Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Matt C

New Chevy Truck shopping

46 posts in this topic

Its about time for me to trade in the Tahoe and get a new truck.

I am looking at a 2009 Chevy 1500 or 2500 model.

I pull my 3500k boat all over with me and with my current 5.3 it pulls decent enough, but more power is always good right? laugh And I am sure the new 5.3's are a bit better than my 2002 5.3.

So here are my options:

*It will be a Crew Cab, LT or LTZ, most likely Z71 package?

*5.3 with active fuel management?

*6.0

*6.6 Duramax/Allison

Pro's/cons?

Does the Diesel gel up in the winter?

Gas mileage really doesn't matter as I am used to 12/14mpg no load and 10/12mpg loaded.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt think you would have to go with deisel. my buddy has a 6.0 that pulls pretty good. Make sure you have the tow/haul pkg with extra tranny cooler. The HD has tranny temp guage in the dash cluster as well i believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just bought a 2006 5.3 and it pulls the boat awsome, and get 21 highway and 16-17 city and 12-13 pulling the boat. I am used to my 2000 silverado getting 10-12 city 13-14 highway.

My dad has a 2007 Avalanche with the 6.0 and it pulls awesome, but the gas mileage is no where near my truck. 13-17 I would say but his ave. is 14.2 and he hasn't reset it in awhile.

So if gas mileage get a 6.0. But don't get a 2500, get the vortex max 1500 with the 6.0.

As for diesel I wanted one, but I am not going to risk diesel going back up is 5-6 bucks a gallon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From most of the research I've done, it would seem that the diesel is a nice rig, but it's a "no buy" unless you really need it. Will it gel up? Sure, if not properly treated.

As to the rest, to me it depend on how much you tow. I really don't use my boat that much so to buy a "big rig" for a relatively small amount of towing time doesn't make sense for me.

The rest is somewhat a hard call. Do you go with a smaller engine but a lower ratio in the rear end, or a bigger engine and rely on the increased torque and a higher rear end? Don't know which would work best in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Whoaru.

The only thinking in my head for the 6.6 was power. Who doesnt like tons of power laugh (insert Tim Allen grunt here).

But its not necessary for my purpose really.

I do take a lot of trips up north pulling the boat, but I also drive 60 miles a day RT to/from work.

So, I am back to the 6.0 or the 5.3 in reality. (7k more for the 6.6). Ouch.

Ksnap, isn't the vortex max available on the 2500? The 1500 6.0 4 door you can only get the short bed, with the 2500 you can get the long box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only does the 6.6 have power, but it has fuel economy. Driving 60 miles a day I would think that the diesel might pencil out in the long run now that the price of diesel is south of unleaded now. grin

Added to the bulletproof engine is a bulletproof transmission and heavy duty drivetrain that you'll almost never have to worry about having enough power unless you hook a house up to it.

I have a 2006 Duramax and I love the mileage and power that it offers. I've added an aftermarket programmer and did some *cough* exhaust modifications *cough* which has added to the already great mileage.

It's pretty tough to gel up a newer diesel unless you find straight #2 somewhere in the dead of winter, but pretty much all the stations have a winter blend #2 from about October to April. The new diesels also fire off like a gasser and they are nowhere near the hard starting diesels of yesteryear. I've fired mine at -20 degrees after sitting on the lake all night. You have to be careful adding a programmer though, because it may be darn near impossible to remove the smile from your face the first time you take the truck down the road. grin I never had the opportunity to have a "hot rod" in high school, but this truck would probably rule the roost over any "hot rod" my buddies had back then. blush It's amazing what a 7000 lb truck is capable of doing with a little tweaking. whistle

You'll have to determine your annual mileage and see if that will offset the upfront cost of the diesel engine, but I'll have a hard time going back to a gasser. I would think the dealers should have some better deals on 2009's they're trying to closeout right about now that may help the decision too. Diesels typically hold their value a little better too as farmers, contractors, and other heavy pullers like to find diesels on the used lot every now and then. Gassers are a dime a dozen and they really don't stick out from the rest in the classifieds when it comes time to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 06 ext cab with a 5.3 and pull a 16 ft Lund. Plenty of power and great mileage. I see no need for me to move up to any more power. 22 on the road and 15 towing the boat.

My son has a Duramax diesel and all I can say is last year when the diesel was at over 4 a gallon, he didn't move it unless he had too. It is a fuel hog to say the least. It pulls great if you can afford the mileage. At times he wished he would never have purchased the diesel. One pays so much extra for the tranny and diesel. You would need to really get better performance just for the added purchase cost.

His diesel truck cannot even compare to my gas for mileage.

I personally would not own one from what I have seen with his truck.

My other concern with the diesel is if the fuel goes sky high again, the trade value might not be much at all. Yes, he also added the programmer and it helped some but still very poor mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There obviously is something wrong with his truck. I've never heard of a Duramax with that performance. Ever.

Yeah, if you're pulling a 5th wheel camper or trailer you're going to get 9-12 mpg. That's a no brainer and shouldn't expect more than that, and quite honestly be happy as the 5.3 would never pull it without seriously abusing the tranny, etc. I had a 6.0L that would get 12mpg just driving down the highway. Talk about a gas hog. Never regretted getting rid of that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chevrolet has checked it out and it is fine in regards to the motor. Other people told him to get the duramax as its great for pulling the race trailer and they said how great of mileage they got. He gets 8. Maybe thats not all diesles but it is for this one. How does one know which they will recieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said, never heard of poor mileage from a Duramax except for this one, so obviously something isn't right or it's being driven 0-60 from every stoplight and that isn't going to get any economy no matter what you drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, as in Chevrolet has checked it. Nothing wrong with it according to the shop. No o-60 either.

His other gas truck did better for gas mileage pulling the race trailer than the diesel does or ever has done. Thats no lie.

This is no [PoorWordUsage] at all. Its a fuel pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd classify that as an exception and not the rule as far as Duramax's go. But drivers have a lot to do with it too.

What does the race trailer weigh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really doesn't matter as both trucks have pulled the same trailer. Same driver and habits for both trucks also. Maybe they are not all the same and that is good or they would not sell any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That pretty much tells me there is some sort of an issue with this particular truck and if you hooked another one up to it I'm certain you wouldn't have the same results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to debate this all day but the motor has been checked along with the pump and everything else.

One may hook up another diesel but that won't help his mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it won't help his mileage, but it's not fair to label the whole bunch bad because of one bad apple..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a new consumer could get a bad apple as well as a good one. Thats all I'm saying. I looked at your post and it did not make any sense to me as we have seen the opposite in results.

One cannot label them all good from your expierence. Thats all or the same.

When purchasing anything, there are good ones and less than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id go with the vortec max in the 1500. my uncle has that and he has more than enough power to pull his 18ft ranger. i think he gets around 14mpgs for the most part. IMO that fuel mangement is a complete joke unless your going down hill all the time. you can watch it go from 4 to 8 and its hardely ever in 4 just going down the road. i think it was a good idea on paper and thats where it ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If his Duramax gets that bad of mileage, I'd be getting a different one and not keep it if it sucks fuel like that. I know for a fact that the diesels out there, Chevy,Dodge, and even Ford get better mileage than the gassers and will tow anything you hook up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will tow great, its just the mileage is not what we believed it would be.

Pretty hard to trade off a truck this new without taking a huge hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new GMC Sierra xcab 4wd with the 5.3. It has the Z85 package--tow, 3.73 diff, eaton locker, etc. The 5.3 now has 320 HP and tows my Yarcraft Storm very well, lots of power. In several trips to Lake of the Woods from Bemidji, I have yet to get less than 14.3 mpg, round trip. Granted, that trip is pretty flat terrain--no doubt the mpg would go down in hilly country, but I've been very impressed. Empty road trips have been between 18 and 21. The Active Fuel Management feature (drops to V4 mode when the load allows) really drives the mpg up. Above 70mph the mpg starts to drop a bit.

My friends with the GM 6.0 have great towing power but don't get very good mpg.

Good luck with your purchase. There will probably be some very good deals from the dealers being closed down by GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard of several complaints of low teens or worse on the new Duramax, so it isnt all that uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, with 10,000 pounds hooked up! wink

You simply can't use outlaying data and make your decision or state it to the world that this is fact. You have to look at the overall average that the majority of people are reporting. Simple statistics. Most aren't getting 22 and most aren't getting lower teens, but I bet that most ARE right in the middle of those. wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that the original poster was looking for the expierences others have had with these different vechiles.

Thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true on the trade in hit! I just have heard and seen such positive views from people with the diesel Dodges, and some Chevy's. Your Chevy gasser getting 22 mpg must be an exception and you must drive with an egg under the gas pedal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Aczr2k, So zinc plated screws can be used with aluminum?
    • I guess the one positive regarding this Carrier deal is at least, of what I've seen from watching some of them, the press starting to question government involvement in  private enterprise and cronyism.   It only took them eight years but better late than never, I guess.
    • They're made by NGP, an industrial producer in Ningbo, China. Good luck getting service or parts on that, is all I'll say. I know all the other augers engines, etc, are made in China, but they also have been around for years with an established company, which is a huge difference. I'd be real cautious...
    • I use 100 pound power pro braid never had any issues with it.
    • I've been looking into them.   I believe 33 is a typo.
    • Old fashioned black Dacron musky line. Durable tough  Have thought of trying  50 or 100lb flouro but knots are hard to do in it then you have to use crimps etc more point to fail. Interested to see what others do.   Mwal
    • I kinda wish Parise would have opted for the surgery this offseason and miss the first month or so, rather than to rehab it.  Its starting to show.
    • Here is good overview article that might be interesting...   https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/diseases/cwd/science-behind-cwd-management/   The Science Behind CWD Management Why Manage CWD? Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has the potential to negatively impact deer herds wherever the disease occurs. CWD is always fatal and while there have only been 13 cases detected in Virginia, as of February 2016, CWD could have serious negative impacts on the state’s deer population if it became established and widely prevalent (Almberg et al. 2011). CWD infection decreases deer survival odds and lowers total life expectancy (Miller et al. 2008). If a large percentage of the population were to become infected there could be negative impacts for the population, including: A decline in doe survival, which results in an overall reduced population (Gross and Miller 2001); Fewer older bucks, as male animals are more likely to be infected due to specific male social and behavioral tendencies (Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014); and An overall decline in population (Gross and Miller 2001, Almberg et al. 2011), as exhibited in Colorado. In the area of Colorado with highest CWD prevalence, mule deer numbers have plummeted by 45%, in spite of good habitat and protection from human hunting (Miller et al. 2008). DGIF is concerned about the impact CWD could have on Virginia’s deer herd; once CWD has become well established in an area, its persistence in the environment makes eradication extremely difficult, if not impossible. Taking action to keep the percentage of infected animals low helps to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of CWD to new areas, and also helps to slow the transmission of the disease between individuals. Understanding the Spread of CWD CWD prions, which are the infectious proteins that cause the disease, are found in saliva, urine, feces, and blood (Mathiason et al. 2006, Mathiason et al. 2009). They can persist for years outside the body, in soil and in other substances, and can be transmitted by animals that are not yet showing symptoms of the disease (Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). Halting or slowing the spread of CWD is therefore a matter of reducing transmission between deer and making deer less likely to pick up prions from the environment (Mathiason et al. 2009, Grear et al. 2010, Storm et al. 2013). Differences in behavior make tracking the spread of CWD different between does and bucks and between younger and older adults. Bucks are more likely to become infected, for reasons that are not well understood (Grear et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2008, Jennelle et al. 2014). Higher CWD prevalence is found in older age classes of bucks (Grear et al 2006). Adult bucks make long excursions outside their home range, bringing them into contact with a wider area and more individual deer (Karns 2011). Young bucks are more likely to disperse from their mother’s home range and can cover many kilometers, thereby potentially spreading the disease across the landscape (McCoy et al. 2005). Young bucks infected with CWD may not be indicative of established CWD presence at the location they were killed because the buck may have been traveling. Does are relatively sedentary, usually spending their lives near their place of birth and with a related social group. Does only rarely make excursions (Kolodzinski et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2010, Grear et al. 2010). Locations where infected does are found are likely to be a source of further infected deer (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). An infected doe suggests that CWD is established in the population where that doe was killed (Grear et al. 2010, Magel et al. 2013). Of Virginia’s thirteen infected deer (as of February 