• 2017 GMC Sierra 2500 All Terrain X: Is this the Most Off-Road Capable Diesel HD Truck? (Cliffhanger 2.0)

    2017 2018 gmc sierra 2500 hd all terrain x
    GMC Sierra 2500 HD All Terrain X

    The question is a simple one: is the 2017 GMC Sierra 2500 HD All Terrain X the most capable off-road heavy duty diesel-powered truck you can buy? We take on the Cliffhanger 2.0, our most difficult off-road test, to find out.

    With the ability to tow 13,000-lbs and haul 2,200-lbs in this trim – the 2017 GMC Sierra 2500 All Terrain X is the whole package. Curious as to what you get with the All Terrain X package? It includes off-road tuned suspension with Rancho shocks, lots of skid plates, black painted wheels, Goodyear Wrangler Duratrac tires, side steps, a sports bar with LED lights, and special interior trim.

    The part that matters to folks who like to go off-road is the beefy diesel, grippy tires and automatically locking rear diff. The big GMC has a massive heart. Its 445 horsepower 6.6-liter Duramax turbo-diesel V8 makes 910 lb-ft of torque. The power is dolled out through a six-speed Allison automatic transmission. The four-wheel drive system is conventional and it includes a 2-speed transfer case with low-range and a G80 automatic locking rear diff.

    Curious about the 2017 GMC Sierra 2500 HD All Terrain X’s fuel efficiency and range? Click (here) to watch Roman drive across Utah and Colorado on a single tank of diesel.

    We had a great time forcing this GMC Sierra 2500 All Terrain X beastie up Cliffhanger 2.0. It truly was a fun video to make. We aired down the tires for a little more grip, and we went up the more difficult “Dare” side of the trail. Try watching the video below and let’s see what you thought.

    Nathan Adlen
    Nathan Adlen
    Easily amused by anything with four wheels, Nathan Adlen reviews vehicles from the cheapest to the most prestigious. Wrecking yards, dealer lots, garages, racetracks, professional automotive testing and automotive journalism - Nathan has experienced a wide range of the automotive spectrum. Brought up in the California car culture and educated in theater, childhood education, film, journalism and history, Nathan now lives with his family in Denver, CO. His words, good humor and video are enjoyed worldwide.

    Similar Articles

    93 thoughts on “2017 GMC Sierra 2500 All Terrain X: Is this the Most Off-Road Capable Diesel HD Truck? (Cliffhanger 2.0)

        1. You can’t get a diesel in any Power Wagon. You can get a diesel with the Ram 2500 Off Road package. TFL had one not too long ago i thought, which should be comparable to this.

            1. Nathan was incorrect in blurring those lines. Power wagon has font lockers, disconnecting sway bar, factory winch, higher articulation (essentially different front end components, so the Cummins cannot fit). Off road package has similar bilstein shocks and skid plates and probably tires, but is missing those other goodies that make a power wagon a power wagon.

        1. It’s a 3/4-ton diesel truck. They are the worst kind of truck for taking up a loose, rocky trail like Dare. Well, trying to rock crawl with a 3/4-ton is moronic in general. Too heavy, too low, too big, and these days, too expensive.

      1. It doesn’t matter what it looks like when it has the most updated engine and transmission of the three diesel trucks by far.

        Ford and RAM are the old ones with old equipment. And even the new Ford used the same design cab and bed as the F150, although the bed used a bit thicker aluminum than the F150.

        so, if you are a skin deep person, a little grill and hood treatment is all that’s newer on the Ford. Quite the trade off for much older engines and transmissions.

        1. Oh, I remember now. The hood here and the grill has been changed on this truck too. So, really the Ford only has about a year on this truck’s skin. So, what’s the big deal?

          1. I’m a GM guy myself, but the new Super Duty is a well done truck. It is more than skin deep as this is the first gen Super Duty with a fully boxed frame. Suspensions were reportedly tweaked also. They also changed up the fuel delivery system, turbo and computer mapping to increase torque to 925. Then you can add the new body and interior on top, and yes, a lot of it is shared with the F150, but then again, so is the exterior and interior of GM LD and HD trucks, as is Ram’s.

        2. “Most updated engine and transmission?” I like the Duramax engine, particularly the outgoing LML but also the new L5P. Great engines, without a doubt. The Allison transmission has been a solid performer over the years. While the L5P is brand-new and absolutely the newest diesel engine in a pickup, the Allison 1000 is only updated.

