Gm 3.0 duramax deisel review

[ahopkins22LSV]

Wife and I agree that we are going to move forward with a new truck. So you guys would absolutely pay for the upgrade in the truck and higher fuel costs again? The range seems to somewhat if not mostly offset the fuel cost. And I just read on gm’s site that the 3.0 and the bigger duramax comes with 6 year/100k mileage warranty so that’s a selling point as I’m “promising” this will be our truck for a long time. I am skeptical of the longevity of the emissions system. I guess I should venture out in my research about that. 
 

Also, on the def, how often are you filling up?

[Bird]

I have a high country standard bed baby diesel at just over 5K miles and have only once filled with def.  The trip computer says average mileage is 26.6 and best was 38. 

[RyanB]

12 hours ago, jjackkrash said:

It sure is.  I found a tribal station with "cheap" diesel and it was 3.98.  Regular was 3.99.  Lots of places here are still near or even over $5 for diesel.  Ugg.  

I bought my first diesel in 1998, and have always had one in the garage since then.  There have been times when diesel was less than regular unleaded (even as recently as about 2018/2019), but that really has proven the exception, and the vast majority of the time it’s significantly more expensive.  And with the current energy policies, I think you will see that delta increase, not decrease.

I’m of the opinion that you buy the diesel (or specifically THIS diesel) because you enjoy the driving experience.  Which is fine, but too many people get hung up on the MPG and think they are saving money with it.  Most of the time, that is simply not true.  Trying to be objective, I think one of the reasons that people like the GM 3.0 is because it is a superior driving experience to the 5.3.  But if you compare it to the forced induction gas engines, it loses a lot of its advantages (probably even to the GM 2.7, although I haven’t driven that one).  

For example, the EcoBoost offers similar torque, gobs more HP (which you REALLY feel in acceleration), and the “effortless” feel as you can tow up any mountain pass running low RPMs with power to spare.  All while being able to run on regular unleaded at a much lower price per gallon, and lower cost per mile.

Look at that AVERAGE price per gallon of diesel in California - I’d absolutely choke paying $5.40/gallon every fill up on a daily driver.  Absolutely insane.

[jjackkrash]

21 minutes ago, RyanB said:

I’m of the opinion that you buy the diesel (or specifically THIS diesel) because you enjoy the driving experience.  

I agree with this sentiment generally if it's not a commercial vehicle.  I have the 6.2 in the Escalade and had the 3.0L in the AT4.  When I felt like driving aggressively around town with a lot of foot on the throttle I preferred the 6.2L.  But for chewing up road with a boat behind you the 3.0L is really hard to beat.  I would not pick the 5.3L option with the diesel available for the same or similar price.  And the really good milage of the diesel is a bonus (even if the fuel is usually more expensive).  With the 6.2L you are looking at premium so there's that.  I am sure the ecoboost is a good engine, but it's wrapped in a Ford.  So you have to factor that in as well.    

Edited March 9 by jjackkrash

[ahopkins22LSV]

25 minutes ago, RyanB said:

I bought my first diesel in 1998, and have always had one in the garage since then.  There have been times when diesel was less than regular unleaded (even as recently as about 2018/2019), but that really has proven the exception, and the vast majority of the time it’s significantly more expensive.  And with the current energy policies, I think you will see that delta increase, not decrease.

I’m of the opinion that you buy the diesel (or specifically THIS diesel) because you enjoy the driving experience.  Which is fine, but too many people get hung up on the MPG and think they are saving money with it.  Most of the time, that is simply not true.  Trying to be objective, I think one of the reasons that people like the GM 3.0 is because it is a superior driving experience to the 5.3.  But if you compare it to the forced induction gas engines, it loses a lot of its advantages (probably even to the GM 2.7, although I haven’t driven that one).  

For example, the EcoBoost offers similar torque, gobs more HP (which you REALLY feel in acceleration), and the “effortless” feel as you can tow up any mountain pass running low RPMs with power to spare.  All while being able to run on regular unleaded at a much lower price per gallon, and lower cost per mile.

Look at that AVERAGE price per gallon of diesel in California - I’d absolutely choke paying $5.40/gallon every fill up on a daily driver.  Absolutely insane.

