[chakis24]

350 hp is too low. the mainstream hemi has 390...toyota over 400....those are their mainstream engines- i know they offer smaller v8s but no one buys those. if gm really wanted to leapfrog everyone the v6 would have 325-350 hp. 5.3 400. 6.2 475.

Not much. Other than it will look more crossover-ish. Im going off verbal descriptions so its kinda hard to visualize, but i know the chevy styling is more conservative whereas the GMC's are a leap forward. Look to the new malibu for cues id say. Yukon will look NOTHING like the current one.

so theyre using cars to design trucks?
we'll have to wait and see it seems.

 

[chakis24]

If a single word of any of that is true I'm done. 90 Years of Chevrolet family loyalty ends.. I will never step foot in a gmc. I have far too much pride to reduce myself to such a brand.. GM can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't even keep my old Chevrolet's around a day longer. For me, the bailouts were nothing. This however brings out a hatred in me for GM like I've never felt.

Ford trucks and Ford cars here I come... I hope you'll welcome an Ex Chevrolet guy with open arms. I refuse to support a 'second best' brand another day of my life in any way, shape or form. At least with Ford you'll get the best they have to offer. I can't stand this 2 truck brand BS any longer. Fake as fake could be... Nothing real anymore.

i think you may be overreacting a wee bit. this is based on the opinion of a friend of an internet blogger. although i agree what might be a car based design language would be....interesting.....no one is saying chevy would be second tier- they will just appeal to different audiences. do you really think gm would keep all the good stuff away from chevy and build a second rate truck? come on now- at the end of the day chevy must beat ford, and gm knows it. wait and see. another way to look at it is chevy will go back to the gmt400 "like a rock" type of truck- built to work and get things done (with all the frills optional)...gmc's will be for the white collar weekend warriors (with most things standard)...i dont see a problem with that.

 

[chakis24]

Bvonscott, Vmax, and Fan of Durant: I didn't want a Denali either because I didn't want a viscous coupling AWD system. I wanted a two-speed transfer case. That's why I paid about the same money for my SLT 4x4 as a Denali, but got what I wanted: a 6.2L coupled to a 6-speed auto w/ a 2-speed transfer case. Now if I could just convince my wife that I need a lift, some BFG's and get rid of the running boards in favor of chromed oval tube step assists.

deflate your tires...."honey- oh no! looks like i need new tires. oh crap, the tires i bought wont fit! dont worry i can make it work......." (or if you really want to make sure she'll buy- it slash'em).

someone slashed my tires in college- so i bought bigger ones and a lift to replace them

 

[chakis24]

i hope not. i cant picture that truck in a "like a rock" commercial or any other chevy truck commercial for that matter....maybe a ridgeline commercial itd work....

 

[chakis24]

I can't see that comparison at all. I'd say the 1998 S-10 was a look forward at the new-for-'99 GMT800.


So 6 years is too far apart for the S-10 to be relevant to the Silverado ('82-'88), but not for the Silverado to be relevant to the S-10 ('88-'94)?
If you had to pair up S-10s with their closest match in Chevrolet fullsize trucks, '82-'92 S-10s look most like '88-'98 Silverados, and '93-'03 S-10s look most like '99-'02 Silverados.

to add some fuel...the 2001 avalanche was a predecessor to the 2004 colorado and 2003 silverado.

 

[chakis24]

Ethanol is a complete joke. 1.3 gallons of ethanol for every 1 gallon of crude burned. Burning food for fuel? Lunacy. Even worse? The energy that goes into producing it doesn't justify the outcome. Not to mention running on ethanol yields LESS MPG, and COSTS MORE to the consumer. Please, justify ethanol's existence for me.

the only reason that is the case is because the engine is programmed to run on either fuel. if the engine and computer were optimized for e85 you wouldnt have those differences between e85 and gas.

 

[chakis24]

I personally don't like the lack of a B pillar to where the doors are mounted on extended cabs. Makes for a loose-fit, and seems like it would rattle around a lot while driving. The seats are too small to actually utilize as passenger space, so why not just increase the size and add smaller doors like in the quad cab ram. Or they could just use the current crew cab models and convert to an extended cab since they aren't very roomy at all

mine dont rattle at all. its just annoying in tight parking spaces because you must open the front door in order to open the back door- and mine only opens 90 degrees (i know the 900s fixed that at least). if the door could open independently it would be a much better design.

