GM revealed its new full-size pickups today, with a combination of “evolutionary” styling and while offering a more traditional pickup, devoid of the fancy turbocharged V6 engines and air suspensions offered in its rivals.
Three powertrains will be offered with the new trucks; a 4.3L V6, a 5.3L V8 and a 6.2L V8, and all three feature direct injection and cylinder deactivation. A six-speed automatic will back up all three engines, with GM estimating a combined 17 mpg for all three trucks. Horsepower and torque specs weren’t released.
New features include a step mounted at the corner of the pickup bed (which features no moving parts and is permanently set into the rear bumper – a rather clever idea), LED lights mounted under the bed and a seat that vibrates to warn the driver of a possible collision (similar to the Cadillac XTS). Inside, an infotainment system similar to Cadillac’s CUE dominates the interior, while rear legroom is said to be improved. GM claims that the switchgear is easier to operate with work gloves on, but presumably those must be removed for the touchscreen system to work.
Next up in GM’s truck salvo; revised versions of the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. Unlike Ford and Ram, GM is adopting a two-pronged approach, with the new mid-size trucks being positioned as the choice for mpg-concious buyers. The demise of the Ford Ranger has left GM as the sole domestic player in the small truck market, though the Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier will provide the twins with a bit of a challenge.
Tacoma, not Tundra. edit: you fixed it.
Looks like they’re going to have to rely on their performance rather than their styling to succeed.
Underwhelming.
Amen.
exactly. like when i saw the side profile of the chevy i literally clicked out because i thought it was some photo of a tricked out 90s Chevy that was in there just for comparison. Seriously the chevy looks awful, which is really a shame because its usually been the best looking vehicle in the segment. the GMC one looks a little better.
Its like with every generation they get more masculine looking. Paul Neidermeyer at Curbside Classic thinks that it has to do with the increasing insecurity of masculinity in this country, as “traditional masculinity” becomes endangered by the fall of masculine jobs — i.e. blue collar shit, single provider, etc. etc. etc.
I think that he has a point. But seriously these things look like caricatures
Maybe, but the people who worked and lived that “traditional masculine” lifestyle can’t afford these trucks. The GMC at the top of the page probably lists for $52k, and even if it actually goes out the door for $40k, that’s still too high.
People of “traditional masculinity” drive older, well-used trucks that’re adorned with dirt and dents from years of work.
I do agree on recent trucks being a “mask for a lack of masculinity”,
I’m not a truck guy but I always liked them to be devoid of style and all about function. These new Rams, F-Series, and GMs look like toys.
Rectilinear design in American pickups was dominant from only about 1965-1995, which if you consider when people started putting beds on the back of Model T’s (or the Model TT) is only a third of the total time the American pickup has been around. Some counter-examples are the 41 Ford half-tons and the 55 Dodge Sweptsides.
So is most of the automotive market at present.
Huh. Obviously I have not sat in one yet but that interior looks plasticky, presumably that’s the upmarket trim level we are seeing. The old one looked nicer (in pictures at least).
So these will provide the basis of the new Yukon/Tahoe/Escalade as well?
Since the current models were selling well (they need to get the inventory down though) evolutionary changes make sense.
The truck market is kinda like selling dress shoes; cap toe or wing tip sir? Changes in this market are evolutionary not revolutionary. Nobody makes a small truck anymore. The Toyota Tacoma, Frontier and Colorado/Canyon are midsize trucks. The Tundra and Titan are full size trucks.
True,day el-scotto, and SN should be in here in a hot minute with two hands and feet full of reasons why everything Ford has done recently is an unmitigated disaster in the truck market thus proving GM’s foresight.
Setting stop watch now!
Still bloated monstrosities.
No that title goes to the 07-13 Tundra which still looks exactly the same with no change other than replacing the old timing belt 4.7 with a new 4.6. There was never anything wrong with the 900’s and these are different enough in style, performance, interior changes and better mileage. There continued spot in second place behind the stellar F-150 just re-enforces that!
Tundra is getting a redesign for 2014 too jut like these pigs, and unlike GM, Toyota did make styling changes for the Tundra through its run.
I can’t help but wonder if this new side/rear collision avoidance gadget it a bad idea. It’s already common enough to see SUV/Pickup drivers who should know their rear visibility is limited, still not even bother to turn around and look out the rear window when backing up.
Now, they’ll program themselves to be dependent on the gadget. Will objects with insufficient radar echo get crushed, willy-nilly?
“Will objects with insufficient radar echo get crushed, willy-nilly?”
Is that different than the status quo?
I’m rather tired of walking along the side walk and every car is pulled in till their wheels touch the curb and thus use more space on the side walk than me. It doesn’t matter if they are 5+ ft from the end of the space or if they are hanging over the sidewalk by 4+ ft (extended bed pickups with extra large bumpers & tow hitches do this regularly).
They have no idea where their vehicle is, and just go until something stops them.
The console and dash layout looks childish and goofy. The center pod reminds me of an Atari console, with the horribly fake wood. Not a fan.
The LED application on the front looks alright though, and the step is a useful idea.
To me it looks like an old stereo I used to have.
Isn’t the innovative corner step-bumper something that every Avalanche had as standard equipment for a number of years? It will be interesting to see how the pickup truck-buying world gets along with the direct-injection engines. One also wonders if “evolutionary” is GM’s interpretation of “the same” where styling is concerned.
