So you still wish you had a bought Chevy!!rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl rotfl I don't know if anybody has mentioned this yet or not, but a lot of the "wallowing" that some GM IFS rigs have is caused by the shoddy GM shocks. They just plain suck. You get a much more stable ride when you switch out for an aftermarket shock, such as Bilstiens. The truck feels much firmer and tighter when you are cornering.
Thats not possible since I never wanted a Chevy pickup in the first place. I think the shocks cancel themselves out, since Dodge and Ford don't exactly use the best quality shocks either.
Says who?? You cant get a DMAX with the plow prep pkg b/c they already have all of the components needed...i.e. HD alternator, HD Torsion bars, dual batterys etc I am pretty sure that this is a common misconception however I could be wrong!! Check out plowsite.com there are lots of guys running plows on Dmax's
As I recall, the problem is not the equpment, but that the front axle weight rating is too low for any but the smallest/lightest of plows. Of course, some mount them anyway, but the front suspension was too soft and sagged too much, so they added the Tembrins (or however they are spelled).
Yeah, as long as you put Timbrens and stiffer shocks on, a Duramax can handle the plow fine. That problem is only with the 3500 crew cabs. The 2500HD and 3500 gas can take a plow with no extra trouble. There is also a thread about this on www.letstalksnow.com.
Looks like GM’s front axle weight rating (GAWR) is only 4670 lbs on the 2500 and 4800 lbs on the 3500. Dodge is 5200 lbs for both 3/4 and 1 tons and Ford is a whopping 6000 lbs for both. Don’t know what the unloaded front weights with the diesels are, but it’s a safe bet that for the highest snow plow weight carrying capacity, Ford wins. Pickups have been used to plow snow forever. To buy a new truck and have to prop up the front suspension with aftermarket parts is lame. GM could have done the Timberns too, but I suspect there are other weak links in the suspension besides just the springs. GM decided to forsake the diesel plow truck market in favor of plush grocery getters, thats a shame. But go ahead, mount that v plow on a new $40K+ Dmax , pull into a GM dealer riding on the bump stops and then ask for a warranty repair of a cv joint, ball joint, unit bearing or some other damaged front end part. Let us know what happens.oke:
I honestly think a Dmax could probably hold up a snow plow just fine. I have seen multiple K5 Blazers with snow plows hanging off the front of them. Granted, a K5 has a solid front axle, but it's also a half ton.
waytogo I agree. Heck, there are even S-10 running around with plows. And not just those snowsports. They have real plows!
See, I don't understand this thinking either. Out of all the 4x4s sold, how many mount plows? Way, WAY less that 1% would be my guess. So everyone should take the more harsh ride just so a few can mount a plow on a stock truck? Of course they could have added something like Timbrens to the "plow option" if they offered one, but then again, as mentioned, it would be a warranty issue when things break. I can certainly see GM management discussing the value of lost sales due to no plow option vs. the cost of warranty issues (and more parts to support, options to track, stock to maintain, etc.) that would result, and deciding it's not worth fooling with. The fact that many people do plow with the GMs, and I've seen no problems reported other than the need for the timbrens, seems to indicate that the GM is not deficient in this category other than lacking a factory "plow prep" package.
bigHD, snow plow prep is not an option with the Dmax. I’ve seen plows on Subarus, an AMC Eagle and I even tried to mount one to a bicycle as a kid, so what does that have to do with the Dmax? BTW my current plow truck is a K5 (with a D60 front axle and custom plow mount). I get away with it, but I have seen a couple stock of K5s with frame damage where the plow mounted to the truck frame. Though, none of this is relevant to the Dmax. Any truck can be overloaded and survive..... for a while. Thanks Baddog, you made my argument for me, though I’m not sure why everyone would have to suffer, that is what an "option" or "option package" is for. I do agree with your assessment that Gm figured it wasn’t worth the risk of warranty claims. That assessment supports the theory that the front axle or frame or whatever would be over stressed with the installation of a heavy plow. Bottom line is: GM has the weakest front axle of the big three. So unless someone can show that GM uses a larger safety factor when calculating GAWR, it is an issue for a plow truck. It might be an issue for the slide in camper crowd too, I don’t know. I do agree that it is a non-issue for most diesel owners and all the gassers. The deficiency is that GM engineering feels their top of the line "heavy duty" pickup truck is not strong enough for a plow and the Dmax. That was good enough for me to switch brands. Doesn’t mean the GM with the Dmax is a bad truck, just not the best on the planet as many tend to preach.
It was an option. I thought the only truck you couldn't get it on was the 3500. If so I stand corrected.waytogo I guess the S-10 deal didnt have a lot to do with the Duramax.:doah: But I was just making a point. I thought this was going to turn into "oh IFS is so weak...blah,blah,blah" thing. No harm, no foul!waytogo
Brods: I was making 2 points. First, that to effectively support that super heavy nose niche market (plows) would likely have impacted everyone to some extent just in the supporting design, option or not. This might be extra cost for a different (heavier) frame that most don't need, or compromises in the basic suspension that otherwise works fantastic (IMO) for a 4x4 tow rig that sees 99%+ street duty. The second point was the "option" option. Again, this would be less effective without the other supporting elements in the base design, AND particularly without those elements in place, presents and unacceptable risk to GM. They certainly could have supported the plow market, but I for one am glad that they did not force me to pay extra for the extra beef and potentially compromise MY use so that they could support a niche market. In short, if they could support any niche without extra cost or involvement, I’m sure they would as they would not be so foolish as to close a door on potential buyers without reason. And given the extensive engineering, revision, and review of producing the current HD line, I’m also sure it was not a “oh crap, we can’t carry a plow” last minute revelation. Which all combined is why I say that the required compromise/cost should not have been imposed on the rest of us… You guys have plenty of other options, nobody says GM has to play on every field, and I for one am glad they don’t… In any case, you’re not going to get an argument from me on your general point. GM has a target customer, and that does not include everyone. If you plow, or want to lift and run big tires (for poser status or real off-road), and I'm sure in other things I can't think of right now; then you probably shouldn't be looking at a GM at all. However, for a large number of people, the GM design is superior. To each their own, according to their needs...
I think you are over exaggerating the effect of increasing the strength of the front end. They could easily have beefed it up without much, if any, noticeable effect for the non-plow optioned trucks. Its not like they would hang an extra 1,000 lbs of steel on the front at a cost of hundreds of dollars while destroying the glorious IFS ride in the process.... the current front ends or the GM designers aren’t that weak, are they?oke: If the truck was a brand new, clean sheet design and they didn’t offer the Dmax with the capacity to accept a plow, then I’d agree it was intentional. Since the truck design has been around for awhile (since 1988?), I seriously doubt they had made a deliberate decision to forgo the diesel plow market right from the start. More likely they backed themselves into a corner using existing parts, where, as you say, the cost to get out was not worth expected the benefit. If you have factual information to the contrary, please do share it. As for cost impact, every truck currently has many items engineered into the truck for a "niche" market segment that cost precious extra pennies to manufacture (like the ability of the tcase to accept a pto). A stronger front end would cost very little per truck and would arguably be of more value to most buyers than the capability to mount a pto or other "niche" market items. Maybe you think GM’s design is at its peak and shouldn’t change. I welcome the constant improvement by manufacturers in an attempt to out do the competition and cover as many of the market segments as possible. All of todays trucks would not be as good as they are without that competition. I’ll even buy ya a beer, if after the next major mechanical redesign, like switching to coils, GM still does not approve of a plow with the Dmax Crew. I hope they do and would consider buying Chevy trucks again if they also made them look more like the 2002 model year! BTW the Detroit Free Press said market analysts have downgraded their outlook for Ford because they think the GM redesign will take market share away from the F series pickups. Anybody have some news on the new 2500 and 3500 mechanicals?
I’m not exaggerating anything. It would take extra work, not only for (I’m guessing) frame upgrades, suspension component upgrades, and making other changes (electrical? Mounting points? ???) so that an official, supported (and warranted) “plow option” would be supported. And I really don’t know for sure, but as I understand it, the ’01 was pretty much a new design. <shrug> I could easily be wrong, but I lack enough interest to pursue that, so I’ll leave it to someone more motivated to provide proof or references one way or the other. <shrug> And yes, every manufacturer HAS chosen some set of niche markets to support, and some not to support. Each has market areas they have “passed on”; GM with the plows, Dodge with working crews or CCs, or Ford with a dependable diesel (sorry couldn’t resist ). But *by definition* niche markets are very narrow and do not have wide appeal. I do not find it hard to believe that any manufacturer might decide that some niche is “saturated” and determine that it is not worth their entry, or even to stay where they once were. If the market is saturated, then ANY investment in that area is not worth while unless you can amortize it across ALL sales without loosing ground. And GM already has the highest price truck going, so what would you suggest they do? As for GM at it’s peak, oh dear god I hope not. I think that they, like all the rest have more areas that they can improve than areas they get “right”. And each time they gain ground in one area, they loose it in another (particularly body style IMO), so it’s been more or less stagnant for MANY years, unless you only consider specific functionality so that someone can say things like “GM just sucks after 86/91 because they went IFS” or to make some other equally narrow minded assertion. In any case, I do fully agree that competition is a great thing and is the only thing keeping these mega companies from sliding back into the downward spiral dark ages of the 80s. And I also agree that I would like to see them bring back the look of the ’01-’02 trucks, as well as that they should make these trucks better and more capable in all ways, as long as the price doesn’t continue to escalate (seemingly without limit). My beef is not with people wanting them to support plows, or wanting them to support SFA, or whatever. My beef is with people who feel compelled to label anything that does not seem custom tailored for their needs (plow, SFA, or otherwise) as inferior. Going back to your earlier post on the subject, I think we are in complete agreement at the point of saying “It is a matter or priorities, each has their strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, and the “best” is determined by a persons needs, not by loyalty or some popularity contest. Ahh, I love a good debate. But I would like the opportunity to argue the other side once in a while. Maybe I should go off to one of the brand loyal GM tow rig sites for a while just for a change of pace. But then I would just get banned or harassed for “being a troll” or “stirring up trouble”… So I guess I’ll just hang here and fend off the angry hordes of Ford and Dodge fanatics, forever jealous and unhappy that they didn’t get a GM, all doing their best in a futile effort to self justify that mistake… :stir: imp:
