[Ed753]

Yes, my Denali with a 6.2L V8, 8 speed, and all the options cost more than your truck. So? What's your point? Nothing. That's irrelevant. You just can't stand to lose or admit when you're wrong, can you? You paid more for a freaking gas tank to drive a reasonable distance. I didn't - mine was included. Don't be bitter, embrace your decision - poor or not. I'm getting over 17 mpg BTW with my 6.2L in 60/40 city/hwy driving.

No, buying what you want isn't a problem, just don't make false claims and bash other people's decisions.

And yes, I called you a liar. You're also an instigator.

I'm not bitter, I'm laughing! My statements are factual, yours are based on your opinion and information from websites.

 

[Ed753]

Why does every truck thread have to turn into a pissing match?

Right about here................ (but I'm the instigator) :yup:

Ford just makes you pay that for a gas tank to get decent mileage between fill ups. :fall:

 

[ChrisGinNC]

Right about here................ (but I'm the instigator) :yup:

I'm staying out of it.

 

[fastrehotrods]

Do you go to the Mustang forum and tell them your Camaro is a better car? Probably not. When you come to a site and try to talk the down the manufacture the site is named for, you're going to see some resistance. I'm not saying you don't have some valid points, but still you should expect it.

It's GMInsideNews, there's going to be GM bias. Just like FordInsideNews has a Ford bias. It is what it is.

True, but I never jump in and start trash talking. I won't speak a word unless unless provoked. I guess it depends on where I'm at, I find myself still playing defense for GM in many sites (FB) and such, but sometimes people's trash talking just irks me, and makes me take sides. Which is funny because I still own more GM trucks than I do Ram.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but facts are facts. MPG ratings are facts, so are towing numbers, payload and performance. I simply stated that the current truck gets better mileage and offers the same level of performance. Never once attacked your truck. Rams downfall are being the heaviest truck and having a much lower GVWR than the other trucks. Until they drop 400lbs, they will not compete in all around performance.

Also, I have never seen brand bias like on a Mustang forum. See their 4000+ post about the 2016 Camaro vs 2016 Mustang. Yikes.

Once again, I didn't ask. I respond to point A, and you spout off on B, C, D, E, and F, which didn't add anything to the current conversation. I know the Ram is the porkiest truck of the bunch, doesn't affect me. Yes, I know it doesn't have the highest towing rating. Yes I know I could have found something that squeaked another MPG or two, I don't care. I had my own criteria, and this truck suites my needs perfectly. It's towed what I needed, effortlessly. I wasn't towing a 2 ton Buick up the mountains getting 13.0 MPG thinking "Damn, I could have had an additional 800 lbs towing capacity", or "The 6.2L I could only get in a $55k truck would be so much faster". My truck is plenty fast, the 3.92's are great, I didn't buy this truck to drag race with, I have purpose built cars for that. I could spout off my criticisms of the Silverado every time the name comes up, but I don't because I realize that people have different ideas of the perfect truck. My only debates on here come as a result of being on the defensive, but I guess that's to be expected on here.

Let me clarify... "Vintage" Mustang forums. But I'm thinking that's the difference. It seems the people who are into the old cars are much more receptive to other makes and not hating others. Something I noticed different in my friends in my 98 Trans Am crowd, versus the old school hot rod crowd. I don't know why people who only deal with new vehicles buy into this brand rivalry BS.

 

[Ed753]

Yes, my Denali with a 6.2L V8, 8 speed, and all the options cost more than your truck. So? What's your point? Nothing. That's irrelevant. You just can't stand to lose or admit when you're wrong, can you? You paid more for a freaking gas tank to drive a reasonable distance. I didn't - mine was included. Don't be bitter, embrace your decision - poor or not. I'm getting over 17 mpg BTW with my 6.2L in 60/40 city/hwy driving.

No, buying what you want isn't a problem, just don't make false claims and bash other people's decisions.

And yes, I called you a liar. You're also an instigator.

You brought up price........

You have the 6.2L / 8-Speed, on one hand when given the option of that vs. the 5.3L / 6-Speed, I understand, but far too many 8-Speed problems (that I know about) to allow myself to buy one.......... I liked my 5.3L / 4-Speed a lot better than my 5.3L / 6-Speed, the Ford 5-Point-Slow 6-Speed is freaking awesome.

Being that you don't tow a trailer, I'd have stuck with the 5.3L.

5.0 and 6.2 are not even remotely in the same league. 6.2 / 8 speed embarrasses the competition. I think Pickuptrucks.com did the test showing it was not only the most powerful but also got better gas mileage than every other v8, even the lighter, less powerful Ford.