Not only that but the Nissan Xterra has had that exact feature since 2005. First time I’ve seen it on a full-size pickup though.
Amazed the 4.3 V6 was carried over (again).
Apparently it’s an all-new unit based on the Gen V small-block
Yep, all aluminum, DI, active fuel management; just unfortunately saddled with the same displacement as the boat anchor it replaces. Considering the competition from Ford’s stellar V6 engines, marketing should have committed a rounding error to avoid that number.
I’m wondering why they didn’t lop two cylinders off of the 6.2 and arrive at 4.1.
Hmmm, I’m wondering why they didn’t lop 2 cylinders off the 6.2 and call it a 4.6 (or 4.7 depending on the actual cc’s.)
The epic fail of this entire intro, especially the interior, has made my day.
What epic fail? From reading articles it was said that market research was conducted and people wanted the interior to be truck based, not car based. I don`t drive a truck (or in the market for one) so who are we to question that.
Remind how the Tundra is doing, did it meet the 200,000 sales expectation? I hope we get as much coverage on this as we do the new Camry (comparable sales) or the FRS/BRZ!
Check around. TTAC is far from the only news outlet lambasting GM for how unchanged and uninspiring this “all-new” model appears.
I didn`t think TTAC’s article was lambasting the truck. You were.
We all know how accurate “publications” can be on assessing how good a model is and how it will sell (Civic and Jetta anyone). I will hold judgement until someone actually test drives and gets inside one first. I know others like to make instant judgements (not from any preconceptions obviously!)
OK mike, serious questions – if you were spending $50K on a new truck, would you want to stare at that dashboard every day? Have you seen the interiors in the competition? Do you honestly think GM’s Fisher Price treatment is comparable?
VoF – Fair question and I don`t like the dashboard. However I looked at the offerings from Ford, Ram and Toyota and wasn`t that impressed either (wood in the Ram pictures looked as fake). They all seemed big and blocky (probably because that is what truck buyers and want and because they wear gloves). The GM trucks were certainly no better and I can easily see why some don`t like it.
But I am not the target market since I wouldn`t a) spend $50K on any vehicle and b) wouldn`t get a truck.
To get back to your original point though to call the entire truck (not just the interior design) an “epic fail” does need to wait until people can actually sit in them, test drive and review them. Then the market will decide.
Sorry, but epic fail isn’t hyperbole, and the largely negative media reaction isn’t insignificant. Remember that similar statements have essentially killed the 2013 Malibu.
True, negative press did do harm to the Malibu. But I would tend to think that the cars actual short-comings would have doomed it. Negative press did no harm to the Civic or Jetta which are just two counterpoints to your comments.
I understand your point and respect some of the ones you make. But you are given to hyperbole at times (like Agenda 21 means 6 billion dead or some such stuff – but that is off topic).
Whatever.
“(like Agenda 21 means 6 billion dead or some such stuff – but that is off topic).”
Come again?
28CL – Isee links :
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/obama-trash-talks-about-right-to-work/#comment-1978632
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/chryslers-drunk-stoned-autoworkers-are-back-making-cars/#comment-1979054
From two days ago, with the second making the statement explicit. Similar comments have been made before, but I thought just going back 2 days would be sufficient. I don`t care what people believe, my point was the hyperbole was not a new concept for VoF or others like him.
Thx for the clarity.
mike, funny how neither one of your posts makes reference to Agenda 21 (which I’ve never referenced here, or anywhere else on the web) and one of them ISN’T EVEN ME.
The second one does say something about Agenda 21 :
“I’m not some UN Agenda 21 abiding Obama voter that wants to kill off 6 or so billion people to empower desert tortoises.” Explicit enough for you.
The first one showed you and your conspiracy buddy in arms, CJ, agreeing about who needs killing. My point again was about hyperbole. Enough of this nonsense – lets get back to whether this truck is any good or not!
mike978, where did I say anyone needs killing? The very link you posted, and quoted from, states that I’m not looking to kill off dysfunctional people. Mass murder is the province of atheist progressives, and I’ll leave it to them.
“Mass murder is the province of atheist progressives, and I’ll leave it to them.”
Wow….just wow. Seriously, give it a rest for just a day. And conservatives wonder why they get shellacked in recent elections.
The opinions of those (media) who do not use a work truck matter little to me.
Volts, you are such a nerd. Go get laid.
Best you can muster, eh?
The better response is: “whats your sister’s phone number” *rimshot*
LOL.
They should have give the Sierra it’s own instrument panel design to further differentiate it from the Silverado.
It needs more differentiation from the Silverado… and the Honda Ridgeline.
THAT’s what the dash reminds me of, thanks!
So rather than using the excellent 3.6, they modified the 4.3 to have direct injection and cylinder deactivation? And, after all of that, it still only gets 17 combined? Same as the V8s? Really!?!
Derek is claiming its a new design based off of the small block which in my mind says: “You took the small V8, chopped two cylinders off, and calculated the displacement of the “new” V6 you had created.” Which FYI is the same thing they did in the late 70s – early 80s to create the first 4.3.
The old chop-block Chevy V6 had a rather awkward history. It started off at 200ci (3/4 of a 267) in the late ’70s, then bumped up to 229 ci in the early ’80s (3/4 of a 305), then got another bump to 4.3L in the mid-80s (263 ci, 3/4 of a 350). That last one also got the offset-pin crank to tame the vibration woes.