Luckily I never plan to live in California

You're points are valid though. It is 2390 msrp to add the 3.0 with the 10 speed. Now you also get front bucket seats which is normally 620 to add. So call it 1770 to add the 3.0. Pretty fair and much less then adding the 6.6 in the HD's. Obviously fuel will be more each fill up but I currently get 350-370 miles per tank in my 5.3 8spd which lasts me about a week. Seems like I will be getting about 550 miles per tank with the 3.0. Same size tanks for the diesel and gas options. That is significant. The 3.0 also gets a 6 year / 100k powertrain warranty which is significantly more than the gas options. There is a lot to like in the 1770 cost plus added fuel costs.

[UWSkier]

1 hour ago, ahopkins22LSV said:

Luckily I never plan to live in California

You're points are valid though. It is 2390 msrp to add the 3.0 with the 10 speed. Now you also get front bucket seats which is normally 620 to add. So call it 1770 to add the 3.0. Pretty fair and much less then adding the 6.6 in the HD's. Obviously fuel will be more each fill up but I currently get 350-370 miles per tank in my 5.3 8spd which lasts me about a week. Seems like I will be getting about 550 miles per tank with the 3.0. Same size tanks for the diesel and gas options. That is significant. The 3.0 also gets a 6 year / 100k powertrain warranty which is significantly more than the gas options. There is a lot to like in the 1770 cost plus added fuel costs.

The baby Dmax will drink DEF when towing.  That's about the only beef I've really heard about it here or on the camper forums.
Is the HD with 6.6L gasser out?

[jjackkrash]

The flip side is it sips DEF when not towing.  Same with the HD.  But both do seem to suck it down under load.  

[RyanB]

1 hour ago, jjackkrash said:

I agree with this sentiment generally if it's not a commercial vehicle.  I have the 6.2 in the Escalade and had the 3.0L in the AT4.  When I felt like driving aggressively around town with a lot of foot on the throttle I preferred the 6.2L.  But for chewing up road with a boat behind you the 3.0L is really hard to beat.  I would not pick the 5.3L option with the diesel available for the same or similar price.  And the really good milage of the diesel is a bonus (even if the fuel is usually more expensive).  With the 6.2L you are looking at premium so there's that.  I am sure the ecoboost is a good engine, but it's wrapped in a Ford.  So you have to factor that in as well.    

I’d put pretty much any of the direct injection turbo gas in a 150/1500 platform up against the 3.0 Duramax any day of the week.  Basically same transmissions.  Same torque with flat torque bands, and 100 more HP.  They will absolutely out-tow the Duramax.  The only advantage the Duramax would have is towing MPG and cost per mile, but if you are towing a lot, you’d be better off in a 2500.

The reason that it is appealing in GM is because it is GM, and it may be the best overall option.  Like you said, the 6.2 needs premium fuel, comes at a premium price, and doesn’t have the flat power delivery curve.  Both the Hurricane and the EcoBoost are objectively better options than the GM offerings.  And while I am not a fan of the Ford, I’d make a strong argument that the Hurricane comes in the best wrapper available

 

[ahopkins22LSV]

24 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

The baby Dmax will drink DEF when towing.  That's about the only beef I've really heard about it here or on the camper forums.
Is the HD with 6.6L gasser out?

Yeah I think so. Wife was already skeptical of going to the 6.6’ bed in the 1500. She doesn’t really want anything bigger than that. 

Just now, jjackkrash said:

The flip side is it sips DEF when not towing.  Same with the HD.  But both do seem to suck it down under load.  

Luckily 90% of my towing is within an hour each direction. 2-3 times a year we take the boat up north that is a 3-4 hour drive. The majority of our camping trips will be for bike races in which we won’t have the boat but the 6.6’ bed will be very welcomed. 

[Pnwrider]

17 hours ago, redrooster said:

things i dont like

Electronic E brake. 

The bed is short. 

Everything now has electronic e brake. The one in my gmc worked fine and I never had an issue with (always released as soon as I touched the gas pedal). I can’t stand the one in my new Subaru though. It’s got a mind of its own and doesn’t release half the time it should. 
Regarding the short bed, get the 6.75’ bed instead of the 5.5’. Add a larger fuel tank too. That’s was my biggest complaint on my AT4. Tiny fuel tank. 

[dshack]

9 minutes ago, Pnwrider said:

Regarding the short bed, get the 6.75’ bed instead of the 5.5’.

I agree. Unless you are unable to fit it in your garage, the longer bed (or the standard on the HDs) is really nice. Especially if you want to do a retractable tonneau cover which can kill almost a foot of bed space at the top. With the cameras on our new HD truck, my wife is more comfortable driving it vs our old short bed half ton.