          Quite frankly, though…who cares how “new” something is. It’s more about performance. If Ford and Cummins are getting the job done with what they have, there really is no reason to update. That’s what GM did with the LML from 2011-2016. But Ford and Cummins actually both updated. The Powerstroke received significant upgrades for 2017; the Cummins receives updates for 2018 model year trucks.

          When it comes to the “truck” itself, Ford absolutely, without a doubt, has the most modern and up to date trucks on the road. GM is running a 2014 platform with a 2016 refresh; Ford is running a 2015 platform with a 2018 refresh. RAM is stuck back in 2013 or earlier. The Ford Super Duty shares the 2015-era cab with the F-150, but absolutely nothing else. The bed is entirely different. Not available in the same lengths, sidewall height is different, different bed material thickness, etc. The nose clip is entirely different. The chassis is brand new for 2017 and is the best chassis available.

          1. This is the first time Ford has had a fully boxed frame.

            Chevy and RAM has had it for many, many years, and Chevy has had several iterations of their hydroformed boxed platform. Combine that with smarter and better integrated suspensions, independent testers have declared GM a more confident towing platform for many years, I would not say the Ford is undoubtedly the best platform.

            Newer does not mean better. Ford had a long way to go to catch up. And we saw how it lagged behind in the real world test here on TFL.

            1. I’m not arguing Ford was last to adopt a fully-boxed frame. What I’m saying is that *right now* in 2017 their chassis is the best. It is the strongest and has the thickest steel in the midsection frame.

              You make claims about GM’s suspension and independent testers, and so forth…plus make a statement about Ford having “a long way to catch up” prior to the 2017. Why then, do you suppose, the Ford Super Duty has vastly outsold GM and RAM for decades? Not one year since the Super Duty came out in 1999 has GM sold more HD trucks than Ford. I’m not putting down GM trucks…just curious why the sales data skews pretty heavily towards Ford despite them being so “outdated” as you claim.

            2. I never had any issues with a C channel frame. I cannot think of one instance where the C channel didn’t do its job. C channel frames are still used on all brands of chassis cabs and trucks bigger than class 4. Where fully box frame comes in play is due to its stiffness, you can dial in ride quality. Ford made huge improvements in that and still keeping the highest tow ratings and payload. At least I’m pretty sure they have the highest payload.

              There is a huge struggle between having high payload capacity and ride. GM has chosen ride over payload so it is hard to compare the 2, especially when GM has that front independent suspension. But everything I have seen, Ford has been praised for their ride feel while keeping high payload numbers.

            3. Jimmy Johns – – –

              JJ: “I never had any issues with a C channel frame. I cannot think of one instance where the C channel didn’t do its job. C channel frames are still used on all brands of chassis cabs and trucks bigger than class 4.”

              Exactly! For “Salt States” with deep winters, there is nothing worse than a boxed frame! I can clean my C-channels out thoroughly with a blast of hot water in January, and limit corrosion. Look at all the trouble (and law suits) Toyota got into with its boxed frames in Tacoma’s. And I can use that C-channel easily to run auxiliary wiring for LED lights, etc…
              BTW: How many Class 8 (Semi Tractor-trailers) do you see with boxed frames? They can’t be all that bad…


            4. Boxed frames get filled with mud if you off road and even worse full of sand and mud from salted roads in the winter and you can’t clean it out. When I removed my tubular side steps from my denali due to corrosion they must of had 50Lbs of road sand in the tube. So yes boxed frames are considerably stronger and stiffer but not without problems. A few mines up North here wont even allow boxed beams on their site because the rust from the inside out and its too hard to inspect for potential failure.

            5. I wonder if there would be any implications to filling them in with foam? At least in my head it seems like a goo solution to getting a ton of off road debris from collecting in there.

            6. Jimmy Johns – – –

              JJ: “I wonder if there would be any implications to filling them in with foam?”

              Bingo! Excellent suggestion. That is worth a try.
              (Detroit, are you listening?) Polyurethane foams not only expand to the available volume, they are tenacious adhesives, and would add even greater flexural strength by forming a composite structure with the boxed frame.


          2. The old Superduty C-channel ladder frame sucked. They flexed so much that they chewed up body mounts and cracked radiators. It’s nice to see Ford catch up to Ram and GM.