If the “new” V6 is actually new, then it’s not a direct chop from either the 5.3 or 6.2.
The all aluminum 4.3LV6 is completely new, shares stroke with 5.3L and 6.2L, bore very close to LS1/LS6 (4.3L=99.6 mm, LS1=99 mm). From a performance perspective, its bore being larger than the 5.3L suggests more potential specific output (HP/Cu in) than the 5.3L.
Bore diameter is the limiter of valve size and flow, which determines horsepower.
This engine is likely to approach 300HP with very strong low end torque.
They haven’t announced the mileage yet, the old one was 17 combined.
Ok, the whole line up is all new. I having issues understanding why GM would make it the same displacement. If people who read about cars all of the time take a bit to understand the difference, how on earth is the general public going to understand it isn’t the old 4.3 gas guzzling boat anchor? Why couldn’t GM alter it a bit to make it a 4.2 or a 4.4?
There is probably some kind of dot gov certification/regulation or internal GM policy not to generally mix and match “passenger car” and “truck” engines. I mean think about it the only “car” instances I can think of using LSx technology were the discontinued W-body LS4s, the Holden Commodore and discontinued Pontiac variants, the old and new Camaro and of course Corvette. In my mind if LSx is the cats tats why even bother developing other V-configured engines, why not just use it and a V6 variant across the board?
@28carslater, true. Most manufacturers would do that. Ford had a version of the 4.6 for trucks and one for cars, heck they even took the 5.4 V8 block and used it to create the Cobra engine. The 4.0V6 was found in everything from Explorers to Rangers to base Mustangs.
Same thing with Pentastar at FIATsler. It replaced no less than 6 different V-6s. It is turbo-ready, too. This is all quite puzzling. GM have an Ecoboost competing turbo engine, so it’s not like they need to develop it anew.
The 3.6 “high feature” V6 is an expensive engine to manufacture. DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, VVT on two banks of cylinders because of the DOHC, and that’s on top of the direct-injection.
The pushrod 2 valve per cylinder engine is less expensive to build.
The high-rpm power benefit of the HFV6 is not really a benefit in a truck application.
And I betcha the DI 4.3 will use less fuel than the 3.6 HFV6 anyhow.
I agree with everyone who said they ought to have changed the displacement … if only to avoid confusion with the prehistoric 4.3 lump.
+1
The Silverado and Sierra have been looking extremely dated relative to the offerings from Ford and Fiat for the past couple years, so why wouldn’t GM go with a new truck that looks like a Chinese knockoff of their old truck?
Did the Ford and Dodge offering change that much between generations? Look pretty similar to me. We will see if their market share drops further – let the market decide.
“Shaped like a pickup truck” is kinda hard to overcome.
However, the fad seems to be to make them look bigger and more threatening by using a wide, tall, upright front-end. Except for the recent Ram that went so far as to tilt it forward. Nothing says, “Get outta my way,” quite like that styling technique.
The F-150 introduced in 2009 was a significant leap past the GM trucks, and this new model doesn’t look like it begins to close the gap. Ford is probably due to move the bar for domestic trucks again in the next twelve months, but even their current truck still seems like a fresher design than this new GM product. The Fiat trucks always have thoughtful interior touches and make a few efforts at distinguishing themselves mechanically. It’s true that they’re not much of a sales threat to GM, since truck buyers talk to each other and most people still find the other brands to be safer bets. Nonetheless, for the prices these trucks sell for, buyers don’t want to have to remind themselves that their Chevy is less likely to break every time they survey their dated and ergonomically indifferent interior, having already struggled to find their nigh-invisible truck in the lot.
I composed a reply to you mike978, but it is lost to the bb system. I do think the 2009 F150 was a big step design wise over previous domestics and that this GM does nothing to close that gap. Fiat trucks usually have thoughtful interior designs and try to distinguish themselves mechanically. This truck doesn’t look like it will create actual enthusiasm, which trucks like the Raptor and various Dodge trucks did in their day. That enthusiasm is what it takes to realize five figure profits rather than just using the margin to advertise big discounts.
The 2009 F-150 revision was pretty major in terms of body/frame/interior, then 2011 brought a complete powertrain revision. The 2013 updates are mainly just styling tweaks and updating the interior technology to fall in line with the rest of the Ford lineup.
From what’s been churning in the rumormill the next update to the F-150 will be major under the skin with a lot of aluminum replacing steel with the goal of big weight reductions. Since a I5 disel is now on tap for the upcoming Transit in the US, there’s also always the chance that engine could end up under the hood of the next-gen F-150 (Dodge could also use the upcoming diesel slated for the JGC in a future Ram model).
Keeping things simple and ‘old school’ could be a calculated risk on GM’s part. Perhaps they’re betting on truck buyers shirking away from an aluminum F-150 and hoping to cash in on traditionalists. Of course, there were a lot of people who tought truck buyers would shy away from a turbocharged V6 and we see how that panned out.
I was thinking about Ford and the use of aluminum in the next F150 and then I realized that with aerospace turning more and more to composite there are alot of sub-contractors with experience in fabricating/working with Aluminum alloys in crucial stress/weight bearing situations that need new avenues for revenue streams and who probably has a better knowledge and relationship with them in the world than Mulally?
I suspect that aluminum F-150 would require more aluminum than whole of the old aerospace combined, although of course the expertise is very important too.
