GM Inside News Forum banner
201 - 220 of 1780 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Front end looks too much like the car/minivan front ends that GM uses. Its nice, but not bold
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,105 Posts
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....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,945 Posts
I do. LIke I said in an earlier thread, Chevrolet's mini trucks have often been a look ahead at the fullsize styling.
I wouldn't agree with that...

I'd give you the ugly GMT900 pickup (which does have ugly Colorado-inspired fenders).

Otherwise,

1) 1988 fullsize were a look ahead at the 1994 S10 (all new sheetmetal)... not the other way around.

2) 1982 S10 is too far apart from any fullsize introduction to be relevant. It's very square, because everything was in the early 1980s. The GMT400 are a bit more roundish, and again, very typically late 1980s in styling. 1982 S10 taillights were typical of the new taillights style for all pickups (look at Ford, Dodge) so the 1988 did get the same thing.

If GM had intro'ed the bigger truck before the smaller one, it would be the other way around. It was mere happenstance. (At the crosstown rival, the intros were reversed: see how 1980 F-series totally forecasted 1982.5 Ranger styling.)


So, statistically, your point doesn't really stand.

Moreover, the new Colorado has been designed by GM do Brazil. The new pickups are going to be the work of GMNA.

If you want to consider historical Chevy styling trends and make a prevision from that, I would definitely give a LOT more weight to "Chevy vehicles designed by different global GM entities often look pretty different with the exception of a few tacky Chevy language elements" than I would to "Smaller Chevy pickup styling often forecasts upcoming fullsize Chevy pickup styling".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,710 Posts
I wouldn't agree with that...
1) 1988 fullsize were a look ahead at the 1994 S10 (all new sheetmetal)... not the other way around.
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.

2) 1982 S10 is too far apart from any fullsize introduction to be relevant. It's very square, because everything was in the early 1980s. The GMT400 are a bit more roundish, and again, very typically late 1980s in styling. 1982 S10 taillights were typical of the new taillights style for all pickups (look at Ford, Dodge) so the 1988 did get the same thing.
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.




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
This is a great thread. I've looking to get a new truck as my 2000 Sierra is getting a bit old in the tooth. This new model looks like it will be outstanding but I'm guessing you won't be seeing the cash discounts the current model has, at least not until, it's been out for a few years. I'd be happy with the 6 cylinder engine they're bringing out since I don't do a lot of towing. I hope we get a few spy photos soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
This might have mattered to me 4 years ago before GM opened my eyes to the rest of the automotive world, but now I am looking for any replacement for my Burb that ISN'T a GM.

I think these changes sound good, but I am tired of GM's HP and torque ratings that they then diminish with torque management.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
This might have mattered to me 4 years ago before GM opened my eyes to the rest of the automotive world, but now I am looking for any replacement for my Burb that ISN'T a GM.

I think these changes sound good, but I am tired of GM's HP and torque ratings that they then diminish with torque management.

Which engines are you referring to? All the newer V8's were pretty throaty in my own experience with them. The 4.8 (low end only, high end was pretty bad), 5.3 was well balanced and made for a good mid-grade V8 (only drove with 4 speed), and the 6.2 is good, but the transmission (6 speed) seemed to hunt for gears too long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Which engines are you referring to? All the newer V8's were pretty throaty in my own experience with them. The 4.8 (low end only, high end was pretty bad), 5.3 was well balanced and made for a good mid-grade V8 (only drove with 4 speed), and the 6.2 is good, but the transmission (6 speed) seemed to hunt for gears too long.
Have you never heard of torque management?

My AV wouldn't spin the tires until I turned iff TM via a custom tune, then it was a beast. Because of the long powertrain warranty my Burb cannot be tuned so I suffer under the oppression of TM.

The Torque ratings should be at the wheels with all computer tune engaged and you will see much lower ratings than if it is turned off through a custom tune. GM does it to mitigate warranty claims and allow for more driveline durability.

The reason I will take my 60K elsewhere is the Pontiac thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Of course I've heard of torque management, but I don't think its a GM-only exclusive thing. I hate the torque management in my Vortec 4200 I6.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
694 Posts
Wow, lot's of passion here. I get both sides. GM has always had brand infighting issues from what I've gathered. I suppose the thing that makes you unique (so many brands) is also the thing that divides you internally (back when each division was truly seperate) and externally (brand loyalists who want to support their brand and feel cheated in one area or the other). GM is a double edged sword. With only four brands, that sword doesn't cut quite as hard but it can still cut enough to hurt and potentially do customer loyalty and brand damage..

The only insight I can give is on my Super Duty. I've bought Chevy trucks since out of highschool in the 90's. One I had was a 78, the other I bought when done with college and it was an 85. My only other car in life was a Honda Civic which I drove from the time I was 16 until I was 23. I also raced motocross dirtbikes and did (and still do) lot's of trailing for fun. I wanted a trailing truck as well so went in search for my first truck. I purposely bought the Chevy as my first truck as my best friend in highschool always had a Camaro and I just loved that car. There was something special about being in a Chevrolet and I always wanted to own one. The Chevy truck to me was just plain tough. Maybe the perceived toughness came from the Like A Rock era of marketing at that time. Either way, it had to be a Chevy for me. Nothing else would suffice. Those two old trucks also brought me into the showroom for a new 2002 Silverado and a new 2002 S-10 ZR2. Actually, those two old trucks I suppose would be responsible for my wifes new Tahoe LTZ and my Corvette as well.

Going back to my F-250, while sadly I really just don't like the looks of this current Silverado I may have given it a chance if it offered the things my Super Duty does. I'm not mechanically inclined like many here so I'll just stick to the basics of what I've learned from fellow trailing friends. The Silverado didn't have a King Ranch interior type package. That was really big to me. The King Ranch interior is just so much nicer than anything out there once you experience it. The leather is second to none and I wanted it not just for the looks but for the durability it will offer me. Cheaper leathers just don't last or look good for very long in my experience. Also, I wanted my fullsize truck to be able to go offroad on trails like my ZR2 and my old 78 and 85 trucks did.

When I bought my 2002 Silverado they told me I couldn't put much larger tire on it for whatever reason. I know it was suspension related but not sure exactly what. All I know is we never had issues with those older trucks and larger tires. When I asked the Ford dealer about tires on their Super Duty they said larger tires wouldn't be an issue because of their straight axle in the front. Then it made some sense to me. My 78 and 85 both had that same looking straight axle on the front whereas my 2002 didn't. The Ford dealer also said that's why the Super Duty comes with larger factory tires than the Chevy Silverado HD. I always wondered why the Chevy has such small looking tires. I thought the factory SD tires would be really good for trailing and that was a plus. Add to it, if I wanted to go bigger I could. If you've ever looked at them you'll also see the frame on the Chevy is alot lower to the ground than the SD is. I thought it would be a hazard off road and just not something I wanted to deal with. I noticed on my 2002 the frame was low as well. My 78 and 85 both seemed higher to me from the best I can remember.

In saying this stuff I can see a potential problem if one brand of truck (GMC or Chevy) is given something the other brand does not offer. If your a GMC guy or a Chevy guy and don't have access to let's say a King Ranch leather option or a straight axle option or a larger tire option, or an engine option while the other guy does, I do see a problem with that. When cross shopped with Ford like I did, your truck brand of choice may come up short. I don't think that's a good thing for total GM sales at all.

Now I personally consider myself to be a "Chevy guy" even though I do have a SD Ford. I'd gladly buy a Chevy truck again though if it offered what the Super Duty offered. I most likely wouldn't buy a GMC as I'm just not a GMC guy but I do feel GMC should have all things the Chevy does and vice versa. In my opinion GM needs to focus both of their trucks on being the best truck money can buy in every category and differentiate the trucks (Chevy and GMC) with styling. The key on that though is making them Both look good. I also agree with many here that the Sierra looks better right now than the Silverado. Now while some feel the Silverado looks good, I just personally feel it's too polarizing. They need to both look good in their own rights without being polarizing. I think things would be fine then.


Edit: I just thought of this but if/when the Silverado offers 'their' King Ranch package, I think it needs a good name. Ford has Lariat, Chevy has LTZ. The Ford has King Ranch, Chevy doesn't have that yet. Thinking on the names though, King Ranch almost sounds like it Belongs in a Silverado. Not a Ford Super Duty. Silverado even sounds like a Ranching truck with kind of a tough Western/Cowboy name like it has. I could see old Clint Eastwood driving a rough and tough Silverado. King Ranch just goes really well with it. I hope Chevy gets creative here. LTZ is ok for our Tahoe and I suppose it's alright as a base Lariat equivalent trim. I think their next top trim to go head to head with the King Ranch just needs to be more rugged sounding. GMC has their Denali and that's kind of upscale urban and it works there for that brand really well. Chevy needs to be a little more rugged and tougher sounding if you will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Why not a twin-turbo V8? I guarantee it would be more 'fuel efficient' than the ecoboost. All those cylinders just have to work harder to produce the same amount of power, and it gets the same mpg as GM's V8's anyway. Add direct injection and turbo and cylinder deactivation and I don't see how it can't be class leading in every category.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
I know I would be a lot more accepting of the Ford Ecoboost concept, had Ford kept the V8 even at a small displacement. Say maybe a 4.6 or in GMs case maybe revamped 4.8L or something all new. I do believe they would have to keep the displacemnt small to keep the city MPGs up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,105 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
694 Posts
to add some fuel...the 2001 avalanche was a predecessor to the 2004 colorado and 2003 silverado.
That's a tad scary because I think you're right. And I didn't like that style Avalance at all. One of the ugliest Aztek looking vehicles I think I've ever seen. Nor did I like the 2003 Silverado. I do recall seeing that and thinking I was so happy to have my 2002 because it didn't have that slanted pointy front end like the Avalanche. And then came the Colorado. It certainly did look like both.

Oh boy, you have me slightly worried here. Older styles were ok. Take that blue S-10 above for example. A very clean and I'd say classic American design. A fullsize in line with that would look great. If they're basing the fullsize American trucks of today off of Thailand small truck designs that's just not a good thing at all. I don't care for the current Silverado but I most certainly wouldn't care for That. What happened to making a good looking American truck? Chevy has had some of the best designs out there looking back on history.. What has happened?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
I cringe thinking what those headlighs on the new Colorado cost to replace. Trucks are driven in rural places where you HIT things on the road.

I do hope GM knows what they're doing in the home market. "Globalism" is part of the marketing for verhicles like the Sonic, and it can make sense for that since they're after a fresh market of young buyers. But I think most truck buyers are more conservative, want to own something that looks like it was designed with American traditions in mind.
 
201 - 220 of 1780 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top