2020 GMC

[12th_Man_Fan]

Well maybe the truck builders are finally listening to the RV crowd for a change:

Just got a brochure on the 2020 GMC HD trucks.

1. They have finally made the bed rails lower

2. They have a bed camera to see your 5th wheel hitch.

3. 10 speed Allison

4. All types of options for camera views with trailer

I know, it all costs money but at least it is avaliable. I may be in the market for a new one.

[blt2ski]

88 was personal SW K3500, 89, R3500 dump flatbed for work, Astro van for wife to haul kids around. Have two 2000s also, a C2500, and a safari van to replace the Astro. Usually 2-3 trucks for landscape biz running around......buying/replacing something every two to 4 years.

Marty

[Groover]

blt2ski wrote:
And this truck will still be a better truck than the first new one I had in 81! or 86, 88, 89, 89, 92, 96, 2000, 2005.........

ANy other questions regarding this truck?

Marty

I hope that you just needed a lot of trucks if you bought new ones in 88, 89, and 89.

[blt2ski]

And this truck will still be a better truck than the first new one I had in 81! or 86, 88, 89, 89, 92, 96, 2000, 2005.........

ANy other questions regarding this truck?

Marty

[4x4ord]

RCMAN46 wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
Visually I see 2 maybe 3" MAX in the video. They did state that GM used the position of the axle on the springs and the shackles as their reasoning for the change..
Which goes along with my theory...
Makes no difference though. We already KNOW what the result is due to the CAT scale tickets.
100#, so do some backward computations until you arrive at a method that matches the result.
That will be the correct method.

As an aside, banter on GM forums is that this move was only for the SB/CC models.
It kind of makes sense, as that configuration could benefit from such a change.

I have no idea where their mistake is but if the cat scale is right and the 2" is right then maybe they filled the truck with fuel after getting an empty weight and before getting their gross weight.

How about how many passengers were aboard the truck during the weighing.
A mistake I have made with the wife. When I weighed with trailer had her get out to check placement on the scale pads. As a result the front axle lost some weight. I will never say how much though.

Putting 3000 lbs on a ball two inches behind the rear axle will remove 38 lbs from the front axle not 100 lbs; So the discrepancy is 62 lbs. If Andrew weighs 247 lbs and was sitting in the front seat (93 inches in front of the rear axle) when the truck was weighed empty and in the back seat (53 inches from the rear axle) when the truck was weighed loaded they would get the results they published.

[RCMAN46]

4x4ord wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
Visually I see 2 maybe 3" MAX in the video. They did state that GM used the position of the axle on the springs and the shackles as their reasoning for the change..
Which goes along with my theory...
Makes no difference though. We already KNOW what the result is due to the CAT scale tickets.
100#, so do some backward computations until you arrive at a method that matches the result.
That will be the correct method.

As an aside, banter on GM forums is that this move was only for the SB/CC models.
It kind of makes sense, as that configuration could benefit from such a change.

I have no idea where their mistake is but if the cat scale is right and the 2" is right then maybe they filled the truck with fuel after getting an empty weight and before getting their gross weight.

How about how many passengers were aboard the truck during the weighing.
A mistake I have made with the wife. When I weighed with trailer had her get out to check placement on the scale pads. As a result the front axle lost some weight. I will never say how much though.

[Cummins12V98]

I have not seen or heard what the actual dimension behind centerline is but my money is on MORE than 2".

If they do this on the longbed trucks they really are boneheads.

[4x4ord]

Huntindog wrote:
Visually I see 2 maybe 3" MAX in the video. They did state that GM used the position of the axle on the springs and the shackles as their reasoning for the change..
Which goes along with my theory...
Makes no difference though. We already KNOW what the result is due to the CAT scale tickets.
100#, so do some backward computations until you arrive at a method that matches the result.
That will be the correct method.

As an aside, banter on GM forums is that this move was only for the SB/CC models.
It kind of makes sense, as that configuration could benefit from such a change.

I have no idea where their mistake is but if the cat scale is right and the 2" is right then maybe they filled the truck with fuel after getting an empty weight and before getting their gross weight.

[BillyBob_Jim]

ShinerBock wrote:

12th Man Fan wrote:

3. 10 speed Allison

3. GM 10 speed re-branded as an Allison.

Fixed that for you.

And Gig'em Aggies.

Cummins12V98 wrote:
"10 speed Allison"

UH, the ONLY thing Allison is the name. They call it "Allison Branded" :R

Me Again wrote:
Fake Allison sounds better! Wonder how much GM paid to use the name? Hope it works well, otherwise is will drag down the Allison name.

Now to no more torque management with RAM and GM's. I wonder what they have re-branded it as. Drive Train Protection Feature??????