CJ – I agree that the F-150 was a major leap and if it was my money I probably would go with the F-150. The new Silverado is a risk (calculated or otherwise) but final judgement will await actual test reviews and full technical specs. Were weight figures released for this truck yet?
It doesn’t look like GM did anything about aerodynamics.
From the pickuptrucks-dot-com article:
“The exterior design of the new Sierras may not look a lot different from the current-generation trucks, but every square inch of the outer shell has been touched by wind-tunnel and aero engineers, eliminating every fraction of drag, turbulence or resistence. Gaps between panels have been narrowed or closed altogether; the unique chrome grille directs airflow only where it is needed. And the new headlamp design not only looks premium-grade, but it also produces better aero numbers.”
Technology (of which is considerable in today’s trucks) is helping to overcome the admittedly-silly tonka truck mentality in the design studio.
That’s all good but if you remain a slave to the upright, tall, square front, there’s only so far you can go.
I’m not expecting Prius-like aerodynamics but… Couldn’t somebody break the mold here?
Much like with the discombobulated blobs that make up the prevailing crossover designs, I sympathize, but in a world where the curmudgeons are few…
Aerodynamics is not as obvious as upright front versus oblique one, especially considering the flow of cooling air. Just making a tonneau cover standard might do 10 times more in drug reduction than making the face oblong. Easy!
Lol. Show me an aerodynamically efficient pick-up truck.
I figured it’d been thoroughly wind tunnel tested, but there’s only so much you can do and still keep the grill and bumper snug against the radiator which has to be big, tall, and upright for the diesel.
To my surprise, I like both the styling and the engine choices.
But their main competition (for a while) will be the heavily-discounted 2012 models.
If only they could make the Colorado cheap and cheerful with a 4×4 and reliability better than a Dodge Dakota! No features, 4×4, $5k price gap vs. a Silverado stripper 4×4.
Showing them now will probably help GM unload some of the 240,000 2012/13 models that they are currently overstocked with. Why wait for the virtually indistinguishable new models, when you can get the heavily rebated current model for thousands less?
Or you could wait an extra month after intro for the heavily rebated new model. A quarter of a million unsold trucks is like a giant weight on the entire market.
Holy crap, look at those sparkly crossed diva-eyes! *YACK*
That dashboard hurts my eyes to look at. It doesn’t appear cohesive at all! Too harsh are the color clashes and the buttons and switchgear on the left side of the dash appear to be something you’d find in a cargo van (ie: HUGE panel for tiny switches).
I can only imagine how horrible the base spec truck will look.
I do REALLY like the exterior treatment though.
The current Silverado/Sierra have the oldest, dated look in the market.
The 2014 Silverado/Sierra have the oldest, dated look in the market.
Is it just me, or does the steering wheel look offset by a couple of inches to the right relative to the center of the driver’s seat?
It does, but I would assume driver comfort (and symmetry) wouldn`t be overlooked. Lets see actual real world photos and driving experiences.
As an aside since I have you here, could you tell me why the Ford Edge sells so well when it fits in between the Escape (also 5 passenger) and the Explorer? I would have expected people to go for either of those two vehicles. Other manufactures have just two models covering that range – Honda for example just have CRV then Pilot, or GM has Equinox then Traverse.
I’m not sure of the marketing logic behind the positioning, but the Escape is a little bit smaller than the Equinox while the Edge is a little bit larger, effectively giving ford a Small/Medium/Large segmentation of CUVs just like most automakers have with sedans. The Edge is probably most similar to the Toyota Venza and the Nissan Murano in terms of market positioning (Escape/Edge/Explorer(or Flex) vs Rav-4/Venza/Highlander or Rogue/Murano/Pathfinder).
The Edge is considerably wider than the Escape, it’s quieter, and it offers a more isolated driving experience. Some people prefer that. The new Escape has gone a long way towards eliminating unpleasant NVH issues, and if it were my own money I’d buy the Escape over the Edge as I feel it’s more nimble and quick on its feet, but some people still prefer the more trucklike Edge driving experience.
As long a it keeps selling well I figure it will stick around.
Thanks NM, that makes sense. It is selling well (100K a year) hence my question. I had forgotten about the Venza, although that seems more of a station wagon to me but maybe that is splitting hairs too much.
LOL, this is GM. I EXPECT the steering wheel to be off center of the driver’s seat (not to mention the brake pedal being too high from the gas pedal and both being off center with no left foot rest). One of several reasons I don’t buy GM anymore. Try driving across the country in a tahoe and dealing with 5 days of backpain from it.
If it’s the ‘almost’ straight on picture you’re looking at, I think it is just the slight angle of the picture.
It is offset to the right in my ’04 and ’06. Very uncomfortable!
The driver of the Chevy version can just tell people he drove through some chicken wire on the way to work. That grill – sheesh.
“Now that there’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.”
I don’t know. It took me longer to get used to the contrived fender flares and the various other affectations on the GMT900s when they came out in late ’06. This is much easier to absorb. There isn’t nearly as much (superficial) change here as there was from the GMT800s.