        3. Hal – how about a tow test between the big 3 at 26,000 lbs? Oh wait, what? The Chevy didn’t pass J2807 tests with 26,000 lbs? Oh well, a DNQ. Better luck next time

            1. It always cracks me up when people get stuck on sales leadership meaning it must be the best.

              Again, McDonalds sells the most, but you won’t find em eating there. And for those who do eat there, you won’t find them eating there for long, because, well you know. Its very sad.

              And more metal on the frame does not mean stronger. Any engineer will tell you that. For instance, the 1996 Ford F150 is the perfect example. Ford threw a whopping amount of steel into that frame, and it wobbled all over the place. It was well known as a sloppy platform. In other words, it was badly engineered. Smart computer design using intelligent principles is what makes a confident towing experience. And even Ford would tell you they made a big mistake with that F150, they made many trims to that frame to cut out the fat over many years. Sloppy engineering.

              And no one, and I mean NO ONE, does chassis dynamics better than GM. Not even BMW, who used to own chassis competence.

              Well, McLaren can say they have the title over GM, but McLaren does not make towing machines.

              Just look at the brand new model put out by Ford. Go back to the article here on TFLTruck on the Expedition and go down to the comments and see the quote of the independent testers. They will tell you how sloppily engineered it is compared to the competition.

              All I am saying, is that Ford has been very sloppy in their engineering for many decades, and until they show more excellence, I will persuade others to buy RAM or GM.

              So, for the one percent of pickup owners that two over 23,000 lbs with their pickup, you have no other choice than RAM or Ford, but that does not mean the Ford is better engineered.

            2. In fact, I was somewhat surprised that independent testers rated the Expedition under the competition, because Ford decided to go with the independent rear suspension.

              I listen to the truth, not any bias. Can’t say that about many of you here.

            3. Hal,
              “And no one, and I mean NO ONE, does chassis dynamics better than GM. Not even BMW, who used to own chassis competence.” What are you basing that on? I’ve never heard a claim like that before. I’ve never heard anyone say “Boy, I wish my Mercedes had the chassis dynamics of a GM.” I’m a GM guy but that seems a little ridiculous.

            4. Hal
              November 9, 2017 at 12:15 pm
              It always cracks me up when people get stuck on sales leadership meaning it must be the best.

              Again, McDonalds sells the most, but you won’t find em eating there. And for those who do eat there, you won’t find them eating there for long, because, well you know. Its very sad

              Hal, last time I checked most of you GM fans brag about how GM sells more trucks when they combine all 4 lines. Just sayin

            5. Hal what high horse are you on? You seem to be a self declared master of “chassis” Dynamics. Where did you get such an advanced degree in the subject?
              I have a physics degree and have been in the Auto industry for 10 years. I have towed extremely large loads, and have climbed mountains with 3000 lbs of cargo. With all my experience all my miles, all my engineering background I have never ever met any Chev that I would say yas great “chassis Dynamics” the number suburban drives like a pile of loose bricks, even the cts V’s, I’ve driven felt old and dated.
              Aside from the Corvette I’ve never been impressed by the “Dynamics” of any of their vehicles.

            6. Joe, I am going to resist expressing my experience with physics guys.

              But maybe you physics guys need to learn how to read. No one, and I mean no one (independent testers) has put anyone but McLaren above the last 10 years of GM’s platforms. Truck and cars.

              You must be the dimmest auto physics guy(whatever that means), because you praise the Corvette and dismiss the CTSV. Sorry Joe, you revealed yourself when you said that!

              Because the Corvette is the ONLY high end GM performance car that actually has some significant issues with its chassis dynamics. AND, the CTSV is the one that ALL, and I mean ALL the best independent testers says are the best chassis in the auto industry(save the McLaren, of course). That whole Alpha class of cars like the CTSs, CTSVs, CTSV-sport, Camaro(all versions), a few Buicks, some other GM cars, as well as other non-Alpha cars are king of chassis dynamics, and have been for many years now. And that means allllllllllllllllllll but the McLaren.

              And what is sooo sad about what you said is that the Corvette is better than those. And the testers say the Corvette is the ONE glaring acception to the GM high end rule.

              You are either a lying, or very ignorant of the industry you work in.

              How sad. I am going asleep sad tonight.

            7. And Joe, you need to go back to this site’s last article on the Expedition, and look down in the comments where quotes from the best independent testers lay out the truth about the Expedition vs. the Surburbans and Tahoe’s etc. Now, the Mercedes is better than the GM chassis dynamics, but the Mercedes is a unibody that can’t tow quite as much etc.

              So, what do you do for the auto industry Joe?

              Maybe a Ford salesman?????

            8. @Dpach,
              That particular Ford dually did test poorly on the IKE at the GM max towing. It seems to be an anomaly, though. I always reference the “Midnight Ike” when TFL tested the F-450 towing 30k up the IKE. It was a full one-minute faster than the RAM towing the same load, yet the RAM beat the Ford towing at the GM max tow event. So I dunno…maybe that load combined with the particular gearing / tire combo of that Ford? Nevertheless, the L5P is a very strong engine. If it is as problem-free as the previous generations of D-max, then it will go down as yet another great GM diesel engine.

            9. Troverman, I don’t think I would say it performed poorly. There was a 15 second difference in time over the 8 mile run between the GM and Ford and 3 sec between Ford and Ram. I suspect if the TFL crew changed the transmission gear in manual mode it may have done better. It seemed Ford calibrated it to hold that gear and stay there. So it’s max speed was what it was. But the down hill braking was very good. The GM was weird and they may had to have needed to set the cruise control on or something because it over braked. But they all performed very well. I think the big difference is they said the Ford had the best ride. That is a very important part of towing. Are you comfortable and confident.

            10. Hal, you are the king of cut and pasting words from others, but I’ll throw some back at you. Remember, ” the best independent testers lay out the truth about the Expedition vs. the Surburbans and Tahoe’s”

              Remember too “I’m not saying that to brag, because I will never meet any of you and I don’t care. I am saying that as a matter of fact and for promoting the TRUTH.

              And the TRUTH always matters”

              Here is “The TRUTH” from an independent reviewer,
              “The Expedition is now the class leader, no ifs, no ands, and no buts about it. If you are a diehard Chevrolet fan, take solace in the fact that the new GMT1000-platform body-on-frame trucks and SUVs are coming sooner than later. Until then, Ford is the new big sheriff in town.”

            11. Oh and I forgot, “The Expedition? Wow, man, it blew the Chevy away. Acceleration was better, braking was way better, ride was superior, the engine note under full load was much deeper, much less harsh, and perhaps most important, the Expedition could easily maintain 50 mph up a good grade.”

            12. Daniel, you have to be wrong. Hal/John T/ Pete/ alt mike/ alt hal is always right. He said so himself. He is THE TRUTH. He is all knowing when it comes to cars, trucks, engineering, chassis dynamics. Just ask him. So there is no way the Expedition got any good reviews because he said it is junk and he always says the TRUTH.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

            13. That quote is form a “first drive” event at a Ford press event.

              My quotes are from a full week long complete “test”.

              Learn how to read, please.

            1. O.K., we just don’t have someone who knows what’s going on in the auto industry for the last ten years.

              Or even before that, do you know that BMW used to be the king of chassis dynamics back in the nineties and so on?

            2. If you have never heard anyone ever say they wish their Mercedes would have the chassis competence of a GM(Alpha platform etc), you REALLY don’t know the auto industry.

              Folks, like I have been saying for a looooooong time. Many of you her are quite ignorant of the history of the auto industry, as well as the current happenings, as well as the future of the auto industry.

              I’m not saying that to brag, because I will never meet any of you and I don’t care. I am saying that as a matter of fact and for promoting the TRUTH.

              And the TRUTH always matters.

            3. And since I am talking about TRUTH! I just milked a bull. They make the best milk for my Cheerio’s. AND that my friends is TRUTH!

            4. No such test. It was just a ridiculous comment about how you pick test criteria. The HD GM trucks only J2807 rated at something like 23,000 lbs so it wouldn’t be able to legally participate in a contest at higher loads.

        4. Interesting since both Ford and Dodge manage more torque out iof their “dated engines.”

          The most a 3500 Chev can tow in dually config is under 25k Ford and Dodge, in their dated glory both manage an extra 7,000 pounds. The new F350 SRW can tow almost as much as the 3500 dually (legally).

          Seems we have a Chevy troll trying to defend less of a truck

          1. A Ford F650 can tow more than a Silverado, that does not mean it is better engineered. I don’t think you are getting the point. You are reinforcing my experiences with physics guys. They often times have difficulty understanding the written word. You need to get out there and read more independent testers.

    1. Covered everything I was thinking, small tires too much weight for me and they removed the air dam and the def tank is in a bad position. But it looks good and it has a good powertrain for something this heavy. Not a fan of the rear locker engaging under slip, something I would blow up.

        1. The G80 is not clutched like a limited slip. It is a true locking differential that uses a flyweight to engage the lock through centrifugal force. The G80 has been known to fail, mostly through abuse. Later versions have gotten better and better…the response time to lock and unlock has become very quick, and durability is quite good. It is all mechanical with little to go wrong. For road use in slippery conditions it is definitely superior to the Ford e-locker, because it works automatically and quickly. The Ford can take some time to lock and unlock because of the nature of how it works. Once locked, the Ford will cause a lot of binding and axle hop when you try to turn on pavement. For example, you may need to turn the locker on to get out of a slippery parking lot…great…and even though you turn it off right away, it does not disengage quick enough once you are on the plowed highway. But off-road, or in all snow-covered conditions, the Ford locker is better.

          By the way, the G80 auto locker was used in other vehicles besides those made by GM. Volvo used them in the rear differential of some of their cars in the mid and late 90’s.

            1. It may be better now. But I have had GM vehicles as recent as 2008 model years and they failed well before 100k mile.s

            2. The G80 in the 9.5″ and 9.75″ axles can take a lot of abuse. I have verified that repeatedly LOL. They were more of a problem in the dinky little 10-bolt GM used to use in their trucks. If you’re playing off-road a lot, I wouldn’t want the G80 OR the Eaton E-locker. A Detroit TrueTrac is a better option.

      1. Texas Rob – – –

        Yeah. It’s a great truck, except for Off Road. Needs:
        1) Better more aggressive, larger wheels/tires;
        2) Relocation of the Def Tank;
        3) Higher ground clearance.

        I think the auto-lockers are “OK”, but “Troverman” has some good perspectives on this. See his comment here at “November 9, 2017 at 10:14 am”..


    2. I don’t see *anything* about this truck that makes it more capable than some other 3/4 ton diesel truck except for the stock DuraTrac tires and the front air dam being removed. Being entirely serious, would an F-250 FX4 diesel not go everywhere this truck could go? The FX4 also gives you “Rancho” shocks, skid plates, etc. The tires are not as good, but not awful…GoodYear Wrangler Adventure w/ Kevlar…same as what a Tacoma TRD Pro has on it. What the Ford does have is a superior driver-selectable electric locking rear differential. That means the rear diff can already be locked before you start to slip, unlike the G80.

      1. I agree with everything, especially the locker, but I wish Ford would remove the air dam on the off road package and sell it as a proper off road package from factory. Likely save the buyer $200.00

        1. I just had a snowplow installed on my 2017 Super Duty and unfortunately the push frame requires pretty large cuts out of the air dam. It looks pretty ugly without the plow on. Some owners have successfully trimmed the lower half entirely off. The air dam on 4×2 Super Duty trucks is different…only about half as tall as the 4×4 version. I’m thinking about buying one and installing that.

          1. Might be a good trade off, but Ford obviously has the ability to build a front end like what the Raptor has on its off road package, so again, its a frustrating thing to see a low front end on a truck, especially makes no sense on an off road package when they have the ability to do better.

        B.S. Roman. You are full of it.
        I’ll take the Ford with the solid front axle any day.
        That thing is a pavement Queen with aggressive tires and nothing more.

      1. Because GM HD trucks use IFS with torsion bars, they require a “drop frame” design in the front. The DEF tank is installed in the drop-frame area, which is why it is so visible. Because GM insists the DEF fill be located under the hood, the tank needs to be in that area. Ford’s DEF tank is located directly behind the fuel tank. It is way back near the rear axle, so it costs Ford some money in running heated DEF line over to the SCR, but it is completely out of sight and better protected. It also allows an easier DEF fill right next to the diesel fill. GM could move the tank back, I guess, but they choose not to.

        1. Troverman – – –

          T: ” Ford’s DEF tank is located directly behind the fuel tank. It is way back near the rear axle, so it costs Ford some money in running heated DEF line over to the SCR, but it is completely out of sight and better protected.”
          Exactly. Correct if I am wrong, but I think this is the same general design that Ram uses too…

          I’m afraid I don’t quite understand why GM would put such large fluid tank in this precarious location…


          1. From what I have seen, Ram does place there DEF tank in the back of the truck near the fuel tank. I also suspect they have it pretty much protected too. GM has a lot of smart engineers and I would like to know their reasoning behind their DEF tank location. Especially since it is much larger now.

    3. I’m impressed it made it up. The tires are much to thank for that. I don’t think the Superduty would have made it same day same conditions with the street bias tires it comes with.

