Chevy 3.0 first tow.

[LITEPHIL]

After 500 easy miles I hooked her up and hit the mountains. There's a handful of 6 and 7% grades and it was around 100 degrees out. But I have to first mention the empty mileage doing 55 mph this thing got crazy good mileage. 38.9 mpg on a 52 mile trip

That probably won't happen often but it did.
Going up to the Mogollon Rim is a pretty good pull and my trailer was right at 7,400 lbs. I set the cruise at 60 and it sat around 1500-2400 rpms. On the hills I dropped the cruise to 55 and it stayed around 2500-3000 rpms and on the 6-7% hills I dropped the cruise to 50 and it sat around 3400 rpm with plenty left over.
I was really surprised with how well the engine brake worked on the down hills. I pretty much left the cruise on and it would just keep down shifting as it needed to hold the speed and worked with out the cruise on too.
I was surprised how well it pulled the hills but the mileage was my biggest surprise. I got a solid 12 miles to the gallon on the way up and 16.7 mpg on the way back down. With about 10 miles unhooked while I was there. The trip averaged a confirmed 14.5 miles per gallon.
I have done this trip many times with many different trailers and trucks and if I ever got 10 mpg on the whole trip I was doing ok.
In the past I would never risk trying to make it on one tank but this thing was between a 1/4 and 1/2 tank when I got home.
I went ahead and got a new 4way hitch also and I would have to say that this truck really handled my weight well.
If I were towing over 8,000 lbs I would get a 3/4 ton truck but I am really impressed with this truck.
I did try manually shifting but found it a waste of time since going uphill or downhill this thing seemed to find the right gear.
I did take it easy since it is new but VERY happy with the first tow!

[Dadoffourgirls]

FishOnOne wrote:


Also it appears the 3.0 won't be available in GM '23 SUV's so another reduction in availability.

The order guide has the LM2 Duramax listed for the 23 SUVs. It is not the revised LZ0 that is going in the 1500 pickups.

[FishOnOne]

LITEPHIL wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
GM needs to ditch the internal rubber belt that's on the rear side of the engine. Since they took some internet heat on this design, maybe on the next gen they will go with a traditional chain.

Why? I have never heard of one failure. 150,000 miles is way down the road and they're saying after 200,000 miles it still looks perfect.
Doubt I'll have this truck more then 10 years and even so, a couple grand isn't a big deal after 10 or 15 years for a maintenance item. Think of these hybrids and what kind of expenses they will incur in ten years. None issue

I agree the hybrids will be very expensive to repair. With that said as the emissions and fuel economy requirements get more stringent vehicle cost and repairs will go up too.

Also it appears the 3.0 won't be available in GM '23 SUV's so another reduction in availability.

[LITEPHIL]

FishOnOne wrote:
GM needs to ditch the internal rubber belt that's on the rear side of the engine. Since they took some internet heat on this design, maybe on the next gen they will go with a traditional chain.

Why? I have never heard of one failure. 150,000 miles is way down the road and they're saying after 200,000 miles it still looks perfect.
Doubt I'll have this truck more then 10 years and even so, a couple grand isn't a big deal after 10 or 15 years for a maintenance item. Think of these hybrids and what kind of expenses they will incur in ten years. None issue

[LITEPHIL]

Grit dog wrote:
That’s good mileage for that size trailer, but everything gets good mileage driving that slow.
I get 7-8mpg towing the toyhauler with the brodozer and 7-8 towing a 6klb boat with a new V8 half ton….at 75-80mph.
Drop that to 55-60mph and I’m looking at 11-12 mpg pulling a camper that is double the weight, way taller and with a truck that is the epitome of poor setup for fuel mileage. 7.5’ tall, and under-geared on 37s with a 90hp tune.
It’s all relative, but love folks who like to feel good about their fuel mileage!

This was a mountain pull with 6 and 7 percent grades. I have been driving the route for 20 years with a 350, two 5.3s, three 6.0s,an 8.1,06 Durmax, and a 06 and 07 Cummins with different trailers and none got better then 10 mpg on the same trip. 50-60 mph is not that slow on steep mountain passes with heavy winds.

[4x4ord]

That fuel economy is amazing. Nice to have a truck you're happy with.

[Grit_dog]

^And yet, it never really caught on. Neither has Fords 3.0. Idk why, really.
With the Dodge 3.0, folks in the know would barely recommend them over walking to your destination.
I don’t have any personal experience with any of them but with the EcoD, reliability issues are cited.
And it still doesn’t add up to me considering the 3litre diesel platform is sort of the backbone of light duty diesels almost worldwide.

[Bionic_Man]

FishOnOne wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
I am a big proponent of the small diesels. My EcoDiesel Grand Cherokee was one of my favorite vehicles I have had. If I were buying a 1500 today, it would be a diesel.

One question. Why so slow on the speeds? And your comparisons of being happy it’s 10 MPG, were those at the same speeds?

The 3.0 in the Fords is all but gone and the 3.0 Eco Diesel in the Rams is probably not far behind. I recall predicting these engines will probably not last long in the market and with the next round of emissions standards and diesel fuel prices at a premium that maybe the last straw.

The EcoDiesel has been around for nearly 10 years.....

[Grit_dog]

That’s good mileage for that size trailer, but everything gets good mileage driving that slow.
I get 7-8mpg towing the toyhauler with the brodozer and 7-8 towing a 6klb boat with a new V8 half ton….at 75-80mph.
Drop that to 55-60mph and I’m looking at 11-12 mpg pulling a camper that is double the weight, way taller and with a truck that is the epitome of poor setup for fuel mileage. 7.5’ tall, and under-geared on 37s with a 90hp tune.
It’s all relative, but love folks who like to feel good about their fuel mileage!

[FishOnOne]

Bionic Man wrote:
I am a big proponent of the small diesels. My EcoDiesel Grand Cherokee was one of my favorite vehicles I have had. If I were buying a 1500 today, it would be a diesel.

One question. Why so slow on the speeds? And your comparisons of being happy it’s 10 MPG, were those at the same speeds?

The 3.0 in the Fords is all but gone and the 3.0 Eco Diesel in the Rams is probably not far behind. I recall predicting these engines will probably not last long in the market and with the next round of emissions standards and diesel fuel prices at a premium that maybe the last straw.

[FishOnOne]

GM needs to ditch the internal rubber belt that's on the rear side of the engine. Since they took some internet heat on this design, maybe on the next gen they will go with a traditional chain.

[Bionic_Man]

I am a big proponent of the small diesels. My EcoDiesel Grand Cherokee was one of my favorite vehicles I have had. If I were buying a 1500 today, it would be a diesel.

One question. Why so slow on the speeds? And your comparisons of being happy it’s 10 MPG, were those at the same speeds?

[Grit_dog]

To be fair, they have a completely different lifter issue and a completely different cylinder management setup than the older AFM engines.

To your point though, yes a similar issue.
Pick your poison between the brands.

[mkirsch]

I forgot about the 3.0 Duramax. Thanks for reminding me.

Sitting here with my daily driver's 5.3L having seized another lifter, waiting for a quote from an independent mechanic. Nothing to do but shop for new ones. Not buying another 5.3L, as they appear to STILL have the lifter issue.

[LITEPHIL]

Thank you all. Yes, I would very much recommend the 3.0 Duramax in a heart beat!
It has exceeded my expectations and is a fast little bugger too!