# Chevrolet 1500hd



## Bull Elk (Feb 28, 2005)

I decided that at least this time around that I want to stay with a gas engine. I will be using this vehicle for work at about 40,000 miles per year. Maybe pull the 28rsds 1,500-2,000 per year. For this reason, I am as concerned about extra mileage per gallon as I am with stability when towing. Will the 3.73 rear-end give me what I need or do I need to go for the 4.10. If I was only pulling the Outback, I know that I would go with the 4.10, but this is the real world and I need to pay for the trips somehow. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks - Rich


----------



## Katrina (Dec 16, 2004)

4.10 no question.
difference in gas mileage is minimal.
difference in towing performance is major.


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

There was a topic started with a lot of people giving the MPG with towing and not. Might be good research reading for you and the answer might be in there on MPG.

John


----------



## drobe5150 (Jan 21, 2005)

i second the 4.10.

darrel


----------



## 7heaven (Jun 4, 2005)

I always thought the smaller rear end was better,







but then I learned with towing it's the opposite.....


----------



## nynethead (Sep 23, 2005)

the 4.10 will permit higher towing. but the 3.73 will do. Better milage from the 3.73 on the highway no difference around town. I have the same truck and tow a 29BHS and I have a 3.42, not by choice all I could get with the options I wanted at the end of the year. Does great on gas and good on towing.


----------



## stapless (Feb 20, 2005)

Katrina said:


> 4.10 no question.
> difference in gas mileage is minimal.
> difference in towing performance is major.
> [snapback]87196[/snapback]​


my thoughts exactly!! I would have got the 4.1 in both of ours if I could have. we bought at the end of the year and there weren't any left.

scott


----------



## Ghosty (Jan 17, 2005)

I have the 3.73 and have no problems .. best of both worlds...


----------



## GoVols (Oct 7, 2005)

I'm not looking at quite as much trailer as you, but I decided to go with the 1500 4x4 5.3L/3.73 since 90% of my driving will be commuting to/from work. The 1500HD mileage scared me off. After 4000 miles, I'm averaging 17.5 mpg commuting, 18+ if I take it really easy. That would be down in the 12-14 range with the HD.

If only 5% of your mileage is going to be towing the camper, I'd say go with the 3.73 to eek out another 1/2 mpg.


----------



## luv2rv (Jun 21, 2004)

Not sure about gas mileage difference but I have a 2500 Regular Duty Sierra with 3:73 gears - rated to tow 8600LBS. With the 4:10 gears that goes up to 10,200LBS. No other changes to truck .. just gears.

Something to consider in case the fever hits ... you buy yourself some wiggle room.
Wayne


----------



## uh-60guy (Feb 6, 2006)

I have a 1500hd w/3.73 gears and have had no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

I'd recommend the 4:10 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. How much more for the 4:10 vs. 3:73? I can't imagine it's that much more and you'll have what you really need vs. just getting by.


----------



## Bull Elk (Feb 28, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> I'd recommend the 4:10 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. How much more for the 4:10 vs. 3:73? I can't imagine it's that much more and you'll have what you really need vs. just getting by.
> [snapback]87545[/snapback]​


I am actually looking to buy a 1500HD and there should be no diffirence in price. I just am concerned about how much difference in tow, not just on paper, and also difference in mileage, since most of my miles will not be towing miles and they will come quick. I am O.K. with the suburban with 3.73's and the 5.3 liter, but I would like something better. This vehicle will have the 6.0 liter as well. If I understand correctly, GMC and Chevrolet have dropped the medium duty 2500 and gone back to the 1500HD. I do not think alot has changed, but it must be about marketing. Thanks for the input - Rich


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Bull Elk said:


> Oregon_Camper said:
> 
> 
> > I'd recommend the 4:10 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. How much more for the 4:10 vs. 3:73? I can't imagine it's that much more and you'll have what you really need vs. just getting by.
> ...


I've been told by a friend and the dealer that you will actaully get better milage with a 4:10 vs. a 3:73. I'm NOT an expert on this, so let's see what other have to say.

You'll be able to tow the same weight, it's simply how well it tows over Mtn/Hills. I have the 4:10 in my Suburban and I have to wait for my friend that has a 3:73 Suburban (with a smaller trailer) as we drive over the Mountian passes here in Oregon. Hope some of this helps...


----------



## Katrina (Dec 16, 2004)

4.10 will give better mileage towing
4.10 will give better mileage around town.
3.73 will give better mileage on the highway, but not by alot.

the difference in towing between the two is like night and day if you ask me, and I've owned both.


----------



## shaela21 (Aug 16, 2005)

I have the Sierra 1500 with the 4.10 rear end, and everytime we go camping we have to cross over a mountain, and I am glad that I have the higher ratio. Lots of torque when it is needed, so I will say definitely go for the 4.10 if you can. I asked the dealership when I bought the truck about the mileage with the 4.10, and it was minimal (I asked someone who would know, not the junior salesperson out to make a sale).


----------



## GoVols (Oct 7, 2005)

From talking with GM folks, the mileage penalty between the 3.42 and the 3.73 is about 0.5 mpg, another 0.3 to 0.5 mpg between the 3.73 and the 4.10. Over the course of 40,000 miles per year, a 0.5 mpg difference at $2.25/gal gas is a little over $400.

GM puts lower ratio 3.42 rear ends in their 1500s as standard equip. to boost their corporate mileage, that's why 3.73 and 4.10 are optional equipment. The 1500HD should come standard with the 3.73. On my 2006 1500 Crew the 3.73 was a $150 option.