2016), just four were does. Of the nine infected bucks, seven were harvested within just a few miles of the does, suggesting a small cluster of infection. The last two bucks were killed several miles from the cluster. The fact that these two outliers were young bucks makes it likely, though not certain, that these individuals were on the move, dispersing from their birth places. Managing CWD Due to the nature of the prions which cause CWD (please see the What Are Prions page for more information), treatment of diseased animals is not an option. Research suggests that there is some hope of managing CWD, and that the best methods available are: Decreasing transmission opportunity by:Lowering the density of the deer population A lower density population surrounding a location of known infection reduces the chances of deer picking up CWD prions from the environment, or from each other. Research indicates that indirect transmission is just as important as animal-to-animal transmission (Storm et al. 2013). Population reduction could reduce contacts between infected and susceptible individuals and consequently reduce the disease transmission rate. Analysis of spatial data indicates that CWD is clustered on the landscape, from which one could infer that deer near CWD-positive deer are more likely to be infected (Joly et al. 2003.) Earn-a-Buck, currently in effect in Frederick, Warren, and Clarke Counties (the cluster of infected deer is located in Frederick County), is designed to reduce the overall deer population by focusing more hunting pressure on the female segment of the population. Banning feeding or baiting of deer in areas with CWD CWD prions can be found in saliva (Mathiason et al. 2009), and feed or bait piles are excellent modalities to transfer saliva between deer. Feed and bite piles also artificially congregate deer, thereby facilitating transmission through urine and feces. Prevent the introduction of CWD prions into new areas: VDGIF prohibits the movement of deer carcasses out of the CWD Containment Area until after they have been processed according to guidelines described in Transporting Carcasses Within and Out of the Containment Area. VDGIF prohibits the transport of carcasses from states/provinces listed as CWD Carcass Restriction Zones into Virginia unless they have already been processed according to these guidelines. VDGIF prohibits the possession and use of attractants made from real deer urine or other natural body fluids from deer while afield. CWD prions may be found in the urine of infected deer even if the deer is not showing symptoms (John et al. 2013). There is no live animal test for CWD that is approved by the USDA, therefore deer farms producing and bottling urine cannot guarantee that they are collecting urine from healthy animals. There is no economically viable way to test urine for CWD after collection. Doing nothing to manage CWD is not a satisfactory option, as shown by a number of studies that have examined hunters’ attitudes toward current and potential strategies for managing CWD (Vaske 2010). Among hunters in most states and studies, (a) testing harvested animals for CWD and using hunters to reduce herds in CWD areas were acceptable strategies, (b) agencies taking no action and allowing CWD to take its natural course were considered unacceptable, and (c) using agency staff to reduce herds in CWD areas was controversial. Hunters also generally supported efforts to minimize spread of CWD and eliminate the disease from animal herds (Vaske 2010). A VDGIF survey conducted following the discovery of CWD in Frederick County in 2009 concluded that respondents supported five of seven potential strategies to control CWD in affected areas, including mandatory disease testing of hunter-killed deer, deer feeding prohibitions, deer carcass movement restrictions, restrictions on deer rehabilitation, and reduction of deer populations using hunters (VDGIF 2010, unpublished data). Respondents did not support the use of sharpshooting to reduce localized deer populations (42% opposed, 36% supported, 22% were neutral), but the strongest opposition was recorded for the option that described a complete lack of effort or attempt to manage CWD (79 % opposed, 8% supported).   (the references are at the link and appear to all be from various scientific type journals)
    • The recount effort underway in Wisconsin is turning out to have some disappointing results for former Green Party nominee Jill Stein and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. By the end of the fifth day, and after more than 1 million votes were recounted, Trump grew his lead by just over two dozen votes.     Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, Clinton has only gained five votes after the state’s two largest counties completed their recount.     
    • It turns out that there haven't been many studies of long term impact of cwd, that I could find.    Here is a write up about one of them, from Wyoming.    http://www.wyofile.com/study-chronic-wasting-disease-kills-19-deer-annually/ and this one... http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161127 Chronic Wasting Disease Drives Population Decline of White-Tailed Deer David R. Edmunds , Matthew J. Kauffman, Brant A. Schumaker, Frederick G. Lindzey, Walter E. Cook, Terry J. Kreeger, Ronald G. Grogan, Todd E. Cornish      
  • Our Sponsors