Features List:
LT275/75R18E Tires
10 Speed Allison Transmission
Drive Train Protection
Fifth Wheel Puck System
DEF Fill Inside Fuel Door
In Bed Camera
etc
etc
etc

Keep it going, hilarious. You pistonheads are aware Allison Transmission was GM for around 78 years, and is still closely associated in many areas? 78 years is probably the average time since you all walked out of Jr High School I am guessing.

Have to love the truck threads when reading the comments and brand of truck shown in signatures. This thread is a great example. Title is 2020 GMC but 90% of posters don't have a GM, probably never had a GM, and probably never will have one. Funny stuff, made my morning, keep it up, Happy Independence day.

[Huntindog]

Visually I see 2 maybe 3" MAX in the video. They did state that GM used the position of the axle on the springs and the shackles as their reasoning for the change..
Which goes along with my theory...
Makes no difference though. We already KNOW what the result is due to the CAT scale tickets.
100#, so do some backward computations until you arrive at a method that matches the result.
That will be the correct method.

As an aside, banter on GM forums is that this move was only for the SB/CC models.
It kind of makes sense, as that configuration could benefit from such a change.

[Cummins12V98]

4x4ord wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
The video had a cutaway frame showing this.
It looked to me to be pretty close to 2".

Definantly NOT 5"

It could very well be that the hitch is only mounted 2 inches behind the rear axle..... in which case 3000 lbs placed on the hitch would take 38 lbs off the front axle. (On a CC short box)

As I mentioned on the other thread I will bet the centerline of ball is MORE than 2". That would make 100#. What is the distance in inches from axle to axle?

The wheelbase of the cc short box is 158.9 inches. For a 3000 lb pin to take 100 lbs off the front axle the ball would need to be 5.3" behind the rear axle.

Visually it appears more than 2” in video.

[FishOnOne]

I surprised Huntindog isn't complaining that GM moved the DEF fill port from under the hood to being next to the diesel fill port

[4x4ord]

Cummins12V98 wrote:

4x4ord wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
The video had a cutaway frame showing this.
It looked to me to be pretty close to 2".

Definantly NOT 5"

It could very well be that the hitch is only mounted 2 inches behind the rear axle..... in which case 3000 lbs placed on the hitch would take 38 lbs off the front axle. (On a CC short box)

As I mentioned on the other thread I will bet the centerline of ball is MORE than 2". That would make 100#. What is the distance in inches from axle to axle?

The wheelbase of the cc short box is 158.9 inches. For a 3000 lb pin to take 100 lbs off the front axle the ball would need to be 5.3" behind the rear axle.

[Grit_dog]

And I haven't seen the huge need for major diagnostics equipment and super tech/good engineer needs to keep my 21st century vehicles on the road. (Although I happen to be pretty much both of the above, lol)
Some things are far simpler/easier to fix and the majority of issues/repairs are just normal mechanical repairs.
Have had a couple issues that required the ole code reader, but by and large, the vast majority of service and repair work is no more complicated than in the past.

[Grit_dog]

Ben as usual, you're pretty spot on, on the other factors that could or should be included in this scientific p!issing match.
But "as their GVWR’s and GAWR’s have been about the same for decades" this is not so true, first just 20 years ago, GM srw 1 tons had a "rated" 9k gvw and the Duallies were a whopping 10k gvw. 25-30% increase is not "about the same".
Nor is the chassis strength, safety features, braking, power, maintenance schedules.
Reliability or longevity I'll leave alone. I think since the 90's reliability has been pretty good. Apples to oranges, I'd even say comparable.
Back to the big difference. The general size, heft, power and capability far exceeds the increase in ratings. Even more pronounced with 1/2 tons.
My first nice truck, a 90 Z71 5 speed, was all it wanted to tow a 6-7000lb flatbed and maintain speed on anything but a level road at low altitude. Fast forward, the 2016 work truck I have regularly tows 10-12klb flatbed through the Cascades with more authority than the old Z71 through Illinois.
The same or more can be said for HDs. Take an old 7.3 or 1st gen cummins or 454 TBI GM (6.5s not even in the equation) and think about how those trucks performed compared to any of the new gassers or gosh forbid diesels. They were basically half the truck of the new ones.

For someone who grew up in the 80's, I only remember muscle cars as something that was already getting expensive and the vehicles I had to choose from out of 70s and 80s stock were bad by comparison 30 years ago. Now, them and 90's vehicles (which were decidedly better than 80s) are like comparing the blistering power of a prius to a new Duramax!

Sorry, but you beloved old Burb, as sweet as it is, is but a pimple on a new HD truck's arse.