Let's sift through every square inch of a 2013 Tahoe PPV

[Caddylack]

Yeah, I've tossed around all sorts of ideas for intakes. I probably won't actually use a dryer exhaust.

I mean, really, my current intake tube would be fine if I just switched out the rubber elbow for a "mandrel" bent variant.

I like the BTR truck cam kit for under $400, with their mild "Torque" cam. It comes with springs and pushrods.

Breaking news: The old-ass rotted tire on the right front had a bit of a sidewall failure. It's hissing loud as hell. That's what I get.

"But it still has good tread!"

 

[iamdub]

Yeah, I've tossed around all sorts of ideas for intakes. I probably won't actually use a dryer exhaust.

I mean, really, my current intake tube would be fine if I just switched out the rubber elbow for a "mandrel" bent variant.

Also, losing the resonator chambers will let you hear the intake growl in proportion to load. You'd probably barely hear it over the exhaust, though. I had my MIT before my muffler and was satisfied enough with the growl for a while that I didn't care about a louder muffler.

I like the BTR truck cam kit for under $400, with their mild "Torque" cam. It comes with springs and pushrods.

They put together good stuff. You're on the right mindset for this rig. Although, that 6L80 lets you get away with a little more cam, especially if you're interested in taller gears. But, it can be a slippery slope with more cam, a torque converter, etc. Pick a goal and stick to it.

Breaking news: The old-ass rotted tire on the right front had a bit of a sidewall failure. It's hissing loud as hell. That's what I get.

"But it still has good tread!"

View attachment 389132

LAME.

 

[Caddylack]

Also, losing the resonator chambers will let you hear the intake growl in proportion to load. You'd probably barely hear it over the exhaust, though. I had my MIT before my muffler and was satisfied enough with the growl for a while that I didn't care about a louder muffler.

You may forget: https://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/data/attachments/375/375838-85757bd6494b42f4368a0a183b0c90f2.jpg

When a kid at the car wash asked me to rev my engine (after exhaust), he actually looked at the front of car first, as if the noise were coming from there.

You're on the right mindset for this rig. Although, that 6L80 lets you get away with a little more cam, especially if you're interested in taller gears. But, it can be a slippery slope with more cam, a torque converter, etc. Pick a goal and stick to it.

Well, this car will probably have two "phases".

For right now, I just want a solid daily that performs well enough to keep me entertained. I have other cars that are much faster than the Tahoe, and they need attention.

Eventually, the Tahoe will be old enough to get "restored", and then I will get more serious about making big power. I intend to keep the car for a long time, as I don't like how the GM trucks keep getting more and more computeridiculous. I'm not getting in line for a newer Tahoe anytime soon.

 

[iamdub]

You may forget: https://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/data/attachments/375/375838-85757bd6494b42f4368a0a183b0c90f2.jpg

When a kid at the car wash asked me to rev my engine (after exhaust), he actually looked at the front of car first, as if the noise were coming from there.

Of course I forget! If it's more than a week or two, it's ancient history. I had some deja vu and was somewhat remembering having this same convo with someone recently. It's a common subject. Maybe that last convo about it was ours.

Well, this car will probably have two "phases".

For right now, I just want a solid daily that performs well enough to keep me entertained. I have other cars that are much faster than the Tahoe, and they need attention.

Eventually, the Tahoe will be old enough to get "restored", and then I will get more serious about making big power. I intend to keep the car for a long time, as I don't like how the GM trucks keep getting more and more computeridiculous. I'm not getting in line for a newer Tahoe anytime soon.

There's plenty of relatively cheap and easy things you can do to squeeze more fun out of it that would help keep it interesting and would support future mods so they wouldn't be wasted. It might not be as fast as your other toys, but it can be faster than it's current self or even just more fun despite not being faster, such as that handling we've discussed. Hucking a Tahoe through the turns like a much smaller vehicle can be more fun that it being faster.

