# 2 1/2 Inch Hitch Receiver



## muddy tires

So my 2009 Silverado 2500 comes with a 2 1/2 inch hitch receiver. I guess it must be perceived as stronger. However my locking hitch pin no longer reaches all the way through and I need to replace it. Plus all my inserts are 2 inches (but a 2 1/2 inch to 2 inch reducer came with the truck). Just one more thing to deal with.

So my question is, where can I find a locking pin for a 2 1/2 inch receiver? Canadian Tire, WalMart etc only carry the 2 inch versions. And if I wanted to change my hitch inserts where would I go to find the larger versions?

Dave


----------



## Yianni

muddy tires said:


> So my 2009 Silverado 2500 comes with a 2 1/2 inch hitch receiver. I guess it must be perceived as stronger. However my locking hitch pin no longer reaches all the way through and I need to replace it. Plus all my inserts are 2 inches (but a 2 1/2 inch to 2 inch reducer came with the truck). Just one more thing to deal with.
> 
> So my question is, where can I find a locking pin for a 2 1/2 inch receiver? Canadian Tire, WalMart etc only carry the 2 inch versions. And if I wanted to change my hitch inserts where would I go to find the larger versions?
> 
> Dave


Dave,
They have them at your Chevy dealer parts department. I also bought one at a truck shop where they sell bed covers, etc. I bought a locking one and just leave it in the receiver with adapter locked in place. Always there-no hassle.


----------



## CamperAndy

They installed a class V hitch. Go on line and any of the trailer hitch companies sell the locks and inserts (shanks). Just make sure it is listed as class V and BTW it is stronger, that is what they were thinking.


----------



## thefulminator

Locking class V hitch pin.


----------



## Nathan

Does a reciever work in Canada if it's measured in inches?









Sorry, couldn't resist. Andy's right though (as always







) they are stronger and therefore it's a good thing.


----------



## Lmbevard

that's strange. My hitch on the Dodge 3500 is listed as a Class V but is only a 2".


----------



## muddy tires

Ah, Class V. I guess I'm beyond consumer grade and have to start looking to the commercial truck stores. Bigger = stronger. I guess that makes sense.


----------



## CamperAndy

Lmbevard said:


> that's strange. My hitch on the Dodge 3500 is listed as a Class V but is only a 2".


May be possible but I bet you have a class IV hitch. What is the gross rating with WD?


----------



## Nathan

There used to be some class V with the 2" reciever's, but I always questioned the value since you are still trying to carry everything on a 2" br rather than a 2 1/2". For Ford, the 2 1/2" recievers come on the duallies with the tow boss setup (or some name like that). Everything else gets 2". It sounds like Chevy wanted to use the same hitch on everything and therefore put the 2 1/2" reciever on their lighter trucks...


----------



## thefulminator

My class V is 2" as well. As for the question of class V strength for 2" vs. 2-1/2", a 2" square of even the weakest mild steel (40ksi) with a 3/4" diameter hole through it will have a tension allowable load of 100,00 lbs. I am guessing that they are probably more concerned with bending than tension. Just doing some quick and dirty calcs, using a 1200 lb tongue weight at 18" from the pin hole, a 2" bar with the hole in it would still have almost a 2.5:1 safety factor in bending.


----------



## Nathan

thefulminator said:


> My class V is 2" as well. As for the question of class V strength for 2" vs. 2-1/2", a 2" square of even the weakest mild steel (40ksi) with a 3/4" diameter hole through it will have a tension allowable load of 100,00 lbs. I am guessing that they are probably more concerned with bending than tension. Just doing some quick and dirty calcs, using a 1200 lb tongue weight at 18" from the pin hole, a 2" bar with the hole in it would still have almost a 2.5:1 safety factor in bending.


Ahh, but did you take into account dynamic loading? I'd agree the issue is bending, and I have no idea what the safety factor designing for dynamic loads is, but I bet it is high.


----------



## thefulminator

No I didn't look into dynamic loading. I was also conservative in assuming area out of the square cross section for the pin hole. The actual bending would be at the rear end of the pin tube, not at the pin hole.


----------



## LaydBack

I've been searching for this subject for a while. I just bought an 08 Silverado 2500HD (Duramax.......hey now) with the 2.5" receiver. Is the oem receiver on these models okay, or do they still have problems with flexing and not properly distributing the weight? Also, are you guys using 2.5" hitches or are you using the reducer with a 2" hitch? Thanks, newb just trying to do more research......purchasing trailer soon.