The 6.2L is GM's top engine right? O-Kay, just checking......... What if I run E-85?.......... Again, I'm not worried about the power or fuel economy......... Hands-down better than the 5.3L

Because we're truck guys! And I'm from Texas! I ain't going to let some northerner bad-mouth my truck!


This is my first 6.2L, and coming from the 2014 5.3L, I'm shocked by the power. I put on those heavier wheels and it'll still smoke them all the way down the street. I could feel and see the MPG change in my 5.3L when I put heavier tires on. Not with the 6.2L. It'll guzzle gas if I let it, but it'll also sip when I stay out of it. Quite impressed, I am.

I only countered your assaults...........

5.3L isn't outperforming the 5.7L. I owned a 5.3L and have driven a Hemi/8 speed Ram. I don't like Ram at all (you can ask fastrehotrods), but the 5.3L/6 speed is pretty pathetic acceleration wise in stock form.

Shhhhhh, don't be spreading rumors............

WOW. You are an arrogant, silly little man.

I mean how can I take anyone seriously who based their truck buying decision on if it had a push button start or not?

I'll try not and sound like a broken record, but yes; that was one of many - All 3 of my cars have passive keys, and my house has combination lock, keys are old technology. I never want to own a "keyed" car again, I use it a minimum of 6 times a day.

How can you insist on having auto down passenger windows but be ok with having to pull a knob to activate a simple locking rear end? GM had auto locking rear ends like 20 years ago.

That was merely something I would lose, I wish it was on all 4, but 2 is better than 1, along with the "manual locking" portion of my locking rear-end - You thought it was only manual!?

Guess that makes sense, it only took them 15 years longer than GM to have an auto 4wd and you have to buy a higher end truck to even get auto 4wd!!!! LMAO

So you think GM will get passive Key, Larger Tank, Rear A/C Vents, Key-pad and a bigger cab in 15 years?

Are you ok with the cheap woodgrain sticker on your door that's so thin you can still see the plastic it's formed too underneath (Yep, the door shape shows right through that awful 1996 woodgrain sticker). Fuel tank argument makes sense. You bought a 5.slow which gets horse**** gas mileage.
Notice any paint issues on your truck yet?

What does GM use; Hickory or Oak?

Shall I continue?

I did look at the 15 F150's and couldn't get over how all of their short comings. There are a lot, I assure you. Hoping in the GMC then the F150 it was abundantly clear the GMC is a whole class higher of a vehicle.

Now look what you did. I tried to have a civil debate and I got lowered to your mud slinging childish ways.

What do you drive again?

 

[NoStopN]

Holy hell, I'm getting a headache. First thing's first: this would be a great time for some people to exercise their ignore buttons on the forum. I know it will fall upon ears who feel like it would do them a disservice, but at least some of you won't be getting any infractions.

The difference between a GM short bed and regular bed is only 10". 5' 8" is short enough, rather not go shorter.

To me, the 6'6" bed is the short bed. That's one reason why I couldn't endorse buying a GMT900, no crew cab 6'6" bed in a 1500 model.

Looks like the 18 inch wheels for the Sierra are gone, the Silvy still shows them.

The same 18" wheel options as the last 2 years are still available for 2016. They are standard on the All Terrain model.

You have that option. Get the long bed, or an HD, or a truck with better mileage (GM).

At least GM will soon be offering that truck with better gas mileage. So far, diesel Colorado/Canyon reviews are very positive. I know, that engine isn't available on the 1500s, but it will make some buyers re-evaluate their "need" for a fullsize truck.

Why does every truck thread have to turn into a pissing match?

E-peen envy.

The trash talking you don't see so much because they shut down anyone with opposing views. It does seem par for the course that this site would be GM biased, given the name. But there are a surprising number of anti-gm people here.

I might say that you have your facts mixed up here. The staff doesn't shut down opposing views. But, we have a "don't bash someone for liking Brand X" policy. We seem to have some GM cheerleaders who will bash Ford, Chrysler, & import models just because they are Fords, Chryslers, or imports.

I'm staying out of it.

Yet I have to put on my hip waders.

 

[jossch]

NoStopn, when you choose a Regular Cab long box SLE on the build and price the 18 inch wheels are not a choice, just 17 and 20 inch. I noticed when you choose the v-8 the price $1095.00 is changed to $1295.00, just some different things I have been noticing for the 2016's

 

[Ed753]

NoStopn, when you choose a Regular Cab long box SLE on the build and price the 18 inch wheels are not a choice, just 17 and 20 inch.