[jjackkrash]

58 minutes ago, RyanB said:

I’d put pretty much any of the direct injection turbo gas in a 150/1500 platform up against the 3.0 Duramax any day of the week.

I did own a Tundra with the DI Turbo 6 (not hybrid) and I'd take either the 6.2 or the 3.0L over it.  It was solid but it was a little laggy and felt a little more peaky.  Just preference I guess.  It's good to have choices.  

[rennis]

4 hours ago, RyanB said:

I’d put pretty much any of the direct injection turbo gas in a 150/1500 platform up against the 3.0 Duramax any day of the week.  Basically same transmissions.  Same torque with flat torque bands, and 100 more HP.  They will absolutely out-tow the Duramax.  The only advantage the Duramax would have is towing MPG and cost per mile, but if you are towing a lot, you’d be better off in a 2500.

The reason that it is appealing in GM is because it is GM, and it may be the best overall option.  Like you said, the 6.2 needs premium fuel, comes at a premium price, and doesn’t have the flat power delivery curve.  Both the Hurricane and the EcoBoost are objectively better options than the GM offerings.  And while I am not a fan of the Ford, I’d make a strong argument that the Hurricane comes in the best wrapper available

 

I second all of this.  I test drove a baby dirty max Tahoe last summer, we were considering upgrading my wife's SUV and backup tow rig. I drove it straight from the dealer to our house and hitched our boat up to it.  That thing was SLOW with the boat behind it.  It was great otherwise but the power just wasn't enough for towing, in my opinion.  It would probably be good to about 5k pounds.  Past that?  Nah.  My 3.5L F150 was thirsty compared to the duramax (duh) but pulled our boat far, far better.  What you're saying above was my exact experience.  

And then I upgraded the F150 to a F250 diesel and I am never, ever, ever going back to a half ton.  There is simply no comparison. 

[redrooster]

Is it slow?  Or is it steady?   I just put 3 yards in my dump trailer and it pulled it easier than my ram 2500 6.4.   And with triple the mileage.  I hit some hills where the ram would be in first gear struggling to get to 35.  The dirty was just chilling.  

 

Now with no trailer brakes coming to a stop waa much more interesting.  I can only imagine how much better the 3.72 gears are.  

[UWSkier]

The baby DMax won't win a drag race against the EcoBoost towing a heavy trailer, but the RPMs it turns in the long mountain pulls when it's 110F out here will have your transmission temps much much happier.

[ahopkins22LSV]

1 hour ago, redrooster said:

Is it slow?  Or is it steady?   I just put 3 yards in my dump trailer and it pulled it easier than my ram 2500 6.4.   And with triple the mileage.  I hit some hills where the ram would be in first gear struggling to get to 35.  The dirty was just chilling.  

 

Now with no trailer brakes coming to a stop waa much more interesting.  I can only imagine how much better the 3.72 gears are.  

Good to hear. I’m going to get the max tow package. I think the slightly less fuel economy while not towing will pay off when towing. 

[ndahlberg12]

We need to start a petition to Costco to bring back diesel to their stations. They saved me thousands over the last 13 years of diesel ownership compared to having to buy diesel at other places. Their lower price really helped offset the gas to diesel delta.  Really disappointed they took them out in our area. Plus I always knew it was fresh diesel. 

[ahopkins22LSV]

Didn’t even notice they didn’t have diesel. Well that’s bummer. Sam’s doesn’t either it looks. Right now prices are ranging from 3.97-4.29 in my area per the gas buddy app. 

[redrooster]

This is from 4 years ago.  The dirty max has increased in power and torque.  

 

https://youtu.be/PS_VxHdiYHg?si=CZEdCRANrcW2mHo1

[ahopkins22LSV]

Smoked a Ram. Sold. 

[redrooster]

First trip cross the state.  255 miles with a large pass thrown in.  Plus high head winds after the pass until destination.  Averaged 30.2 mpg going 75-80 mph.   

Still have 400 miles left on the tank.  Def use waa non existent.  

Stopped in a little town called Ellensburg and got some taco bell.  They have two charges for ev vehicles by their store.  There waa a lineup for them.   I drove by with window down and yelled "get a deisel!"   

This truck should be a Rivian killer.  Lol. 

I think on the way back I'll get around 35 mpg with the wind at my back.  

Edited March 11 by redrooster

[Bluefishcay]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:44 PM, amartin said:

Agree on the DEF.  Seems alot of people use filling DEF as a reason to avoid these.  When not towing for long distances, DEF is a once every couple of months thing for me.

I though that the regen process was wholly independent of DEF though?  My (limited) understanding is that the regen is accomplished by adjusting the fuel / air mixture to raise exhaust temps to burn off the filter, but did not consume DEF to do this.

Correct DEF is to control NoX, dpf is particulate.  Unfortunately nox is created by high combustion chamber temperature, so to make less nox you have to burn more fuel (ie richer mixture).  This also tends to fill the dpf faster, which requires more regen cycles.   When towing you make more nox, thus more def is consumed.   If nox emission levels were higher, diesels could get better economy and create less soot, but the epa in its wisdom set them similar to gas vehicles without considering the difference between the two power plants. 
 

dpf is lit off for cleaning with extra fuel.   If it gets too full it can’t be lit off as it will get too hot.  Then the only option is to remove it and manually clean it.   Removing a dpf will reduce engine temps and increase fuel milage.  Unfortunately it is illegal to remove them.  Had a tdi with it removed and it was 2-3 mpg better without it.  So you are trading co2 emissions for particulate emissions.  

[rennis]

On 3/9/2024 at 3:24 PM, redrooster said:

Is it slow?  Or is it steady?   I just put 3 yards in my dump trailer and it pulled it easier than my ram 2500 6.4.   And with triple the mileage.  I hit some hills where the ram would be in first gear struggling to get to 35.  The dirty was just chilling.  

 

Now with no trailer brakes coming to a stop waa much more interesting.  I can only imagine how much better the 3.72 gears are.  

It was slow.  Very very slow.  Like foot to the floor and check my wristwatch multiple times while it got up to highway speed.   On a grade it felt uncomfortable to me.  I haven't weighed our boat and trailer but guessing it was somewhere around 7k with the gear and fuel it had it in at that time of the test drive.

On its own it was awesome.  Great mileage and pulled awesome on the highway, all of the things you said above were accurate.  I liked it a lot on its own just wasn't confidence inspiring under acceleration pulling the boat.  I should say it was also a little sluggish in stop and go just due to diesel off-idle throttle response but that would be easily improved if needed.  I really liked it overall and still would have considered it but wife didn't like anything about it.  We're now looking at hybrid Sequoia's and 3.5L Expeditions instead.  6.2L Denali is possible but she hated the ergonomics of the Tahoe and I keep trying to explain that won't change with the Denali but she won't listen to me.  
 

Edited March 11 by rennis

[dshack]

1 hour ago, rennis said:

It was slow.  Very very slow.  Like foot to the floor and check my wristwatch multiple times while it got up to highway speed.   On a grade it felt uncomfortable to me.  I haven't weighed our boat and trailer but guessing it was somewhere around 7k with the gear and fuel it had it in at that time of the test drive.

On its own it was awesome.  Great mileage and pulled awesome on the highway, all of the things you said above were accurate.  I liked it a lot on its own just wasn't confidence inspiring under acceleration pulling the boat.

My experience wasn't quite that bad, but I did find that at a certain weight/grade the 3L Duramax just hit a wall. It was hunting for the right gear, but to pull the weight it had to downshift and then it was running at a RPM that was just too high for a diesel to be efficient. So like you said, I had to just let it take its sweet time to accelerate.

It felt like my old 6L monsoon 409 with too much weight in the back haha!

[ahopkins22LSV]

1 hour ago, rennis said:

It was slow.  Very very slow.  Like foot to the floor and check my wristwatch multiple times while it got up to highway speed.   On a grade it felt uncomfortable to me.  I haven't weighed our boat and trailer but guessing it was somewhere around 7k with the gear and fuel it had it in at that time of the test drive.

On its own it was awesome.  Great mileage and pulled awesome on the highway, all of the things you said above were accurate.  I liked it a lot on its own just wasn't confidence inspiring under acceleration pulling the boat.  I should say it was also a little sluggish in stop and go just due to diesel off-idle throttle response but that would be easily improved if needed.  I really liked it overall and still would have considered it but wife didn't like anything about it.  We're now looking at hybrid Sequoia's and 3.5L Expeditions instead.  6.2L Denali is possible but she hated the ergonomics of the Tahoe and I keep trying to explain that won't change with the Denali but she won't listen to me.  
 

Do you know what rear axle ratio the Tahoe had? I assume it had the 10spd transmission as well?