GM Inside News Forum banner
221 - 240 of 1780 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
694 Posts
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.
I'd certainly agree with that. The small cars are one thing but trucks are a different ballgame in America. I really think anything with historical American roots should stay somewhat true to them in design. Obviously we'd expect the Sonic to incorporate different elements of design. An Impala or a Corvette however should have a big dose of American classic uniqueness about them. The same goes for trucks. They were kind of the backbone of America and IMO shouldn't stray from those roots. I'm all for fresh designs.. I'm not for making an American truck look like something from Thailand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,248 Posts
We've been stuck with the "angry eyebrows" headlights since 2003. I am looking forward to seeing that design statement cleaned up.

Go on Google images and look at trucks a few model years at a time, from the 1950s to today. 2003 is definately the year they begin to look ... wrong.

I'd take a restored anything, over the current design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
Discussion Starter · #223 ·
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.
Thanks for your input. I wanted to clear some things up for ya. While the Silverado does not offer a "king ranch" level interior, GMC DOES. As you know its the Denali. It may not have been available when you bought yours but it is available now. And its not seen as a urban truck in the HD's, only in the half tons. The HD version is just as tough and capable as any other HD truck.

The comments about the off road part regarding your 2002 is terribly wrong. I have no idea why the dealer would say that. Of course you can put larger tires on it. Of course it goes off road. Of course you can lift GM trucks and make them even more off road capable. Im suprised you didnt realize this, as most anywhere you would consider going off-road would be filled with Chevy and GMC trucks. Also, the super duty "USED TO" come with larger tires than the Chevy HD, but not any more. Especially on GMC's. But I understand, as alot of your thinking is still stuck in peoples heads, but I'm telling you none of those points you made are the case anymore. GM HD trucks are just as capable as their SD counterpart, while being more reliable and better riding, not to mention if you go to pickuptrucks.com and read the comparos, GM trucks dominate almost every segment they get compared in.

And the next gen trucks will just further the lead GM has in truck design.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,301 Posts
We've been stuck with the "angry eyebrows" headlights since 2003. I am looking forward to seeing that design statement cleaned up.

Go on Google images and look at trucks a few model years at a time, from the 1950s to today. 2003 is definately the year they begin to look ... wrong.

I'd take a restored anything, over the current design.
Really? I actually liked the 2003 MCE. :confused:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
694 Posts
We've been stuck with the "angry eyebrows" headlights since 2003. I am looking forward to seeing that design statement cleaned up.

Go on Google images and look at trucks a few model years at a time, from the 1950s to today. 2003 is definately the year they begin to look ... wrong.

I'd take a restored anything, over the current design.
I'd agree with that. I'd never heard the angry eyebrows thing but you're right, that's exactly what it looks like now that you say that. It just looked kind of like a slant eyed Japanese design element to me. Some guys liked it though. It just wasn't for me personally.

Thanks for your input. I wanted to clear some things up for ya. While the Silverado does not offer a "king ranch" level interior, GMC DOES. As you know its the Denali. It may not have been available when you bought yours but it is available now. And its not seen as a urban truck in the HD's, only in the half tons. The HD version is just as tough and capable as any other HD truck.

The comments about the off road part regarding your 2002 is terribly wrong. I have no idea why the dealer would say that. Of course you can put larger tires on it. Of course it goes off road. Of course you can lift GM trucks and make them even more off road capable. Im suprised you didnt realize this, as most anywhere you would consider going off-road would be filled with Chevy and GMC trucks. Also, the super duty "USED TO" come with larger tires than the Chevy HD, but not any more. Especially on GMC's. But I understand, as alot of your thinking is still stuck in peoples heads, but I'm telling you none of those points you made are the case anymore. GM HD trucks are just as capable as their SD counterpart, while being more reliable and better riding, not to mention if you go to pickuptrucks.com and read the comparos, GM trucks dominate almost every segment they get compared in.

And the next gen trucks will just further the lead GM has in truck design.
Oh, thank you as well. I know about the Denali. I just still thought the King Ranch leather was the top choice. It's so rugged and durable. The Denali is nice though as is the LTZ like my wifes Tahoe has. GM did a nice job with them. Ford just took it over the top I thought. I'm more of a Chevy guy though and I couldn't get that in a Chevy Silverado. I'll wait for their King Ranch counter punch to Ford and see how it stack's up. No offense to GMC at all, it's just not my brand. Although I don't take brand loyalty quite as far as some in this thread have. I'm just a Chevy truck guy.. I have the Ford but will gladly go back to Chevy when their King Ranch package is up and running and it has more off road capability for trailing like my Ford.

On my 2002 the salesman talked to the service department and they were pretty adamant about not using larger tires. They didn't get into specifics but they did say it would do damage to the front end and void the warranty. I have seen a couple of lifted Chevy trucks out there but not really used on the trails. They don't really look good with the body lifts and larger tires though I didn't think. The frame sticks out like a sore thumb when lifted. I've only seen them on the streets which also makes me wonder. There's old Chevy trucks like I had a long time ago on the trails but not the new ones. They really are most all Ford Super Duty trucks. I'd say 90% and the rest Jeeps and old Chevy or Ford trucks. I'll have to talk to some GM service techs again on the issue. Maybe go to a dealer lot this weekend and get some insight. If you ask the guys on the trails, it all comes down to high frames for clearance and straight front axles like Jeep's and F-250's have. Just exactly what the Ford dealer said as well. It just all seemed to be inline with what my Chevy dealer said back in 02. I will check into it though. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
I liked the 2003-2006 silverado front ends better than the 2002. the same range GMC's were nice also. The GMT 900 front end for chevy with the 3 piece bumper is pretty bad. i see several new chevy hd's on the road now with the full front bumper and it stands out and looks so much cleaner. still not the best looking front end, but a huge improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
And the next gen trucks will just further the lead GM has in truck design.
I Can't really grasp GM as a truck design leader. Seems that Ford has held that title for quite a while, and Dodge has had some game changers as well. Neither have the reliabilty reputation that GM has. I can't really remember the last great game changing idea GM has had in the way of there truck line. A lot of great trucks over the years, but design leader I am not really seeing it, at least not in the past several decades. I would probably give the 70s to Ford, 80s to Ford, part of the 90s to Dodge, and most of the 2000s to ford maybe a year here and there in the 2000s to Dodge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
I can't really remember the last great game changing idea GM has had in the way of there truck line.
2-Mode Hybrid Technology in '08? Driver Information Center in '03? Third Door Extended Cab in '96? The entire GMT-400 line in '88? I mean, that truck made pickups mainstream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
I agree that GM's are the most reliable of the 3, with the best powertrain/transmission combinations. Overall though, the Fords are really nice. Especially the top trim levels and the features they have. Granted I don't need that fancy in-dash computer, but the power telescoping mirrors, solid front axle, tall ride height, huge cabin space, and just overall feel I think is the best. Driveability, GM is the best. Though the new Dodges drive nice too, in regards to steering and acceleration feel. The rest of the truck just lacks the premium feel of the other 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
Is GM still the only truck on the market with a Hybrid option?
Yep, but you'd never know they offered it because of the lack of advertising, package restraints and limited production.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
I am aware of the Hybrid. But really what is the advantages of it ???
For what the option cost, it will never pay out, the fuel mileage is really nothing special. Ford put Hybrids where they belong in small city type applications. Nothing really new, there have been other hybrid cars on the market long before. I pose the theory that the main reason it is the only Hybrid Pickup on the market today, is because it never has to this day sold well. If it had every one else would have followed GM. The EB V6 has more power and gets better mileage and cost a whole lot less then the GM hybrid, so which one is leading the way. The GMT400s were great trucks,I owned at least 4 of them during there production period. However IMO the main thing GM did with that truck was finally introduce an extended cab. Ford had those back in the 70s, Dodge had then has well. As far as the driver information center, Ford had those in there trucks back in the mid to late 90s.

I pose the question, what has GM done that was so sought after that all of the others followed suit with in the past 40 years of truck designs.

Keep in mind I own 2 GMs and only one Ford product at the moment. The reason is, I have always and still do, really like GM products.

My only point was that I could not think of really any game changing ideas that GM has brought to market with there truck devision . When I think Game changing innovation, I think of successful features. The Hybrid was as big a flop as quad steering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
The current hybrid system that GM runs in its full size trucks and SUV's is a gimmick. I drove around a Yukon Denali Hybrid and averaged just barely 17 mpg total. That's maybe 1/2 gallon better than a regular one (6.2L). Pretty much only engages when the car is stopped (at idle).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
I am aware of the Hybrid. But really what is the advantages of it ???
For what the option cost, it will never pay out, the fuel mileage is really nothing special. Ford put Hybrids where they belong in small city type applications. Nothing really new, there have been other hybrid cars on the market long before. I pose the theory that the main reason it is the only Hybrid Pickup on the market today, is because it never has to this day sold well. If it had every one else would have followed GM. The EB V6 has more power and gets better mileage and cost a whole lot less then the GM hybrid, so which one is leading the way.
Whoa now, let's get some things straight. First, the Hybrid pickups get 20MPG City and 23MPG Highway, 2WD or 4WD. The EcoBoost, an engine package I love, is rated at 15MPG City and 21MPG Highway in 4WD form. Combined, that's a 4MPG difference, which is huge in pickup trucks. That equals a $584 per year difference.

Second, the 4WD Chevy Hybrid starts at $42,870. A similarly-equipped 4WD EcoBoost F-150 comes in at $39,900. The Ford has fog lamps and the Chevy has Bluetooth, but otherwise they are similar.

Third, Chevy limits the packages and options on the Hybrids, doesn't advertise them and makes very few of them. It's as if they want it to fail.

The GMT400s were great trucks,I owned at least 4 of them during there production period. However IMO the main thing GM did with that truck was finally introduce an extended cab. Ford had those back in the 70s, Dodge had then has well.
They made the pickup truck mainstream, did they not? Pickup trucks were basically work vehicles outside of the South, but the GMT-400s put them in driveways all across America as family vehicles.

As far as the driver information center, Ford had those in there trucks back in the mid to late 90s.
What Ford had a full DIC with configurable options until the 2011 F-150? By the way, I like Ford's new Productivity Screen more than GM's DIC because it makes GM's DIC look like a kid's toy. Unfortunately it wouldn't be included on the above $39,900 XLT EcoBoost example.

I pose the question, what has GM done that was so sought after that all of the others followed suit with in the past 40 years of truck designs.
You forgot the third door for Extended Cab trucks (all Ext. Cab trucks now have rear doors), independent front suspension on 4WD models (all 1/2-Ton 4WD pickups now have it) and sleek exterior design and luxury interior appointments (all pickups are now high on style and available with luxury car features).

Keep in mind I own 2 GMs and only one Ford product at the moment. The reason is, I have always and still do, really like GM products.

My only point was that I could not think of really any game changing ideas that GM has brought to market with there truck devision . When I think Game changing innovation, I think of successful features. The Hybrid was as big a flop as quad steering.
I love Ford trucks enough to say that if it weren't for the Hybrid models GM would have no advantages. If you need to haul more than 1,500lbs. or tow more than 5,900lbs. get the EcoBoost or a SuperDuty. If not, I recommend the Hybrid GMs.

Oh, and Quadrasteer was a game changer, but as with the Hybrids GM's marketing department screwed the pooch. The 100% ready second generation Quadrasteer was perfected but the idiots at GM pulled the plug before it hit the market. If it had been a $1,000 option available on half-ton Crew Cabs it would be on over 50% of all Crew Cabs sold.

Was the Lightning a failure because they stopped producing it? No.

DenaliHD66 said:
The current hybrid system that GM runs in its full size trucks and SUV's is a gimmick. I drove around a Yukon Denali Hybrid and averaged just barely 17 mpg total. That's maybe 1/2 gallon better than a regular one (6.2L). Pretty much only engages when the car is stopped (at idle).
I don't know how you got 17MPG, but I saw 22MPG on a reset trip computer around town on a 30 minute test drive of a Sierra Hybrid. Before I reset it the trip computer said 13MPG because it was a brand new truck.

The 6.2L 4WD trucks are rated at 12MPG City and 18MPG Highway while the Hybrids are rated at 20MPG City and 23MPG Highway. Good luck getting within 1/2 a MPG of the Hybrid with a 6.2L.

Also, the 2-Mode Hybrid system is always at work, it's not just a start-stop system to prevent idling.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
694 Posts
I'd agree those 90's Silverado's were really nice. They certainly were the most popular truck I'd ever seen at the time. That truck for the 90's IMO is what the current F-150 is to today's era and going back a little.

I haven't seen anything game changing from Chevrolet though. I went and looked at them yesterday and to ask about tire sizes and warranties. Most of the trucks on the lot had drum brakes still. The service dept said I could go from a 265 to a 275 safely. He said a 285 'could' be done but would void the warranty if I broke something. I got into specifics with him this time. He said it's because of an independent front suspension. He told me they do that to offer a nicer ride. I told him my Super Duty rides like a Cadillac. He actually agreed with me and said he'd drove one too and thought the same thing. The guy works for Chevy and didn't have much to sell me on when it came right down to it. He also clarified this whole tire size mystery for me and it did indeed come down to Ford's use of a straight front axle. I told him about my old Chevy trucks and he also clarified that for me as well. He said my 78 and 85 did indeed have the same straight axle like Ford. He said Chevy went to this independent suspension for their 1500's and decided to use it for their 25/3500's as well to save money on a single design set up. He said Ford and Dodge continued to offer a better heavy duty axle and Chevy really needed to go back to doing it the old way.

As far as game changers, I've seen the hybrid stuff with the big 'hybrid' stickers across the bottoms. I don't consider it a game changer because it really didn't change the way anyone else played the game. I'd say the EcoBoost is a game changer. Everyone else will have one soon no doubt just to keep up. I'd say the King Ranch interiors are somewhat of a game changer. What other truck has that? I wasn't able to get that in a Chevy and still couldn't when I asked about it yesterday. All the salesman kept saying is 'I wish', 'I wish'.. I'd also say the Super Duty in and of itself was and still is the game changer.

Neither Chevy nor Dodge really seperated their 1500 line from their 25/3500 line until recently. The other guys all kept using the same truck. Ford went and built a dedicated platform for their heavy duty trucks and even gave it a cool and unique name to set it apart. It offers a big cab, a straight axle up front, a high ground clearance frame and a world class interior. This truck has been the game changer for that segment for a long time and all of those things are why I bought one. I gave the Chevy another good look yesterday. It's not even in the same league even though I wish it was. I'm just being honest. There was no King Ranch, no straight axle, a Very low frame, if you get a diesel there's this big black box hanging inches from the ground, smaller tires and it still just doesn't look as good. I made the right decision buying the Super Duty but I'd trade it off to the Chevy dealer in a second if there was a Silverado that was like my Ford in all of those areas. There just isn't though. I hope the next generation Silverado fixes all of these things and more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
@AndrewGS

so, a $10k premium for the yukon denali justifys a "claimed" 1-2 mpg improvement?

With my own experience, there were only marginal differences in gas mileage, meaning to me its not worth the cost of ownership, nor the cost of the premium. and i like to know when idling that my truck is actually on, and not just in battery mode.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
@AndrewGS

so, a $10k premium for the yukon denali justifys a "claimed" 1-2 mpg improvement?
No, a $6,875 premium with more power and torque as well as a 5MPG City and 4MPG combined fuel economy advantage is justified. You'll save $584 per year.

With my own experience, there were only marginal differences in gas mileage, meaning to me its not worth the cost of ownership, nor the cost of the premium.
Cost of ownership? You SAVE money on gas.

and i like to know when idling that my truck is actually on, and not just in battery mode.
That's why they have an "Auto Stop" readout on the tachometer. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Yes, more stuff to malfunction and maintain = increased operating costs. $6,800 premium with more power? It gets considerably less power than the 6.2L you'd get in a regular Denali. Case in point, trucks and suv's as big as the ones we are talking about are not made for good gas mileage. They are the way they are for a reason. The cost of the hybrids still just doesn't justify the "savings" you incur, which in my opinion, over a 10-year period would not be worth it, considering I highly doubt you could go 10 years without having a considerable amount of work done to the hybrid system/battery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,682 Posts
Yes, more stuff to malfunction and maintain = increased operating costs. $6,800 premium with more power? It gets considerably less power than the 6.2L you'd get in a regular Denali. Case in point, trucks and suv's as big as the ones we are talking about are not made for good gas mileage. They are the way they are for a reason. The cost of the hybrids still just doesn't justify the "savings" you incur, which in my opinion, over a 10-year period would not be worth it, considering I highly doubt you could go 10 years without having a considerable amount of work done to the hybrid system/battery.
Oh, you want to compare Denali Hybrid to regular Denali now? Well, true you lose some power, but the economy gains go up to 7MPG City and 6MPG combined, that's a $1,000 per year in fuel savings. That means you'll make up the difference in price in 5 years and then it's all savings, again, to the tune of $1,000 per year.

Why do you think the Hybrid system is more troublesome? I bought a new 2005 Silverado and went through two transmissions and three torque converters in the 67,000 miles I owned it at a huge cost, luckily taken care of by the warranty. No Hybrid system there.

Also, what's to maintain on the Hybrid system? Nothing. The batteries will last at least 10 years, about enough time to break even on the extra cost of the truck, but you've used less fuel and therefore less oil over it's life. Even then the batteries just deteriorate a little over time, they don't up and die.

You say that trucks aren't meant to get good mileage, but the GM 2-Mode Hybrid system breaks that mold and allows at least 20MPG around town in a full-size truck or SUV. That's something nobody else can offer.

If you hate Hybrids just say so, but don't try to dismiss GM's class-exclusive technology as a gimmick.
 
221 - 240 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