There is likely less mpg difference between the 4.10 and the 3.73 than will be attributed to the difference in the 6.0L and the 5.3L engines and the curb weight of the vehicles (1500 vs 1500HD). The 1500HD is a three quarter ton truck underneath that skin; someone's idea of marketing to call it a "1500".


----------



## wicandthing (Jul 11, 2005)

I purchased a 2500HD with the 6.0 and the 4.10 in January. Made the first trip with the camper this weekend. It wasn't a long one, but it was enough to let me know that I like the combo. I had the 1500 with 5.3 and 3.42 prior and it tanked..... The 3.73 I had earlier was not bad, but I didn't use it to pull the Outback.

In my opinion, get the 4.10 and know that you have the best torque you can get in combination with the 6.0L....


----------



## PDX_Doug (Nov 16, 2004)

Tough one, Rich.

I guess it will depend on your towing environment. If you will be pulling in the mountains and/or high elevation and/or extreme winds, I would say go with the 4.10, and just figure the extra fuel you burn is part of the cost of doing business. If you are in the flat lands, I would suggest that you will be fine with the 3.73.

Just my 2 cents









Happy Trails,
Doug


----------



## snsgraham (May 18, 2004)

4.10 if you can get it!

Scott


----------



## muliedon (Jul 6, 2005)

Rich:

I have the 1500hd with a 6.0 and 3.73 rear end, and pull a 28bh. I have never felt like I could use more power or torque, except on my trip to the Black Hills last summer. We did fine until we got on I-90 at Mitchell, and from there to Rapid City we had a pretty strong head wind. It was a struggle going up some of the grades, and just maintaining 60 was difficult on some of the flatter areas. I averaged only about 6 mpg from Chamberlain on. Pulling the trailer through the Black Hills was not bad, but there is never really any place where I was trying to go much over 50 anyway. The rest of the trips have been here in Nebraska and have gone much better. I have lightened the load a bit, and stopped taking a tank full of water. I average about 14 mpg normally and about 8 to 10 with the trailer. I do have a friend that has the same truck only with the 4.10, and I do get about 1.5 to 2 mpg more than he does empty. I always wanted to hook his truck up to the trailer to see if there was much difference or not. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have gone with at least the 4.10 rear end and perhaps the 2500hd with the 8.1. This would have given me the option to go bigger or to a 5er in the future. I do not think that I would want to go with any bigger trailer with my current truck. Hope this helps.

Don


----------



## WIOutbacker (Feb 12, 2006)

Has anyone here every tried using a gear splitter like Gear Vendors to help with their towing gear ratio. I'm not sure how they work on 4wd trucks, but for a 2wd I think it would work good. I'm in the process of putting a Gear Vendors unit in my old Nova for the opposite reason. I want to have an overdrive gear without giving up the strength of the T400. Anyway, I thought I would mention it as a possible option.


----------



## Bull Elk (Feb 28, 2005)

muliedon said:


> Rich:
> 
> I have the 1500hd with a 6.0 and 3.73 rear end, and pull a 28bh. I have never felt like I could use more power or torque, except on my trip to the Black Hills last summer. We did fine until we got on I-90 at Mitchell, and from there to Rapid City we had a pretty strong head wind. It was a struggle going up some of the grades, and just maintaining 60 was difficult on some of the flatter areas. I averaged only about 6 mpg from Chamberlain on. Pulling the trailer through the Black Hills was not bad, but there is never really any place where I was trying to go much over 50 anyway. The rest of the trips have been here in Nebraska and have gone much better. I have lightened the load a bit, and stopped taking a tank full of water. I average about 14 mpg normally and about 8 to 10 with the trailer. I do have a friend that has the same truck only with the 4.10, and I do get about 1.5 to 2 mpg more than he does empty. I always wanted to hook his truck up to the trailer to see if there was much difference or not. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have gone with at least the 4.10 rear end and perhaps the 2500hd with the 8.1. This would have given me the option to go bigger or to a 5er in the future. I do not think that I would want to go with any bigger trailer with my current truck. Hope this helps.
> 
> ...


Don,
You are talking about the exact stretch of road that made me think twice about our Suburban. The wind is want can really get you on I-90. It is beginning to look like I need to do the 4.10 rear-end. Next time around I will need to look at the Duramax, if this does not seem to do the trick. Thanks for the heads-up.
Rich


----------



## kjdj (Sep 14, 2004)

Our Full size van came with the5.3/ 3.73. I spent $1000 at the dealer and had the gears changed to 4.10 last Nov.

I have never missed that G-note!

Remember the 5.3 with mods propells the Corvette. It likes to rev.

MPG? Gas is still cheaper than bottled water. Do you buy bottled water?

Towing mpg went up from 10 to 11.5 on our reg trip to Pigeon Forge. The pull across the mountains was like night and day.

Not towing I haven't logged a difference in mpg.


----------



## tdvffjohn (Mar 10, 2005)

Yea, we buy bottled water but not 60 gallons for a camping trip


----------



## kjdj (Sep 14, 2004)

tdvffjohn said:


> Yea, we buy bottled water but not 60 gallons for a camping trip
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point









When you buy alot of something in small quanties over time vs bulk it doesn't seem like it costs as much $$$. Kinda like our Federal income tax.


----------



## luv2rv (Jun 21, 2004)

Bull Elk,

My 2500 Sierra has been renamed the 1500HD. Same truck as far as I can tell. Guess they felt a Heavy Duty 1500 was more marketable than a Regular Duty 2500 dunno


----------

