GMC vs Nissan diesel

It would certainly help, in general, on the forum if the less informed/experienced tried to look at the advice/ reccomendations more with a grain of salt and worked to have a slightly better basic knowledge of statics, dynamics and mechanical design rather than taking each word literally.
By the same token, those that have experience and knowledge could try to impart that without twisting info and responses to literal absolutes. (IE, I have a 5 ton dump truck with 5 or 6 lug wheels so there, I proved the guy who said 8 lugs is better than 6 wrong. I win ). We all or most know the context in which the discussions are started. Would help to keep them there.
Without stating an age bias to the nature of the responses, I'll say that this is the only forum I frequent out of a half dozen (All are truck, boat, toys, similar nature and content) that many members act like my 10 year old.
1/2 vs 3/4 ton truck discussions pop up as often as I change underwear! (Daily, for anyone who cares, lol!). Rarely do they get as petty, off topic, argumentative or in the weeds as they do here.
Food for thought
Merry Xmas all!

Huntindog wrote:
Anyone that believes that a truck with 6 lugs, and a semifloating rear axle is as capable as a truck with 8 lugs and a full floating rear axle cannot be taken seriously.

Always like comments like this......
My navistar has 6 lugs, FA is 8000 lbs, RA 16,500 lbs.....Front is stronger than a typical 8 lug 25/35 series twuck.....so does that make said 25/35 series truck incapable too?
Lug quantity or full vs semi floating axel are useless terms if not used with in the same statistic or equal comparison.
I remember some 1500 GM's with full floaters behind the original 6.2L diesels when they came out, even has TH400/4l80E transmisions!
As noted tho, these two trucks should not be compared to ea other per say, nor should they be compared to my Navistar!

Marty

spoon059 wrote:

demiles wrote:
Sorry for the trolling I couldn't help myself and I apologize to the OP for the nonsense.

How quickly we forget...

Quite honestly, Spoon059, it really didn't matter to me whether he was trolling or not.

Demiles' played the part of the classic, misinformed truck buyer exceptionally well. I saw his posts as simply an opportunity---an opportunity to clarify some very common misunderstandings about GVWR's and axle ratings as they relate to a truck's real world capability. I have demiles to thank for that opportunity.

If my posts helped even one person from making the wrong truck choice then my posts will have served their purpose.

I'm done.

demiles wrote:
Sorry for the trolling I couldn't help myself and I apologize to the OP for the nonsense.

How quickly we forget...

Otrfun I don't understand? Can start again from the beginning?

The axle rating is what matters. The Nissan could have a 12,000 lb GVWR, but with a 4,900 lb rear axle rating it puts it in 1/2 ton territory.

otrfun wrote:

demiles wrote:

otrfun wrote:

demiles wrote:
Sorry for the trolling I couldn't help myself and I apologize to the OP for the nonsense. 7000lbs and a 10k GVWR is what a 3/4 ton should be, not just the gas version. I honestly thought the F250 diesel was around 7200lbs not 8200. The Nissan suffers from the heavy diesel just as the F250, its gas versions are rated 500-700 lbs higher in payload . . .

Yes, both the Nissan Cummins and F250 may have diesel engines, but I assure you one of them is more likely to "suffer" a hernia than the other.

There is only a 200-300 lb. weight difference between these two trucks. However, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 300 ft. lbs. less torque and approx. 120 less HP than the F250 diesel.

Or, put another way, there's only a ~4 percent weight difference; however, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 35 percent less torque and approx. 30 percent less HP.

Plus, you're again ignoring the fact the F250 has about 1,000-1,500 lbs. more payload than the Nissan Cummins based on the RAWR and FAWR of both trucks. Also gotta remind you . . . troll mode or not . . . the F250's (3/4-ton) GVWR is meaningless in terms of realworld payload capability.

All said and done, demiles, clearly one of these trucks is suffering, loaded or empty, much more than the other.

Actually my XD weighs in at 6900, that's 1000-1200 less than the F250 not 200-300. Yes the HP and torque are more in line with the early diesel trucks but I wouldn't call it suffering. It's performance exceeds the 2500 8.1L Allison 4.10 combo I was using to pull my current trailer.

Here's a screenshot from ford.com. The column 2nd from the right shows the curb/empty weight as 7,264 lbs. for a 2016 F250 4x4 crew cab, short bed with 6.7L Powerstroke. I could see this being 200-300 lbs. higher in a higher trim level, so let's say it weighs 7,600 lbs. FWIW, my 1-ton Ram 4x4 diesel weighs 7800 lbs. with no driver, completely empty---CAT scaled.

As for the Nissan Cummins, I based my empty weight on a well-equipped, Nissan Cummins I saw at a local dealership: 8800 GVWR minus 1500 lb. payload sticker rating equals a 7,300 lb. empty truck. Also, did you happen to see the GVWR and payload sticker from a Nissan Cummins shown at the beginning of this thread? It showed a Nissan Cummins with an empty weight of 7312 lbs. (8800 lb. GVWR minus 1,488 lbs. of payload equals an 7,312 lb. empty truck).

So, Nissan Cummins 7,300 lbs. empty. F250 4x4 diesel, 7,600 lbs. empty. That's within my claim of a 200-300 lb. difference.

Sorry, I believe your claim of a 1,000-1,200 lb. difference is a bit inflated.