 

[chakis24]

Some new info, not all of it to protect my source:

Engine sizes: 4.3 V6, 5.3 V8, 6.2 V8 (hint hint this NEW V6 has the power of current 5.3l V8)
Tranny: Updated 6 speed, (8 speed MCE)
Column shift
Silverado/Sierra only share front windshield, roof, tailgate, side mirrors, (and frame/engines of course).
Better ride, handling, NVH
HID lights and LED running lights available

I will refrain from mentioning power figures, other little details, and especially styling since it causes a riot on here everytime.

thanks bvon!

VERY interesting. further differentiation between brands...if the v6 has that kind of power i would expect the 5.3 to have near 375-400hp to compete with the Hemi and the 6.2 to be near 450...though it is disappointing that the 8 speed wont be available at launch considering the ram will have it next year...and HIDs should be standard on LT and above models...

...an 8 speed 6.2 extended cab long bed might be in my future...if they expand the availability of the 6.2 that is...

 

[chakis24]

We all have to remember that Sheet metal thickness is not always an indicator of strength. If that was the only case, cars would be growing thicker and heavier every year. Houses and buildings would be larger... etc...

The makeup of the metalurgy has changed over the years. I'm not saying the entire body is wrapped in high strength steel, because that would be expensive as heck, but the steel has improved. Either way the body panels range in thickness on all modern trucks anywhere from 20-24 guage. From one panel to the next. But they are also more plyable now (on some panels) while retaining strength. Lessening the chances for dents and dings.

Hey I don't hear anyone complaining about the thickness of the metal used on the camaro lol. (which uses the same process that the trucks use to stamp the shapes out). The whole industry is trying to go towards lighter and stronger, not heavier and weaker.

probably because you dont see camaros on job sites, off road, hauling tools, towing boats, etc.
even still, i dont think larry has a problem with thin sheet metal, its the effects brought on by it. if it was thin and strong then there wouldnt be an issue.

is there anything you know bvon about things like this on the new trucks?

 

[chakis24]

I am a GM fan, just not much of a fan of later model GM trucks although late model GM trucks make great powertrain donors for older trucks.

Not sure what I do with my rigs is has anything to do with this topic but since you asked…… I personally installed a 2005 Vortec 8.1L, installed a 2006 NV4500, front and rear lockers, front and rear winch and tons of other thing for off the beaten path travel. I take this truck all over the back country of CO, UT, AZ, NV, NM and CA. I’ve done no mods to my stock 2001 Silverado HD or 2012 Tahoe Z71 as they are nice all weather vehicles, not worth building for back country adventures. I am not your typical truck owner but not that much unlike what many farmers and ranchers expect in a truck. (Oh, yes….I must admit, I do own a GMT9XX but it is a SUV, not one of the GMT900 ugly trucklings)

If you park a Ram and current GMT900 GM truck next to each other you have to be Helen Keller or Stevie Wonder not to see the different in how the body is assembled. GM has lost their way in that regard, lets hope they get it right in 2014. I don’t see why a few trolls have to be so upset with the reality of that and launch attacks at me. I am a truck guy and a GM guy as well as Chysler fan. I also served time with GM on the Silverado Brand team back in 90's during the launch of the GMT800 trucks. Quit telling me I am not a GM fan just because I am not impressed with their latest truck offerings. GM's biggest fans can also be their toughest critics!

Now back to regular schedule programming on the subject of 2014 trucks that we are all anxiously waiting to see what they are all about.

your truck kicks ass. thought id let you know.

 

[chakis24]

You can, and always have been able to get the 5.3 or 6.2 in in 1500 in all other forms outside of LTZ. Where did you get this erroneous info?

Not quite true. You have not always been able to get the 6.2 outside of the LTZ trim.

you cant get it in an extended cab long bed configuration under any trim either...im hoping that changes next gen.

 

[chakis24]

Was the hybrid cancellation story on the front page the one nsap was going to release "later this week" or was there going to be another?

off topic...but....is that your xmr in your avatar? sweet machine man- i have a mud pro- the can am came out the year after mine did or i might have gone that route. i had to rack my radiator myself, unlike the xmr but other than that its been a blast to ride. the only things that would stop me from an xmr is im not a fan of the auto-lock front locker that the can-am's use and the mud pro is about 5 grand cheaper. my mud pro also has more ground clearance with more suspension travel. those air shocks on the xmr look interesting though- as do the 30 inch silverbacks (mine are 28 inch outlaw mst's). really cant go wrong with either machine. in the end they only help make the other better. hope it brings you a ton of fun like mine has.

