What is the weak link for Chevy max tow ratings?

Viperpoker wrote:



I started this thread trying to determine what was different about GM that made their tow ratings so much lower last year, as compared to Ram and Ford. The announcement of the new GM truck explained what they had to improve and answered the question. This thread was intended as a discussion of the mechanical capabilities of these trucks, not a gripe session about quality or where the manufacturers should focus their dollars.

Then stop quoting and rebutting what I am saying and I won't respond. Just let me leave my opinion like everyone else does and be done with it. However, you keep rebutting me because you don't like my opinion and I am returning the favor.

Viperpoker wrote:
And as far as I am concerned, the more power the better. I would like to pull out on an on ramp and be able to accelerate as well as I can accelerate when I am not towing. I would like to "forget the trailer is behind me". I know that is not going to happen, but I am never going to complain about more power in any of my vehicles. No one has to buy these vehicles, but it is nice to have the choice to do so. You also have the choice not to buy them.

No I don't have a choice. When I go to replace my current truck in five years, I will have to buy a CP4 Cummins all because fanboys wanted more stock power instead of sticking with the reliable CP3 pump and turning to the aftermarket for power as I have said in other threads. I can guarantee you that my 500rwhp CP3 Cummins is a lot more reliable at that power rating than a new CP4 Cummins is making 400hp at the crank. No failure prone CP4, no pushing exhaust gases into the intake, no fuel dilution on regens, no pilot injection to wear the injectors out faster, no unnecessary actuation of the VG turbo for emissions to wear it out faster, no carbon gumming up the VG vanes, no restrictive DPF making the EGT high, and so on.

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:
No, I just expect that if I pay for a truck that MSRP'ed over $64k that I would not have to keep taking it to the dealer all the time for recalls, doesn't have missing bolts/nuts in various places, and doesn't thinner metal parts than its competition. I honestly don't think that is too much to ask and would rather have a reliable truck that is rated to tow 17k than a unreliable "upgraded" one that tows 35k even though I will never tow that much. A 35k tow rating is worthless to me and most light duty truck buyers. Ram should have spent the time and money fixing these errors instead of chasing a "best in class" title.

Has your truck EVER left you along side of the road?

Yes. On a remote freeway towing the camper home from the coast. It was 100 degrees and my wife and daughters had to wait with me for about 3 hours beside the freeway for a tow truck. It was a good time. That water pump was replaced by another bad one, and the new good one just went in a few weeks ago. Shortly after that dealer visit I learned that I need to go back again for another recall.

These are great trucks but they have a serious problem with excessive recalls. If I were buying one of the newest diesels it would be a Duramax.

ShinerBock wrote:
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?

When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?

At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.

When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.

Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.

I started this thread trying to determine what was different about GM that made their tow ratings so much lower last year, as compared to Ram and Ford. The announcement of the new GM truck explained what they had to improve and answered the question. This thread was intended as a discussion of the mechanical capabilities of these trucks, not a gripe session about quality or where the manufacturers should focus their dollars.

You should start a thread about why tow ratings are too high, and open a discussion about it.

And as far as I am concerned, the more power the better. I would like to pull out on an on ramp and be able to accelerate as well as I can accelerate when I am not towing. I would like to "forget the trailer is behind me". I know that is not going to happen, but I am never going to complain about more power in any of my vehicles. No one has to buy these vehicles, but it is nice to have the choice to do so. You also have the choice not to buy them.

ShinerBock wrote:
Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?

When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?

At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.

When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.

Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.

I totally agree. The specs on these trucks now are WAY higher than over 99% of the people that will buy them need (myself included). That's why I stick with my 350/660 G56 model Ram! :B

Then when will enough be enough? 40k? 45k? 50k?

When will enough horsepower be enough? 500? 550? 600?

At what point do you say "We have enough capability, now work on reliability and efficiency since it is obviously lacking" Because it is not until the people demand it that they will start to focus on it. If people keep salivating over useless tow ratings then that will be their main focus when building a truck. If people demand reliability and efficiency, then that will be where most of their time and money will be focused.

When I was at Cummins, proven reliability and efficiency mattered above all else. They didn't care about being first, but rather being able to get you there day in an day out. While competitors focused on new and unproven tech to win horsepower/torque wars, Cummins stuck with what was tried and true(until the EPA forced emissions on them) and they gained a reputation for reliability which is probably why most here have stuck with a Cummins.

Now it seems they joined the others in the horsepower/torque wars and sadly those of us who would rather them stick with what is reliable (ie CP3 pump) have to live with the new cr@p all because a few fanboys want more than they will ever need just to say their brand is better. I would rather have 385 hp stock with a CP3 than 400 hp stock with a CP4. To me, a high tow rating or power numbers doesn't make it better, reliability makes it better.

"Not sure why you guys don't like that I think this pissing match is pointless and that the money would have been better spent elsewhere by Ram and keep quoting what I am saying with a rebuttal to my opinion."

We hear you LOUD and clear. IMHO it's NOT a pissing match it's giving people what they want, a more capable truck with improvements top to bottom.

If all they did was simply fix the issues they would be left in the dark by the others.

I have NOT had a single issue with my 11 or current RAM DRW that caused me grief at all.

Heck if I did not have a couple recalls I would not have gotten to drive this beauty.