----------



## KTMRacer

srwsr said:


> I've been searching for this subject for a while. I just bought an 08 Silverado 2500HD (Duramax.......hey now) with the 2.5" receiver. Is the oem receiver on these models okay, or do they still have problems with flexing and not properly distributing the weight? Also, are you guys using 2.5" hitches or are you using the reducer with a 2" hitch? Thanks, newb just trying to do more research......purchasing trailer soon.


I've used a reducing bushing for several years now on my Reese Class V hitch. With the bushing you will get more slop, so it does have a downside.

I had no problem 3 years ago when I got the hitch finding a hitch lock. Between a local lock shop and trailer dealer I had at least a dozen different locks to choose from. Ended up with a Master lock hitch lock.

And, I've seen several companies now offer a Class V hitch with a 2" reciever. Haven't looked to see if the load ratings are the same as a 2 1/2" reciever, limitation may be that there aren't many 2" shanks and WD heads that are rated at more than 1400lbs tongue weight.

Don't know how good the Class V GM reciever is, however, I can tell you how BAD the std GM 2" Class IV was on the HD silverados. Mine bent with a 5000 lbs cargo trailer and 800lbs tongue weight with a WD hitch setup and 800lb bars. In less than 2000 miles the receiver had bent enough that it was very noticeable looking at the shank! Scary to think what it would have done with the rated 12,000 lbs towing and 1200lbs tongue weight!!

Reese Titan Class V has been flawless.


----------



## etrailer

Class ratings on hitches aren't exactly standardized. Class V could be a 2" or 2-1/2" hitch. One manufacturer even had created a Class 2.5 for a 2" hitch that had capacities that typically a Class II 1-1/4" would have.

There are some differences between the OE 2-1/2" hitches that have created some problems. The inside corners on the Ford 2-1/2" are radiused a bit differently than most others. Sometimes people have to sand the finish off corners of their drawbars or shanks to get them to fit. This is mostly due to the relatively loose tolerances on drawbars/shanks.

2010+ GM HD owners have had a different problem. They have a brace on the outside of their 2.5 opening that causes some of the 2-1/2 inch locks to be too short. CT Johnson, one of the bigger hitch lock manufacturers, added an extra long model to accomodate for this. Their RH5 for 2-1/2 hitches has an inside width of 3-1/16", a bit too short for the new GM 2-1/2 hitches. So they created the RH5XL with an inside width of 3-5/8" to accommodate the extra material of the brace.

You should be OK with your 2009, but it wouldn't hurt to measure the outside width at the pin hole before you order a lock to make sure the lock will fit. That way you can prevent the hassle of a return.


----------



## thefulminator

Don't know about the older Silverado HD Class IV receivers, but the Class III was junk. Replaced mine with a Putnam XDR 2" Class V and can really feel the difference on a bumpy road. Liked it so much that when I bought my 2009 Silverado I took it off the 1999 and put it on the 2009. It was convenient that they both took the same Putnam model. Putnam is out of business but Curt has a model (15522) based off the Putnam XDR.

View attachment CM_15522_INS.pdf


----------



## duggy

Nathan said:


> Does a reciever work in Canada if it's measured in inches?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist. Andy's right though (as always
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) they are stronger and therefore it's a good thing.


You're too funny, Nathan!


----------



## RWRiley

My 286FK tongue weights 1060lbs, so I went with 2.5" shank when I got my 2011 HD. I didn't realize how much more the 2.5" would weigh. I'm going to have to pump some iron to stay in good enough shape to take it in and out of the receiver.


----------



## thefulminator

RWRiley said:


> My 286FK tongue weights 1060lbs, so I went with 2.5" shank when I got my 2011 HD. I didn't realize how much more the 2.5" would weigh. I'm going to have to pump some iron to stay in good enough shape to take it in and out of the receiver.


It sounds like you need to mount an electric jack to your hitch head.


----------



## Carey

The Putnam on my dually is 2 inch. Rated at 17,000 with WD. Rated at 16500 without WD. 2 and 1/2 isnt that much stronger in tube form. What makes a 2 and 1/2 better is having more height and width in the box to tie into the support members. All of the shock, static and dynamic factors are increased because of the larger box of the 2 and 1/2 tubing. What makes a hitch a stronger hitch is the way its gussetted and supported. Any hitch with 4 mounting points is far beyond a class 5. Most modern hitches use 2 mounting points. You will find that a modern class 5 hitch will use the 2 plus a stringer that ties in making 4 mounting points. A hitch made like the letter H is even better.