Agreed about the GM products getting worse. I believe the GMT800 was the peak of their reliability and the '900 was the start down the other side of the hill. But, the '900 was still close enough to the "peak" that its reliability was still very good and just needed AFM knocked out. Each generation since has been more and more iffy in many other aspects other than engine issues, and a lot seems to be related to the computeridiculousness.

 

[Caddylack]

I'm still waiting for them to bring back carburetors.

I agree that GMT800 was the peak of reliability.

On sway bars... I keep forgetting to bring this up...

I have always felt like the rear end links on the 800/900 are too long to even do anything. As an alternative to getting a bigger sway bar, what about brackets to shorten the end links? Heim joints would be nice.

 

[iamdub]

I'm still waiting for them to bring back carburetors.

I agree that GMT800 was the peak of reliability.

On sway bars... I keep forgetting to bring this up...

I have always felt like the rear end links on the 800/900 are too long to even do anything. As an alternative to getting a bigger sway bar, what about brackets to shorten the end links? Heim joints would be nice.

The links are the length they are to keep the bar parallel to the ground at ride height. Shortening them would alter the angle of the bar, affecting the leverage the arm has on the body via the links. The idea is for the link to be orthogonal to the sway bar and for the link to be in tension or compression. The more angled the bar and/or link is, the less of the swaybar's force (as in resistance to bend) is transferred to the body to keep it straight/flat. The forces are more longitudinal (relative to vehicle), transferring more to the bushings in a "sideways" momentum.

Now, HOW it would affect the leverage is the question. I've half-assed pondered this. All I know at the moment is I have much shorter links due to my drop. There are so many other factors to consider when determining in ideal end link length and swaybar angle. The arc of the axle which is affected by a lowered ride height, for instance. Technically, the mounting points on the frame should be adjusted forward after a sizeable drop to compensate. The length of the link, and this is more directly related to your question, helps reduce the rate of change in the link's angle as the axle cycles through its ROM. So, if you meant brackets to lower the mounting point from the frame and used shorter links accordingly, then those links would pivot more as the axle cycles. The increased angles would decrease the effective leverage while increasing longitudinal loads on the bushings.

I guess my point is that it's all too small of an effect, even if it can be beneficial to even bother with. Just keeping the bar level at your ride height is the main goal. If this demands shorter or longer end links, then make the necessary changes.

Again- just my half-assed and technically unqualified thoughts. At least you're getting what you paid for.

 

[Caddylack]

The increased angles would decrease the effective leverage while increasing longitudinal loads on the bushings.

I figure a stiffer sway bar would also increase longitudinal load on the bushings, right?

Leverage being decreased?

 

[Caddylack]

I figure a stiffer sway bar would also increase longitudinal load on the bushings, right?

Wait, no, I get it now.

I'm curious how much performance testing GM has done with this platform, considering they have never really made any high performance variants.

Like, how much time did they spend on the length of the end links? The GMT360 uses tiny rear end links. What's the difference?

 

[iamdub]

I'm curious how much performance testing GM has done with this platform, considering they have never really made any high performance variants.

If the Denali, LTZ, LT, LS, PPV, etc. all share the same sway bar, then I'd assume not much.

Like, how much time did they spend on the length of the end links? The GMT360 uses tiny rear end links. What's the difference?

The links just need to connect the end of the bar to the vehicle while being straight up and the bar parallel to the ground. That's it. No further thought is required. All the engineers needed to do was look straight up from the end of the sway bar with it positioned flat, find a spot on the frame to have a top mount for the end link, and design a link that fits that space. There's a convenient "frame" location about 4" up from where the bar is on the GMT360. Still, the bar itself is parallel to the ground. On the GMT800 and '900, there's nothing for about 9".

 

[Caddylack]

What's interesting about the GMT360 rear bars is that they aren't very straight... Meaning, the bar can't really be very parallel. The end links are also pretty awkward.

I have one of these hanging from the rear axle of my 94 Fleetwood from zip ties. I'm playing around with a bracket kit, because those cars don't have an axle/frame mounted rear bar.