From the pickuptrucks-dot-com article:
“We like that the truck has upgraded to new electric power steering for more precision. A set of stronger rear axles go along with the new engines, and the frame (though not technically new) is made with more ultra-high-strength and high-strength steel. The pickup bed area is made from rolled steel (instead of stamped) for increased strength and reduced mass. Finally, the coil-over front and leaf rear suspension was fine-tuned for better control and, we’re told, a more comfortable ride when empty or loaded… Other updates include a stronger frame with the use of ultra-high-strength steel in the ladder frame, as well as more high-strength steel in the cross-member… an upgraded DuraLife four-wheel-brake setup; and a new crew-cab wheelbase that will allow for a 6.5-foot bed, something only the Ford F-150 before and the 2013 Ram 1500 will now offer.”
The suspension and body is also using more hydroformed steel and aluminum to save weight.
While we perpetuate the myth that trucks don’t change as often as cars, trucks in today’s market change a lot, and a lot of it is not readily apparent.
Now to a niggling concern: while I’m as guilty as anyone, let’s drop the hackneyed reference to a Who song. This truck is not deserving of an out-of-context baby boomer-era pop culture reference, as this is not a 2003 fascia refresh.
These improvements are similar in scope and intent to the engine improvements. Not too radical but a collection of improvements that all add up.
However, 6.5 foot bed on a crew cab? I admire the utility but that’s going to be even harder to park than the normal crew cab. I suppose they must offer it to be competitive but that’s quite a road whale.
Indeed, Ford and Dodge do it, and if the vehicle is being put to its “intended use” then the machinery around it is a helluva lot bigger and longer.
As a devotee of the school of “longer-wheelbase-the-better”, I like the road manners of these vehicles. I think the Ford crew with the 6 1/2 ft bed has a wheelbase of 160-odd inches, it’s bloody fantastic!
I’m guessing “new crew-cab chassis” would have your longer wheelbase.
I like it.
I’m not really the demographic for this kind of vehicle, but if I found the need, one of these would be on my list. What really has my curiosity piqued is the upcoming Canyon/Colorado.
I find it amusing that so many people pooh-pooh the Ecoboost Ford motors, but when GM shows a completely conventional engine line up (not unlike the rest of the competition’s), that’s bad too.
I see someone else noticed the ‘Avalanche’ bumpers, too. I’ve wondered why it’s taken them 12 years to push them out to other trucks. I guess better late than never.
Props to GM for keeping the front bench seat and column shifter instead of an idiotic center console.
I was hoping for something improved from the powertrain department aside from the same old 5.3 and 6.2 engines–but honestly neither one is broken, the same goes for the 6 speed transmissions.
May pick up a WT variant of the 2500 at some point, provided it doesn’t have an infotainment system.
The 5.3 and 6.2 are not the same as the 2013’s. They are both all new designs with increased power, torque, MPG and refinement.
They aren’t the same 5.3 and 6.2 engines.
I hope the bench seat is more comfortable than the one in the current and last generation. I wanted a bench seat originally when I was looking to buy in 2000, but when I test drove a 2000 Sierra, it was terrible, worse than the seat in my 99 Grand Cherokee, and it was the main reason I was getting rid of it. It killed my back. I swapped it for one with buckets and they were great. Best seats I’ve ever had were the ones in my ’77 Power Wagon. They didn’t look like they would be, but you could sit on it twice as long as most other vehicles and still feel better than my friend’s Chevy and Ford trucks. Great on long trips, the refuel and restroom stops were the only reason to stop at all.
Ford and Ram marketing executives must be celebrating.
don’t forget I sell Ford and Ram, nationwide delivery available from your friendly Buickman.
buickman@generalwatch.com
references available from sea to shining sea.
TTAC, how much do you charge commenters to promote our businesses on your website?
I thought the screen name hyperlinks to self-congratulatory websites were generous enough, but now we get free multi-line advertisements too?
today I am officially calling for the removal of Dan Akerson as leader of General Motors. he has failed miserably in many aspects…executive turnover, appointments that make no sense, failure to correct marketing (the real problem) and only offering more excuses for loss of market share. time to pack it in Danny Boy. remember I called for Red Ink Rick’s head before it was fashionable. where is Steve Rattner (and the illustrious RF) when you need him?
Buickman
Founder
http://www.GeneralWatch.com
I assumed Steve was with you. Last time I talked to him, he said he had just put on his Spider-Man costume and was heading over to your house so the two of you could go up into your tree house to “play super heroes.”
Silvy Nonsense
Founder
http://www.SpecificWatch.com
wonderful….just wonderful (slow golf clap)
cute Silvy :)
@Buickman- With $9B in the till last year, you will have a very hard time convincing the board that Akerson should go. I wish he was more of a car guy, too. Let’s see how the 13 new Chevy models coming out this year perform. Most of the current product is selling well enough to run plants near capacity. They will fix Europe, closing Bochum is a good first step. I think Akerson will be there for a while.
Just the fact that Chevy is refreshing the disappointing Malibu so quickly should be some proof that “This ain’t yer father’s GM”.
Trucks? Seems like they’re selling to the same people they always have.
The headlights on the GMC look like tacky aftermarket units. And the inside has the fakest looking fake wood I’ve ever seen! 70’s television sets had more convincing fake wood.
Maybe it’s real wood that’s so good that it looks fake?
The only people I can see being happy with GM’s new trucks are located in Dearborn. I’m sure Ford is upping their sales forecast right now.
Apparently all of the automakers believe that the target pickup truck buyer thinks aerodynamics are for p—ys.
dedicated to Mr. Daniel Akerson…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl9WMIPzd6w
Buickman
Founder
http://www.GeneralWatch.com
I always knew there was something missing from today’s pickup trucks that I could never quite put my finger on, but it just hit me: Me-too LEDs adorning the headlights! That’s what I’ve been waiting for. GMC, I was thinking RAM, but now you’re getting my money.
Credit where it’s due, though: no turbos, no air suspensions. Longevity should be a mandatory feature on these rigs, and those omissions help.
i agree. turbochargers are SO unreliable. if they took them off semi trucks, maybe those unreliable engines could make it more than a pathetic 1,000,000 miles…
i’m sure we’ll hear about “coking” and “lag” before the end of it too. seriously, quit perpetuating the myth already; there is NOTHING unreliable about turbochargers.
The GMC Sierra has the better looking front fascia and I agree with Kickstart, without a camera rearward visibility while backing up is unsafe. On a two door regular regular cab it helps to remove the tailgate – but on a full crew cab, you need the camera.
The big booger bear is – do I trust GM to get direct injection and cylinder deactivation right?
I believe GM already has cylinder deactivation on a couple of its engines. The 3.6 V6 used in many of the vehicles already has DI, and that hasn’t had any reliability concerns AFAIK.
Heck- they had it back in 2008ish on the LS4 Impala SS and Grand Prix GXP. Seems like its holding up ok.
Wasn’t there a Piston Slap column a while back regarding oil consumption on GM’s older DoD applications?
Yep, found it.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/08/piston-slap-lsx-ftl/
There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with a turbocharged engine… ask Volvo or Saab (RIP). The kicker with a turbo engine is the driver. Do they give a rats-ass enough about the engine to be meticulous with oil changes? I’d like to think that in the P/U market, yes.
Oh $hit, if GM ever gets drawn and quartered, Chapter 7-style, the world’s automakers will be descending like a cloud of locusts into the GM Powertrain headquarters hunting heads, and their lawyers will be applying for patents until the cows come home.
I’m a Ford truck guy and even I don’t think it looks bad! Not a earth-shaking change in the look but the truck buyer is a very conservative market especially when it comes to styling….we want it to look updated but not totally different from the model that preceeded it.
The interior is OK, lightyears ahead of the overly drab/plasticky feel/look of last year’s truck. I agree that the LEDs are a bit much. but that seems to be the high tech styling trend du jour lately.
The changes are somewhat underwhelming compared to the competition. However, let wait and see what the final power, towing and fuel economy number will be.
However, I can’t believe that GM would put the CUE touch panel system in a working truck. I’m sure it works much better when the operator has dirty hands or is wearing gloves?
This is 2012. 2014 model-year dashboards dominated by plastic from a cheapo boombox from the 90s is frankly a bit embarrassing.
I don’t know what they were thinking there either. The dash looks it’s ‘crowning’ or giving birth!
The outside of the truck looks good and the dash should complement or somehow resemble it.
I’ve heard since my last comment that it may actually be *REAL* aluminum trim, which is optional. But if it looks just like plastic pretending to be aluminum…then what’s the point?
These trucks look great. They are spot on.
Lets just talk appearance for a moment Re: current GMT900 vs Ram vs F150:
I think the GM trucks are the toughest looking. If it was my money on the line, I would take a used 2010 Sierra 5.3 or 6.2 over a comparable Ram HEMI 5.7 or F150 5.4 anyday of the week. Any day. All day. I dont need a fancy interior, I dont need a cushy coil spring ride. I NEED 200,000 miles of durability. Hauling stuff with muddy shoes on… I dont need to be worrying that my employee just got into my truck and soiled the seats…. the LS1 based 5.3 and 6.2 motors are bullet proof.
Funny enough, I am most fond of the base models. No frills and you gain a greater appreciation of the core truck styling.
Now, to these new GM trucks. They are perfect. They are exactly as conservative as they need to be.
I will add one last tid bit.
I think the GM trucks have always had a lasting elegance/style to them that the other 2 brands cant match. These new offerings will age well. They also look the best lifted on mud tires. Just my 2 cents, but if I was doing a truck for SEMA, I would choose a GM Truck to base my creation on over FORD/DODGE all day. They are the baddest looking even though they dont appear to have much style.
This is where I drawa parallels with Honda/Acura. The styling always ages well but is always lambasted when unveiled… give them 5 years, and they always come out ahead in the styling department
You are clearly not the demographic that GM is trying to market these trucks to.
Sure, they’ll sell you one but the profit for any pickup truck manufacturer is the ‘Suburban Trade Union’ poser market.
Thankfully, the 4.8 V8 is gone and the remaining engines are much improved. GM is keeping pushrod engines alive forever, apparently, and that’s totally fine. I mean as long as GM admits it takes a much bigger engine to make the same HP/Tq as DOHCs.
I guess a ‘token’ V6 must be base engine, but the 6.2 should be the 1/2 ton upgrade V8 and for HDs, revive/revise the 8.1 gasser (upgrade). I don’t see any shame in it and the upcoming 4500/5500 series will need a hefty gasser (option) anyways.
The V6 will probably only power 2WD work trucks and full size vans and possibly be used as an option on their “mid size” trucks and maybe SUVs, this is pretty much what happened with the old 4300. It may also be a CAFE dodge designating the base engine (“LS”) as the V6 while in reality selling the next model up (“LT”) 90% of the time.
@28-Cars-Later- There is no CAFE dodge. The law requires reporting what you actually sell. If you don’t meet the fleet average requirements, there are fines calculated by the total sales volume times the MPG by which the standard is missed.
I have 4 4.8 Chevies in my fleet. Maybe I’m stupid, but they run beautifully and haul a load well. A Silverado 1500 4.8 pulls a 5000 lb. trailer up hill and down well enough for me. I’m thinking western CT and central PA for hills. A 6-speed auto would help them a lot, but I would never want a bigger engine! As it is, they can’t keep their rear wheels calm pulling out of a gravel driveway.
Oh, and V-6’s? My first choice always, although the Fords are way above the Chevies in that regard. The cost of the diesel option in today’s pickups can almost not be recouped. BTW, we are working Maine with 4WD pickups, work truck trim, the building business, counting efficiency most.
The Exterior is OK, I guess. It is inoffensive but it also doesn’t draw my attention like a Dodge or Ford does. IMO Dodge has the best looking exterior design of any full size while Ford is lagging only a little bit (I own an 2012 F150).
However that interior is HORRID. Maybe I’ll change my mind when I see it in person but it looks like a step backwards from the current design.
IMO those engines had better pull a good one up on Ford and Dodge or GM might have a problem.
A BRAND NEW 90-degree OHV V6!? That pretty much makes my day.
Now make a 3.8l version for the Lacrosse.
Hell just replace the 3.6 across the board.
I note the sarcasm, but if only that were true I might look at Opelbuick again as a possible next ride.
Sarcasm?
I am to OHV V6s as Sajeev is to Panthers.
3800 Series IV? I’m giddy just thinking about it.
My mistake, on average it seems people mock 3800 love.
I would give my left nut for a 3800 Series IV.
All of you should know that Ajla is on a QUEST (that’s right quest) to own EVERY variation of the Buick V6 ever brought to market and sold to the general public. Sadly the 4.1 V6 is hard to find.
Ajla, do you have a need for a hunched over guy running behind you hitting coconuts together on your quest? I will gladly volunteer.
For the uninitiated:
http://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=JHFXG3r_0B8
Throw it in the camaro, as-is!
The 3800 Series III in my 97 Camaro was a sweet, simple motor, but I got rid of it before the DexCool could work its “magic”.
The grille looks to me to be awfully similar to the Ford Super Duty. That plasti-wood is ridiculous.
Lot of hate and criticism from folks who then turn around in the next sentence and admit that they would never personally own a pickup truck. Speaking as a member of the target audience, I’m perfectly satisfied with having a truck styled to look like a truck instead of like a jellybean a la the Toyota Tundra.
Well, at least the “Jay Leno Chins” (and I’m still a Jay Leno fan) are finally gone, that makes it a winner to me. Funny thing is, now Chevy looks like a Ford!
Ha! Jay Leno chins! Excellent analogy!
But the truck does look much better without them…
What dat?
They make these trucks so high that they need to put in step ladders so people could reach the cab or the bed. How stupid is that? Pickup truck buyers have the mentality of 6 year olds. “I want that big Tonka truck with the big wheels!”
There is a lot of variation in height depending on the drivetrain and wheels on the truck. A 4×2 F-150 with the base 17″ wheels sits a lot lower than a 4×4 with the 20″s.
I wonder – on that base truck – what is the measurement form ground to the top of the pickup bed rail? And what was it 10 years ago / 20 years ago on equivalent spec model? If it’s higher than the distance from the ground to my armpit it becomes a lot less user-friendly.
They’re all too high!
Day-am; rushes to judgement; point-counterpoint, praising, epic disparagement, typical TTAC discussions of the esoteric. All for a truck that hasn’t been seen live or test driven yet. Where’s Apa? I need some popcorn.
No 3-point seat belts for the front center seat?
I gave up on pickups a while ago. The beds kept on getting higher and higher in that my 6’4″ size started to have major problems even trying to get heavy items in the bed standing on level without needing a step stool? Then they are also getting winder, longer where they won’t fit in most modern sized garages and if they can fit they take any garage / dirty storage space.
Finally got tired of it and bought a diesel grand cherokee (’07 / 08 models) that is the same width and length as a mid size car, tows up to 7,500 lbs w/o compliant, gets 20 mpg combined (mid 20’s highway), seats 5 people with plenty of storage space, has Jeep trail rated 4wd, and bought a $150 trailer from harbor freight when I need a “pickup” bed that I can actually put stuff in. It sits in the garage next to the Jeep tilted up against the wall.
This is just the “2013 Malibu” of Trucks.
I actually liked the old one’s interior better. Having many relatives who own them I can say that although the plastic didn’t look like much, most of it was actually soft-touch.
Well, Now the Ford trucks fall further into irrelevance, but the Ram is the truck to have.
These are great redesigns though. Great looking inside and out and thank God GM isn’t treating V8s like they are the work of the devil. All that gets you is a V6 car engine, in a truck, that has the power of a V8 with WORSE fuel economy than a V8.
Great job GM. It’s clear that you focused on customer needs and were driven to make your truck perform in the real world, and not just look good on paper like the Fords.
I don’t see the point of V6s in full-size trucks either. I mean other than for CAFE reasons or simple reg cab and 2WD grocery getters. Or base trucks for meter readers.
I wouldn’t trust a 200+ hp GM 4.3 V6 in anything bigger than an extra cab/2WD though and neither does GM.
The point is, the GM 4.3 V6 gets slightly worse, yes worse MPG than their 5.3 V8.
That was the old 4.3 V6. This truck will have a different one that has all the same tech as the new 5.3 and 6.2 V8’s – direct injection, aluminum block. Read the article.
As others have said, GM should have changed the displacement of the V6 … even if it were a rounding-error displacement change. They need to distance themselves from the old 4.3 V6.
GM is throwing everything they have at their 4.3 V6 including cylinder deactivation, direct injection and high compression. It’s got enough new parts to call it “all new”, but likely shares the old crank, rods and valvetrain. The block is based on the old 4.3, but is now all aluminum except the cylinders are sleeved.
Very interesting stuff, and the same goes for the 5.3, but 300 and 400 HP, respectively, is probably unlikely without more valves or displacement.
Only in America would a so called ‘Work Truck’ not be equipped with any type of diesel.
It just goes to show that while the image of a hard working general contractor gets invoked sooner then later in the marketing campaigns the reality is that these are nothing more then the Land Yachts of our generation.
Work trucks with gas engines perform the same hard work and heavy towing as diesels. I’ve worked both kinds for decades and with the latest generation of diesels, I’ll take a gas work truck every time.
You are correct. A gas engine can be made to do pretty much what a diesel will do – at a much higher expense.
As for the latest generation of diesels they don’t exist in pickup truck sizes in North America. For that you’d have to go the 4 or 5 cylinder engines in Europe or Asia in comparably sized trucks and vans.
If I could get something like the 5-cylinder diesel in a Sprinter or the proposed new Ford Transit, that might be fine, but thousands of dollars for what they offer makes no sense. I always try for the V-6 in my trucks. Sadly, the world thinks my company wants to pay to run 350 hp when 200-225 would be plenty.
Thr front end of the Chevy reminds me of the Family Truckster.
What’s the deal with carmakers thinking that every car, truck and SUV needs the automotive equivalent of glittery eyeliner makeup? Damn Audi for starting the trend, and damn everybody else for copycatting.
I’m calling for a boycott of non-functional LED headlight bling. Who’s with me!!!
I agree. It was kind of cool when only Audi had it, because it set their vehicles apart. But now that everything from Kia’s to now GMC trucks have it, it’s kind of annoying and getting old.
I dunno…I think GM might have really messed up on this one. The design just seems too…heavy.
I was hoping for something a little more radical as far as exterior styling but I like the looks, especially the GMC. That’s awesome that they are offering a 6′ bed in the 1/2 ton crew cab.
The interior shots look like computer images. I’m more interested if they added a transmission temp gage like my ’04 HD or if you can order them with a factory brake controller for trailers w/electric brakes. Could care less about the look of the imitation wood but it’s obviously important to some of you car guys!…..LOL
These trucks were also reported to have shed 500 lbs over their respective predecessors. Be interesting to see if GM did that. Not enough info yet IMO to say whether or not these trucks are substantially different/better than the current model.
Un-exciting, traditional, whatever. I think it’s a good looking truck and I’m a Ford guy. I admit I am drawn to trucks that are designed and styled to be truck like and not urban glam rigs, although that is where the money is.
Yeah, I like them too. The front is too macho and the bed is too high, yes and yes. The driving dynamics of the seat, steering wheel and window (elbow rest) is why I bought my last Chevy, more comfortable than the Ford. That six cylinder still tows my 3500# sailboat around the east coast fine after 10 years of work so I’d trust the new six since they apparently aren’t that different. If I need a new pickup they haven’t lost me as a potential customer with this update.
“If I need a new pickup they haven’t lost me as a potential customer with this update.”
Yep, and I think that’s exactly what GM was aiming for. Although it’s ‘new and improved’, GM sure as hell doesn’t want to alienate any of their current market demographic with anything bold and/or polarizing.
Additionally, the upcoming new Colorado/Canyon play a significant role, as well. Without a similiar small/mid-size entry, Ford and Dodge have a different mission with their full-size trucks and their engineering is done accordingly.
In fact, I would venture to guess that anyone bemoaning the lack of the 3.6L V6 in the new full-size GM trucks need only wait for the Canyon/Colorado. My money’s on that one being the truck that gets the 3.6L.
For at least 10 years, all full-size truck grilles have followed the exact same design aesthetic as rodeo belt buckles. I hate them all.
I like the old ones better, especially the LTZ / Denali models. They’re damn good looking trucks.
I like the GMC. Much more clean than the Chevy. That said, Ford’s going to have a field day with these. Very me too. The 4 dials atop the IP look the same as in the F150 and that step, ha! Cue the fat Ford guy over the “manly truck”. It’s like GM gave up and said “Look guys, we made a better F150!”
The guys at SEMA are being trumped by the OEM’s, and are probably scratching their heads – a few suggestions:
1. Chrome “Truck Nutz” under the back bumper, that when kicked, lower a power tailgate
2. Twin “Tractor Stacks”, activated by a dash button, loaded with black pepper to produce a simulated “soot-spew” on demand
3. Facial Hair or cleft bumpers
4. Square-profile tires to match the macho wheel wells (See Mythbusters)
5. Replace LED’s with laser diodes for daytime running lamps
6. Reverse “GMC” logo, so that those that you’re tailgating can look in their rearview and be even more intimidated
7. “Escalader” power stairs to lift you to bed height (even Chuck Norris would appreciate that)
Hope that helps.