Just buy some 18" wheels on eBay and be happy you can get an extended range tank! :yup:


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[NoStopN]

NoStopn, when you choose a Regular Cab long box SLE on the build and price the 18 inch wheels are not a choice, just 17 and 20 inch.

The 2015 model requires the Off Road option package in order to get the 18s. Seems stupid considering I tried to build a 2WD. :blink: The 2016 build site might not be up to full specs or maybe GM did remove that option.

 

[TruckMan]

Right about here................ (but I'm the instigator) :yup:

That was AFTER you claimed that the Ford has 5 more inches of rear cab space - from the steering wheel (in the rear?) to the rear window. I proved that it was less than 2 inches with factual data from the OEMs and other reputable sites. Are you now saying that GM, Ford, and Car & Driver are all wrong? You know better than them? LOL!

Still waiting on that evidence...

 

[TruckMan]

The 6.2L is GM's top engine right? O-Kay, just checking......... What if I run E-85?.......... Again, I'm not worried about the power or fuel economy......... Hands-down better than the 5.3L

Impossible. E85 gets 25-30% worse fuel economy, which you're not worried about. But then your gas tank wouldn't be big enough to drive 300 miles in 5 degree weather while pulling a trailer. Wait something doesn't add up? Must be those pesky facts...

 

[NoStopN]

What the hell ever! Guys, drop it. I'm tired of reading this & I have an itchy point giving finger.

 

[roy219]

The Carbook build and price shows GM charging $395.00 for all the metallics for the Sierra but some of the metallics for the Silverado still show no extra charge.

Good observation, jossch. Surcharge for metallic paint applies to Buick for MY 2016 as well. It looks like GM is emulating the pricing policies of true luxury brands (e.g., BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc.) in this regard as it attempts to elevate the two brands.

I'm sure the yuppie target customers for GMC and Buick won't mind.

 

[Ed753]

That was AFTER you claimed that the Ford has 5 more inches of rear cab space - from the steering wheel (in the rear?) to the rear window. I proved that it was less than 2 inches with factual data from the OEMs and other reputable sites. Are you now saying that GM, Ford, and Car & Driver are all wrong? You know better than them? LOL!

Still waiting on that evidence...

 

[Ed753]

That was AFTER you claimed that the Ford has 5 more inches of rear cab space - from the steering wheel (in the rear?) to the rear window. I proved that it was less than 2 inches with factual data from the OEMs and other reputable sites. Are you now saying that GM, Ford, and Car & Driver are all wrong? You know better than them? LOL!

Still waiting on that evidence...

As I said "Leg Room" is not an accurate indicator, as illustrated by GMC shown below; it is a fuzzy number and in this case mis-leading you:

So if the Ford has a raised floor, but still 2 1/2" more rear "leg room" do you think that means GM's cab is only 2 1/2" shorter?

I'll continue:

Ford Crew Cab 5' 6" Bed; Total Length = 231.9"
GMC Crew Cab 5' 8" Bed; Total Length = 229.5"

Difference; the GMC is 2.4" shorter overall, despite have a 2.2" longer bed. Which would lead a rational person to say Ford has a cab that is 4.6" Longer.


Ford Crew Cab 6' 6" Bed; Total Length = 243.7"
GMC Crew Cab 6' 6" Bed; Total Length = 239.0"

Difference; the GMC is 4.7" shorter overall, the beds are the same length. Which would lead a rational person to say Ford has a cab that is 4.7" Longer.


Now go down to the Ford Dealer and take a look for yourself, try to buy one of those $13,000 off F-150 XLT's while you are at it.

OK I'm done with the "engineer".

 

[Ed753]

When done using Geometry, SAS calculations and PUBLISHED rear seat legroom the GMC = 33.1" deep and the Ford = 37.9" deep; a difference 4.8".

So I guess maybe it isn't 5" will you accept that it is 4.8" bigger?

GMC:

Ford:

 

[NoStopN]

Seriously, enough is enough. If you want to measure leg & hip room, carry your ass to the dealership & park your carcass in the back seat. No tape measure, just the eyes of the buyer.

So, let's get over this whole junk about who's got the bigger rear seat. :bio::

 

[TruckMan]

Ok, I did as you both asked and measured at a dealer today... The Sierra's interior is 3" longer than the SUPERCREW F-150. I used the seat of my pants method, and then a measuring tape. The Sierra has a shorter engine bay and hood so a bigger interior, the seats are thinner, the interior is much more efficiently laid out. Overall the Sierra blows the F-150 away. I said it on the internet, so it must be true...

 

[NoStopN]

Ok, I did as you both asked and...

Then no, you didn't. I asked that everybody drop it.

 

[TruckMan]

:friday: