Seventh 1
     Eighth 0.85
     Ninth 0.69
     Tenth 0.63
     Reverse 4.54

[Huntindog]

So why couldn't the Ram tow 30K with 3.73s?
I'm going to go with your logic and say the tranny was too weak to do it.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I am not sure I agree with that 100%. Even at full throttle, a taller gear ration puts more strain in the internal transmission clutches than a shorter gear ratio when towing heavy. The same way a multi-speed bicycle puts less strain on your joints and muscles in a short gear going up hill than a tall gear giving it all you got.

So you are saying that a tranny does care what gear ratio is in the rearend behind it?

I believe that is somewhat true, if the weight is not increased with the shorter gears...

Just another way of saying what I have been saying all along.

Yes, I am saying that I believe the transmissions does care about the rear gear ratio especially the overdrive clutches.

So then one can connect the dots and say the new Allison cares less of the higher 3.42 rear end gears compared to the previous gen Allison with the 3.73 rear end gears.

They could, but my thoughts on the matter doesn't change regardless of what GM does.

I would consider a GM again but the Chevy is so freakin ugly. There's other issues with their trucks but I just can't get past the looks so that's where it ends.

As for the looks, I'll say I feel sorry for all those Chevy fans.... Sounds familiar does it huntindog! :W

[Cummins12V98]

Huntindog wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
The answer is they could not pass the SAE test at any larger weight. My reason was the Allison 1000.

If you watched the video I posted last week the GM engineer was asked what did they do to improve the towing capacity by ~10k lbs and the engineer stated they improved the cooling system, rear axle, and drive train (place Allison transmission here).

2020 GMC

Repeated hill starts would be the reason. Fact is the rear end is now a 3.42 and before it is as 3.73. Maybe stronger but not as easy to move the load unless first gear in the NEW trans is lower.

Ummmm... That would only be true, if GM were to attempt this test with 3.73s Here is where I point out that neither Ford or RAM passed that test at higher weights with 3.73s Must be because their trannys were weak?:B:E

Go back and reread my post.

And realize that if GM had been able to just put in a 4.10/4.30 gearset as Ford and RAM did, that they would then be able to move heavier loads with out increasing the stress on the tranny one bit.

Here is RAM's SAE numbers from 2017 using 3.73's. They were able to tow just over 25k even with 4wd and crew cab. DRW reg cab 2wd would have been higher.

All we heard of that era is "nobody needs to tow over 23k". If they could have been competitive with 4.10's I think they sure would have.

It's all water under the bridge and they now have competitive numbers as I predicted they would once they changed trans. Let's not forget they went the opposite direction with the axle ratio and still achieved big numbers. Good for them and good for having more competition!!!

[ShinerBock]

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I am not sure I agree with that 100%. Even at full throttle, a taller gear ration puts more strain in the internal transmission clutches than a shorter gear ratio when towing heavy. The same way a multi-speed bicycle puts less strain on your joints and muscles in a short gear going up hill than a tall gear giving it all you got.

So you are saying that a tranny does care what gear ratio is in the rearend behind it?

I believe that is somewhat true, if the weight is not increased with the shorter gears...

Just another way of saying what I have been saying all along.

Yes, I am saying that I believe the transmissions does care about the rear gear ratio especially the overdrive clutches.

So then one can connect the dots and say the new Allison cares less of the higher 3.42 rear end gears compared to the previous gen Allison with the 3.73 rear end gears.

They could, but my thoughts on the matter doesn't change regardless of what GM does.

[FishOnOne]

ShinerBock wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I am not sure I agree with that 100%. Even at full throttle, a taller gear ration puts more strain in the internal transmission clutches than a shorter gear ratio when towing heavy. The same way a multi-speed bicycle puts less strain on your joints and muscles in a short gear going up hill than a tall gear giving it all you got.

So you are saying that a tranny does care what gear ratio is in the rearend behind it?

I believe that is somewhat true, if the weight is not increased with the shorter gears...

Just another way of saying what I have been saying all along.

Yes, I am saying that I believe the transmissions does care about the rear gear ratio especially the overdrive clutches.

So then one can connect the dots and say the new Allison cares less of the higher 3.42 rear end gears compared to the previous gen Allison with the 3.73 rear end gears.

[ShinerBock]

Huntindog wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
I am not sure I agree with that 100%. Even at full throttle, a taller gear ration puts more strain in the internal transmission clutches than a shorter gear ratio when towing heavy. The same way a multi-speed bicycle puts less strain on your joints and muscles in a short gear going up hill than a tall gear giving it all you got.

So you are saying that a tranny does care what gear ratio is in the rearend behind it?

I believe that is somewhat true, if the weight is not increased with the shorter gears...

Just another way of saying what I have been saying all along.

Yes, I am saying that I believe the transmissions does care about the rear gear ratio especially the overdrive clutches.