Double Post

Viperpoker wrote:


It is called the free market. You don’t have to buy the new Chevy with the higher tow rating. You don’t have to buy the 65 inch or 70 inch (wow who needs a 70 inch tv) television. You don’t have to buy a 797 hp Dodge Challenger. You don’t have to buy seats in first class when coach is available. You don’t have to buy Skippy peanut butter when generic is available. But it is nice to have the freedom to choose to do so. And calling people stupid and ridiculous for choosing to do so says a lot about you. You come across as if everyone doesn’t make the same choices you make then they are wrong, stupid, uninformed, ridiculous, etc.

Who did I call stupid? I never chastised anyone for choosing to buy anything? I just said I think this whole tow rating pissing match between the manufacturers is stupid and the R&D time and money that went to getting them there could have probably been better spent elsewhere especially if they keep recalling their truck every other month.

Viperpoker wrote:
For someone that is so concerned with cost, you have a bit of overkill in your truck for a 14,000 lb trailer. Plenty of 2500 or f250 gas models will pull that load, and you could save 10k or so. Don’t understand why you bought a truck with so much extra capacity that you are not using. Oh, right, I forgot, free country, we have choices. We all don’t have to drive Yugo’s.

I don't think you understand what I have been saying. As I said before, I don't mind paying more for better reliability and efficiency because I see that as a benefit. However, I don't see paying more for a tow rating I don't need. If Ram upgrades things like the frame, then the cost is spread amongst all trucks that use that frame so even those who do not need to go from a frame that can tow 30k to 35k will still have to pay for it. Not only that, but the R&D to make a 35k tow rating truck is spread out in the COGS of each unit. I just think that money(which increases the cost of each truck) could have been better spent elsewhere by the Ram instead of chasing a "best in class" title. Again, I really don't think you guys understand how manufacturing and COGM works.

Not sure why you guys don't like that I think this pissing match is pointless and that the money would have been better spent elsewhere by Ram and keep quoting what I am saying with a rebuttal to my opinion.

ShinerBock wrote:

ksss wrote:
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.

Yeah, but I would rather them spend the money to make it more reliable and efficient at its current ratings than make it cost more with new(and unneeded) stuff just to get to a ridiculous 35k tow rating. However, I do get your point that these numbers sell trucks even it is pointless to most who buy them.

I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers say "You know what, I don't think that size of truck should be rated to tow that." Until then, the costs will just keep going up and up and up to attain these numbers. For me, 30k(or even 25k) is enough and I would rather a manufacturer spend their time and money to make their trucks tow safer, are more reliable, and more efficient towing that weight, than to spend it to one up each other in a useless rating.

I also wish some of these guys knew how it works behind the scenes at a manufacturer when they are project planning and number crunching because it is probably not what they are thinking.

It is called the free market. You don’t have to buy the new Chevy with the higher tow rating. You don’t have to buy the 65 inch or 70 inch (wow who needs a 70 inch tv) television. You don’t have to buy a 797 hp Dodge Challenger. You don’t have to buy seats in first class when coach is available. You don’t have to buy Skippy peanut butter when generic is available. But it is nice to have the freedom to choose to do so. And calling people stupid and ridiculous for choosing to do so says a lot about you. You come across as if everyone doesn’t make the same choices you make then they are wrong, stupid, uninformed, ridiculous, etc.

For someone that is so concerned with cost, you have a bit of overkill in your truck for a 14,000 lb trailer. Plenty of 2500 or f250 gas models will pull that load, and you could save 10k or so. Don’t understand why you bought a truck with so much extra capacity that you are not using. Oh, right, I forgot, free country, we have choices. We all don’t have to drive Yugo’s.

ksss wrote:
I think all of us would like a more bulletproof truck. However I believe it was Lee Iacocca that said something to the effect of there is no money in overbuilding an automobile. So while spending more money on expanded capacity may not seem on the surface to be money well spent (especially when the capacity is way beyond normal use), it clearly sells more trucks. "Overbuilding" a truck doesn't return the same money as big spec sheets and advertising BIC tow ratings. While I get the argument that reputation of durability is its own sales tool, it is not immediate and is more costly. As you know Shiner, we couldn't afford the truck if the very highest quality components were used through out, so a balance of sorts is made. "Good enough" is the standard by which all of them are built. The ability of the OEM to find that fine line between "good enough" and "not good enough" is the real challenge.

Yeah, but I would rather them spend the money to make it more reliable and efficient at its current ratings than make it cost more with new(and unneeded) stuff just to get to a ridiculous 35k tow rating. However, I do get your point that these numbers sell trucks even it is pointless to most who buy them.

I just think it is a little ridiculous and wonder when enough will be enough. 40k, 50k 60k? Is there a point where these knuckle head fanboys who salivate at these numbers say "You know what, I don't think that size of truck should be rated to tow that." Until then, the costs will just keep going up and up and up to attain these numbers. For me, 30k(or even 25k) is enough and I would rather a manufacturer spend their time and money to make their trucks tow safer, are more reliable, and more efficient towing that weight, than to spend it to one up each other in a useless rating.

I also wish some of these guys knew how it works behind the scenes at a manufacturer when they are project planning and number crunching because it is probably not what they are thinking.