2015 Silverado 3500 & 19000lbs

brulaz wrote:
I think also the GM rep claimed in that earlier Canadian tow-off article that GM does a better job of torque management, getting the torque to the ground. He claimed that torque at the wheels, not at the engine was where GM excelled.

Whatever, they all look good to me. Would love to have new one, but the initial price, complexity of the emissions system, quality of diesel fuel vs fuel pump issues ... maybe in a few years when I'm looking for a new truck things will be different.

Agreed on both points.

When I was truck shopping a few months ago, I drove a new RAM 3500 with the 850tq Cummins. Floored from a dead stop, I wasn't impressed - given the 850tq rating I was expecting more. My mildly tuned 5.9L Cummins would have walked away from it -- especially off the line. I don't know for sure, but I think the huge tq numbers have to be cut at the knees in the lower gears to prevent parts breakage. It sure felt like it to my butt dyno anyway.

I know they all (Ford GM RAM) tq manage to some extent, but despite being way down on power (on paper) the Duramax isn't left as far behind as one would think given the huge disparity in the advertised numbers.

I do think GM is going to be forced to bump up the power in the next model year as they are pretty far behind for advertising bragging rights.

The only thing I absolutely can't wrap my head around when it comes to the GM Duramax is that dang DEF tank hanging down just waiting to be knocked off by a chunk of ice, rock, etc. They really need to rethink that placement.