I'm guessin' you must have a lower trim, 4x2 Nissan Cummins to have an empty weight of 6,900 lbs. Not a common configuration. Most of the lower trim, 4x4, Nissan Cummins I've seen have have a payload rating of approx. 1,700 lbs., or an empty weight of 7,100 lbs. I'm quoting payload stickers I've personally seen, not online ratings.

BTW, if you read my post I didn't specifically say which truck was suffering. I let the numbers speak for themselves.

demiles wrote:

otrfun wrote:

demiles wrote:
Sorry for the trolling I couldn't help myself and I apologize to the OP for the nonsense. 7000lbs and a 10k GVWR is what a 3/4 ton should be, not just the gas version. I honestly thought the F250 diesel was around 7200lbs not 8200. The Nissan suffers from the heavy diesel just as the F250, its gas versions are rated 500-700 lbs higher in payload . . .

Yes, both the Nissan Cummins and F250 may have diesel engines, but I assure you one of them is more likely to "suffer" a hernia than the other.

There is only a 200-300 lb. weight difference between these two trucks. However, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 300 ft. lbs. less torque and approx. 120 less HP than the F250 diesel.

Or, put another way, there's only a ~4 percent weight difference; however, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 35 percent less torque and approx. 30 percent less HP.

Plus, you're again ignoring the fact the F250 has about 1,000-1,500 lbs. more payload than the Nissan Cummins based on the RAWR and FAWR of both trucks. Also gotta remind you . . . troll mode or not . . . the F250's (3/4-ton) GVWR is meaningless in terms of realworld payload capability.

All said and done, demiles, clearly one of these trucks is suffering, loaded or empty, much more than the other.

Actually my XD weighs in at 6900, that's 1000-1200 less than the F250 not 200-300. Yes the HP and torque are more in line with the early diesel trucks but I wouldn't call it suffering. It's performance exceeds the 2500 8.1L Allison 4.10 combo I was using to pull my current trailer.

Here's a screenshot from ford.com. The column 2nd from the right shows the curb/empty weight as 7,264 lbs. for a 2016 F250 4x4 crew cab, short bed with 6.7L Powerstroke. I could see this being 200-300 lbs. higher in a higher trim level, so let's say it weighs 7,600 lbs. FWIW, my 1-ton Ram 4x4 diesel weighs 7800 lbs. with no driver, completely empty---CAT scaled.

As for the Nissan Cummins, I based my empty weight on a well-equipped, Nissan Cummins I saw at a local dealership: 8800 GVWR minus 1500 lb. payload sticker rating equals a 7,300 lb. empty truck. Also, did you happen to see the GVWR and payload sticker from a Nissan Cummins shown at the beginning of this thread? It showed a Nissan Cummins with an empty weight of 7312 lbs. (8800 lb. GVWR minus 1,488 lbs. of payload equals an 7,312 lb. empty truck).

So, Nissan Cummins 7,300 lbs. empty. F250 4x4 diesel, 7,600 lbs. empty. That's within my claim of a 200-300 lb. difference.

Sorry, I believe your claim of a 1,000-1,200 lb. difference is a bit inflated.

I'm guessin' you must have a lower trim, 4x2 Nissan Cummins to have an empty weight of 6,900 lbs. Not a common configuration. Most of the lower trim, 4x4, Nissan Cummins I've seen have have a payload rating of approx. 1,700 lbs., or an empty weight of 7,100 lbs. I'm quoting payload stickers I've personally seen, not online ratings.

BTW, if you read my post I didn't specifically say which truck was suffering. I let the numbers speak for themselves.

demiles wrote:

otrfun wrote:

demiles wrote:
Sorry for the trolling I couldn't help myself and I apologize to the OP for the nonsense. 7000lbs and a 10k GVWR is what a 3/4 ton should be, not just the gas version. I honestly thought the F250 diesel was around 7200lbs not 8200. The Nissan suffers from the heavy diesel just as the F250, its gas versions are rated 500-700 lbs higher in payload . . .

Yes, both the Nissan Cummins and F250 may have diesel engines, but I assure you one of them is more likely to "suffer" a hernia than the other.

There is only a 200-300 lb. weight difference between these two trucks. However, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 300 ft. lbs. less torque and approx. 120 less HP than the F250 diesel.

Or, put another way, there's only a ~4 percent weight difference; however, the Nissan Cummins has approx. 35 percent less torque and approx. 30 percent less HP.

Plus, you're again ignoring the fact the F250 has about 1,000-1,500 lbs. more payload than the Nissan Cummins based on the RAWR and FAWR of both trucks. Also gotta remind you . . . troll mode or not . . . the F250's (3/4-ton) GVWR is meaningless in terms of realworld payload capability.

All said and done, demiles, clearly one of these trucks is suffering, loaded or empty, much more than the other.

Actually my XD weighs in at 6900, that's 1000-1200 less than the F250 not 200-300. Yes the HP and torque are more in line with the early diesel trucks but I wouldn't call it suffering. It's performance exceeds the 2500 8.1L Allison 4.10 combo I was using to pull my current trailer.

My 12 year old 2500 weighs 6800#, came factory with 325/610 and has over 11,000# worth of axle ratings. Nissan just built a new version on an old 3/4 ton truck when they built the XD.