      Now if you put the same rubber on both trucks then the Superduty would have performed much better with it’s better clearance, solid front axle, full locking rear diff, and most importantly 360 camera system. But there’s no one to blame but Ford for the tires they chose to equip the truck with

      1. Daniel – – –

        D: “I’m impressed it made it up.”

        Yes. I was worried about that. There certainly was some wheel spin with slipping and sliding. The Power Wagon had “walked” up “Cliffhanger 2.0” like it wasn’t even there.
        But I wonder (and am concerned about) if Roman ever has had to pay a fee for damage to these vehicles. I certainly am glad he bailed out of “Dare”!


        1. On YouTube they have an updated video with ZR2, Raptor, and Power Wagon. The Power Wagon tried to go up Dare and failed… they had to back down and go up truth. Both the Raptor and ZR2 made it up dare, even after the Power Wagon tore it up.

          1. In all honesty even as a Ford guy, that trail depends on your line and luck. Tires makes a huge difference and so does the low hanging fruit on the bottom of the trucks. Being all 3 made it up is pretty good. I feel any of them are fully capable off road machines. But in the end, the vast majority of their owners won’t even take them off road like that.

            1. Agree! I’m a GM fan and own a Denali HD, but it sees the mountains of SW Colorado every hunting season that I can sneak away. A good driver can pick the right line to make it up without destroying the land, or go around.
              The weight of the diesel trucks, and most HD/SD trucks can help at certain times, but can also hurt for others. I’ve had a set of Tokyo MT’s and they were awesome in the mud and rocks.

            1. Buddy – – –

              I think Alan may mean this:

              None of the three trucks looked really “comfortable” going up “Dare” in this video. The PW definitely needed larger, newer tires, — but its weight caused a greater sinking issue with the moist soil from a recently melted snowfall.

              My estimate is that the ZR2 was the winner here: smaller (narrower), lighter, newer, more options for choosing an optimum “line”. The Raptor struggled a bit too, but wiggled to find a better “line”: it was also MUCH lighter than the PW.


            2. The ZR2 definitely won that one.

              But all three of them got stopped. The PowerWagon was the only one that after backing up, had great difficulty goiing back up. But they all had to back up, even though TFL cut the video awkwardly between the Raptor run if you noticed.

              Man, I’ll take a ZR2 and a Frontier for the same price as a PowerWagon while saving the $4,000 from the poser Raptor.

              Or, I’ll take the ZR2 and a really nice $24,000 camping trailer, rather than a Raptor. Wow!

            3. I didn’t think the Raptor would do as well as it did. I didn’t think it was set up for that type of off roading but it certainly held its own. Especially after running through the trench the powerwagon dug trying to get unstuck. The ZR2 I also felt did really well too. I felt really bad for Nathan as he was all geeked up about the power wagon saying how it couldn’t be stopped. Then it got buried.

            4. A guy down the street from me just bought a white duramax ZR2 and it is so awesome. I told the wife I would own one if it werent for the fact that I already bought a 5500 lb travel trailer.

            5. Jay S, just buy the ZR2 and popl some smaller steel wheels on it and buy a regular front air scoop, and you will be good to go for towing.

    4. I just had a conversation today with a co-worker about the difference in approach, breakover and departure angles between HD trucks.. then this video comes out to totally verify my input.. as to why we bought a Ram HD, no upgrades required. With this very nice Sierra, new bumper, 33″(or bigger) tires, Def relocate and a few prayers it should be able to follow my stock Ram. This truck is for those hard core chevy guys that are going to through money and parts at it.

    5. I think this video really shows that good off road tires are pretty much key. You need good ground clearance but in the end, the tires are your main source of traction. Even with an open diff, you put 35” tires on this truck it would just scoot up that hill.

      1. Jimmy Johns – – –

        Fully agree.

        If my 2007 Jeep Wrangler 2DR was in the mix, — with 37-inch “mudders” at 20 psi; 5.5-inch lift; and 5.38 diff’s and lockers all around, — this episode of “Going-Up-Cliffhanger-2.0-After-a-Snowfall” would have been a sleeper…

        Momentum? What momentum? Rule-o’-Thumb: if you need a LARGE amount of momentum, then you are over your head; over-driving (and damaging) your rig; and will have failed already. New half shafts and / or U-joints, anyone? (^_^)…


    6. I half way believe that the gas engine would go up the dare side , because of the def tank not being on the frame. On this instance the gas engine might be better deal and cheaper.

    Leave a Reply