Basically there is more engineering room for error built into a 2 and 1/2 versus a 2 inch. Both of the hitches can be made to outdo one another if the tie points are engineered properly.

If you have noticed in the last 10-15 years we went from square side to side stringers to round tube stringers back to square stringers. They have found that nothing beats square tubing versus round for hitch supports. Yes the round tube is still popular but they are generally class 3 or less rated. All of the physic factors are detrimented with round side to side stringers. Most all class 5 hitches and up are made entirely from square tubing.

Just because a hitch is 2 and 1/2 doesnt really mean anything. But the 2 and 1/2 has the ability to be stronger than 2 inch if the engineer takes advantage of the increased surface area of the 2 and 1/2. The 2 and 1/2 advantage can be the better physic factors.


----------



## Nathan

Colorado~DirtBikers said:


> The Putnam on my dually is 2 inch. Rated at 17,000 with WD. Rated at 16500 without WD. 2 and 1/2 isnt that much stronger in tube form. What makes a 2 and 1/2 better is having more height and width in the box to tie into the support members. All of the shock, static and dynamic factors are increased because of the larger box of the 2 and 1/2 tubing. What makes a hitch a stronger hitch is the way its gussetted and supported. Any hitch with 4 mounting points is far beyond a class 5. Most modern hitches use 2 mounting points. You will find that a modern class 5 hitch will use the 2 plus a stringer that ties in making 4 mounting points. A hitch made like the letter H is even better.
> 
> Basically there is more engineering room for error built into a 2 and 1/2 versus a 2 inch. Both of the hitches can be made to outdo one another if the tie points are engineered properly.
> 
> If you have noticed in the last 10-15 years we went from square side to side stringers to round tube stringers back to square stringers. They have found that nothing beats square tubing versus round for hitch supports. Yes the round tube is still popular but they are generally class 3 or less rated. All of the physic factors are detrimented with round side to side stringers. Most all class 5 hitches and up are made entirely from square tubing.
> 
> Just because a hitch is 2 and 1/2 doesnt really mean anything. But the 2 and 1/2 has the ability to be stronger than 2 inch if the engineer takes advantage of the increased surface area of the 2 and 1/2. The 2 and 1/2 advantage can be the better physic factors.


So, in summary, Bigger can be Better, but isn't always....


----------



## clarkely

Mine is 2 and 1/2 and seems to be fine







- seems much stronger than previous models....


----------



## duggy

Nathan said:


> So, in summary, Bigger can be Better, but isn't always....


Seriously, Nathan, you should consider stand-up comedy as a second job!


----------



## Carey

Nathan said:


> The Putnam on my dually is 2 inch. Rated at 17,000 with WD. Rated at 16500 without WD. 2 and 1/2 isnt that much stronger in tube form. What makes a 2 and 1/2 better is having more height and width in the box to tie into the support members. All of the shock, static and dynamic factors are increased because of the larger box of the 2 and 1/2 tubing. What makes a hitch a stronger hitch is the way its gussetted and supported. Any hitch with 4 mounting points is far beyond a class 5. Most modern hitches use 2 mounting points. You will find that a modern class 5 hitch will use the 2 plus a stringer that ties in making 4 mounting points. A hitch made like the letter H is even better.
> 
> Basically there is more engineering room for error built into a 2 and 1/2 versus a 2 inch. Both of the hitches can be made to outdo one another if the tie points are engineered properly.
> 
> If you have noticed in the last 10-15 years we went from square side to side stringers to round tube stringers back to square stringers. They have found that nothing beats square tubing versus round for hitch supports. Yes the round tube is still popular but they are generally class 3 or less rated. All of the physic factors are detrimented with round side to side stringers. Most all class 5 hitches and up are made entirely from square tubing.
> 
> Just because a hitch is 2 and 1/2 doesnt really mean anything. But the 2 and 1/2 has the ability to be stronger than 2 inch if the engineer takes advantage of the increased surface area of the 2 and 1/2. The 2 and 1/2 advantage can be the better physic factors.


So, in summary, Bigger can be Better, but isn't always....








[/quote]

Yep you nailed it!


----------