 

[chakis24]

Cool bike! The one in the avatar is a 2012 but mine is a 2011! Maybe I'll be able to put it in the back of a 2014 K2XX some day! (there, we're back on topic. lol)

yeah someday, but honestly i dont know how its looking right now......might have to wait for the k3xx lol....especially if that really was a production interior (part of me still hopes that this is just something gm is cooking up to cause drama, i mean, gm couldnt be that wrong considering the competition, can they?). i also dont like the idea of a single v8 in the lineup. chevy should still have an upper-tier v8 engine imo. 4.3 v6, 5.3 v8, and the 6.2 (or a turbo/supercharged 5.3), with increased power levels.

otherwise i might just start pouring money into my 2005 instead....because there is nothing on that truck i dont like....ive already decided if i dont like the k2xx, and gm doesnt get its head out of its butt and start offering the 6.2L in an extended cab long bed configuration, thats the route i'll be taking once the powertrain goes. a built 4L60 and a crate motor, or a turbo/supercharged 5.3...we'll see. or i'll switch to a ram.

 

[chakis24]

so gm is saying a "brand new combustion system"......are their HCCI gassers finally ready? probably wishful thinking on my part.

GenV 5.3L V8 for Half tons is in testing, final configuration and engine management "tweaks" right now! Straight from testing - They are trying to get horsepower above 350HP. Currently it is 345-349HP. They are saying that torque will shake out around 369 lb-ft, but that the target is to get above 350 "SAE certified" horsepower for the 2014 Silverado/Sierra.

Not bad at all for an incremental improvement to proven capability!

actually that would be disappointing considering everyone is saying theyre dropping the 6.2L from the half-ton lineup. that would mean gm would have the weakest v8 by far. a turbo-6 with more power is not the same thing.

that news also goes against previous news saying the new 4.3 v6 would be at current 5.3 power levels- the engine's would step on each other if theyre that close in power (i dont see mpg being that much different in that case either).

 

[chakis24]

Where did you hear that GM's dropping the 6.2L? That's not been reported here. I've only heard that they were dropping the 4.8L and staying with the 4.3, 5.3, and 6.2L.

thought it was on here, but i guess not. it was mentioned over on gm-trucks

 

[chakis24]

If they're dropping the 6.2L, you'd be the first to say it. But, who on the other forum is your source? NSAP & Bvon are pretty tied into the reliable details & neither of them have said that the 6.2 is out of the trucks.

theres a thread similar to this one over there too....i dont know who he is, could be making it up, could not be.
has it been confirmed either way that the 6.2 will carry through?

I was hoping that the 5.3 would be a volume engine like the Hemi is, and that the 6.2 would be positioned in a more limited fashion like Ford does. We must wait until the official specs are released before we began to assume things about outputs.

yeah, so long as they make it available on a extended cab long bed this go around...

 

[chakis24]

I thought about suggesting a news article about it. However, considering the last Silverado was more luxury than sport, I couldn't bring myself to get excited. The next discrepancy is that GM has used that exact same 20" tire size for newer trucks after the SS stopped production, so no guarantee that it's a performance model. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but a Silverado SS wouldn't be a real SS. In other news, it has been stated that GM is going to forward hinged doors for the extended cab models.

disagree. a slightly lowered (to remove the stock rake) reg cab silvy with the LS7, LSA, or LS9 would most definitely be an ss.

 

[chakis24]

My reference was to the most recent Silverado SS, which if the article turns out to be true, will be another extended cab, AWD, luxury cruiser, not a boulevard bruiser. Plus, if they put any of the engines that you listed into a regular cab truck, wouldn't you prefer that it adopt a different name than SS? Silverado T06 (Z06) or TL1 (ZL1)?

Yeah I just read that article and I agree with what you're saying. As for the name...interesting...but I feel ss has a bigger presence. Those z's to me are also more drivers cars and sport tuned and built from the ground up- an ss is more brute force and unapologetic and basically the standard car with a bigger power train.

 

[chakis24]

Came across this from Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...y-show-off-new-models-to-dealers-in-Las-Vegas.
This has my hopes high, just wish we could get a glimpse of the real thing. This sounds promising since they are going to have to sell them but are we going to want to buy.

ok, so, wheres that attendee list?

 

[chakis24]

So I wonder if the GMC is going to have separate DRL’s and Turn signal lights? All the Cammo I have seen on the GMC have the area below the headlights covered up . On that truck trend article there are two different Chevys one has the DRl’s covered up and the other you can see them. So never seeing a picture of DRl’s on the GMC makes me wonder if they even exist.

I am most excited to see the interior and find out about the powertrains. That will help me decided whether I want to wait for a couple years pay the extra money and get a new one, or buy a used NBS or NNBS and save some money

i hope the gmc doesnt have that fake plastic mesh thing under the headlights...similar to the new acadia. although im sure the aftermarket can figure out a way to make some awesome OEM-looking driving/off-road/fog lights that would fit in there.

the sierra prototype also looks to have the current silverado's tailights