GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
MISSION:

1. Increase passenger space and load capabilities while retaining most of the K2xx wheelbases and existing rear overhang lengths.

2. Emphasize multiple V8 advantage ‘we already have’ over RAM and Ford ½ tons with longer wheelbase models that enjoy lower Corporate Average Fuel Economy ‘footprint targets’ - and bigger optional engines.

3. Keep the good parts. Like K2xx’s strong, quiet, tightly sealed Double Cab with four front hinged doors and B pillar. Current short box is longer than the competition. Why not make it longer yet? Only 3” more makes it 6 feet.

Rationalize Cab and Box lengths.

Current K2xx Crew Cab short box and Double Cab Standard Box are only two of five models that share a wheelbase. Rationalize cab and box lengths into 10”/20” intervals so that all wheelbases except 153” offer a choice of two cabs. By deleting the shortest 119” wheelbase and adding two 163” models we got two new cab/box combinations on the same number of wheelbases as the K2xx. Average wheelbase jumps 8% from 137” to 148.”

Stroker “ET 4” series replaces Ecotec3.

Take advantage of lower Fuel Economy targets of longer wheelbase models by offering bigger optional engines.

Using engine components ‘we already have,’ create a new engine lineup with a simple change in stroke from 3.62” to 3.90” – the longest practicable stroke using standard 6.098” connecting rods. New 3.78" bore 4.3L 262 V6, big 4.065" bore 5.0L 304 V6, return of 5.7L 350 V8, and all new industry leading 6.6L 405 V8. All engines will be available in all cab/box combinations and trim levels.

MISSION:

1. Increase passenger space and load capabilities while retaining most of the K2xx wheelbase and using two rear overhang lengths.

2. Emphasize multiple V8 advantage ‘we already have’ over RAM and Ford ½ tons with longer wheelbase models that enjoy lower Corporate Average Fuel Economy ‘footprint targets.’

3. Keep the good parts. Like K2xx’s strong, quiet, tightly sealed Double Cab with four doors and B pillar. Current short box is longer than the competition. Why not make it longer yet? Only 3” more makes it 6 feet.

Rationalize Cab and Box lengths.

Current K2xx Crew Cab short box and Double Cab Standard Box are only two of five models that share a wheelbase. Rationalize cab and box lengths into 10”/20” intervals so that all wheelbases except 153” offer a choice of two cabs. By deleting the shortest 119” wheelbase and adding two 163” models we got two new cab/box combinations on the same number of wheelbases as the K2xx. Average wheelbase jumps 8% from 137” to 148.”

Stroker “ET 4” series replaces Ecotec3.

Take advantage of lower Fuel Economy targets of longer wheelbase models by offering bigger optional engines. Using engine blocks ‘we already have,’ create a new engine lineup with a simple change in stroke from 3.62” to 3.90” – the longest practicable stroke using standard 6.098” connecting rods. New narrower bore 4.3L 262 V6, big bore 5.0L 304 V6, return of 5.7L 350 V8, and industry leading 6.6L 405 V8.













 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,566 Posts
so a single cab short box and a crew cab Long box would be unique but the "OTHER" wheel base sizes would be shorter cab/long box OR longer cab SHORT box
while we a "mucking about" take your single cab short box and make a Blazer "sport" out of it and for double bonus if the top lifts of at least behind the front seats (-:
this idea of different trucks on ONE frame is the "NORM" for asian trucks and why the double cab HiLux had a "TOY"box on some models
I have not measured but believe Toyota and Ford do that to an extent and that is why there single cab long box trucks have the rear axle out at the bumper and NOT centred under the box

I have said from the beginning the ECOTEC3 engines should HAVE bean "resized" and NOT 4.3/5.3/6.2 BUT
4.5 /5.5 OR 5.7 and 6.0
4.5 is a 6 pot of the 6.0 engine and 5.5 is from the rumour mill "corvette" engine
OR 4.1 and 5.5 and 6.3
where 4.1 is a six of the 5.5 and more closer to the "competitions" V6 and tuned for FE performance over outright power
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,329 Posts
Did your other thread get blown-out!?

As I said before, GM should hire you in Product Development (and fire some of the morons they have now).

Great ideas, your changes would actually make me WANT to buy a GM Truck, not solely based on price or the "deal" I got. :yup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Make a 4'' longer overhang to the crew cabs box, This makes a crew cab 7' box which would be perfect... Also make the cab 2'' longer for rear legroom.
Crew Cabs are all 2" longer - going from 151" Bumper to cab length to 153"

In turn the Double Cab increases 1.5" from 141.5 to 143 - now we have 10" difference. Then the Regular Cab is stretched from 117" to 123" - now we have these 10/20" segments and get rid of the 14" wheelbase spread between the RC 6.5 and RC 8.

Then the boxes are 72" - 87" - 97" So in this system, the 163" Crew Cab has the 87" 7.25 ft box.

Think of it as changing it from the Short box and standard box being 10" apart to making the standard box and long box ten inches apart. And where before only the Long box had 5" more overhang, now only the Short Box has 5" extra overhang. Now it's 15" shorter than the standard box - but still a full 6 feet (5" more box overhang -2" for extra cab length).


"SIX foot SEVEN foot EIGHT foot BUNCH" kept running through my head...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
so a single cab short box and a crew cab Long box would be unique but the "OTHER" wheel base sizes would be shorter cab/long box OR longer cab SHORT box
while we a "mucking about" take your single cab short box and make a Blazer "sport" out of it and for double bonus if the top lifts of at least behind the front seats (-:
this idea of different trucks on ONE frame is the "NORM" for asian trucks and why the double cab HiLux had a "TOY"box on some models
I have not measured but believe Toyota and Ford do that to an extent and that is why there single cab long box trucks have the rear axle out at the bumper and NOT centred under the box

I have said from the beginning the ECOTEC3 engines should HAVE bean "resized" and NOT 4.3/5.3/6.2 BUT
4.5 /5.5 OR 5.7 and 6.0
4.5 is a 6 pot of the 6.0 engine and 5.5 is from the rumour mill "corvette" engine
OR 4.1 and 5.5 and 6.3
where 4.1 is a six of the 5.5 and more closer to the "competitions" V6 and tuned for FE performance over outright power
I'm preserving all wheelbases but the 119" - so 133, 143, 153 - and adding a 163" on top.

The 133" WB Single Cab Standard box has a 47" overhang for the 87" 'standard box.' Standard box 'cab to axle' increases from 41.5" to 49.5." Total length 220" - 5" shorter than previous RCLB.

The 133" WB Double Cab with 72" short box has a 52" overhang. The wheelbase and length now exactly match the previous RCLB 133"/225"

143" WB Single Cab LB has the 47" overhang, while the 143" CC Short box has 52" overhang. So the 133/143 wheelbases have two OA lengths apiece depending on cab/box.

153" WB/240" length is the only 'unique' platform. It fits Double Cab with 87" 'standard box' only.

163" platform is 250" long (same rear overhang) for both 87" box Crew Cab and the 97" box Double Cab.

I had a more elaborate engine plan that I decided not include here because I didn't want it to overshadow the cab/box plan. But the idea was to switch the 6.2 compression and camshaft to the base V6 to boost to 293hp (needed for the new 163"WB platform) and it would need a standard 3.42:1 axle. Idea was to 'keep the good parts' of the K2xx - namely that the base engine can power any cab box combination. Indeed in my plan even the LTZ would be available with the base engine. And the single cab WT would be available with the 6.6L as well.

Then the 'big bore' 304 and 405 engines are set up for towing with the same camshaft and compression used on the current 4.3 V6. The 350 gets the 11.5:1 compression ratio of the current 376 and is HP rated on premium fuel. This puts the 350 into the "Hemi" range with 392hp at 5600rpm. Then the 405 is set up more like a 'gentle giant' with 440hp at 5300rpm and 470 torque at 3900rpm.

But the whole idea was a kind of 'musical chairs' where we switch cams and compression around to get a nice even HP spread between each engine - 293 - 330 - 392 - 440hp while keeping the 3.78 and 4.065 V8 bores we have now - *and* we can even get rid of the third bore needed for the current 262.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,566 Posts
I'm preserving all wheelbases but the 119" - so 133, 143, 153 - and adding a 163" on top.

The 133" WB Single Cab Standard box has a 47" overhang for the 87" 'standard box.' Standard box 'cab to axle' increases from 41.5" to 49.5." Total length 220" - 5" shorter than previous RCLB.

The 133" WB Double Cab with 72" short box has a 52" overhang. The wheelbase and length now exactly match the previous RCLB 133"/225"

143" WB Single Cab LB has the 47" overhang, while the 143" CC Short box has 52" overhang. So the 133/143 wheelbases have two OA lengths apiece depending on cab/box.

153" WB/240" length is the only 'unique' platform. It fits Double Cab with 87" 'standard box' only.

163" platform is 250" long (same rear overhang) for both 87" box Crew Cab and the 97" box Double Cab.

so NO short box single cab

short box 6 FOOT
"STANDARD" box is 7 1/4 feet
Long box is 8 FT

I assume the the Tahoe is the 143"
and the suburban grows to the 163"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,329 Posts
While we're dreaming...flat floor in crew cabs and mimic Ford's legroom.
He's got 2" added in there, another GM bug-a-boo, "while we are dreaming" how about a 35 gallon tank!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
so NO short box single cab

short box 6 FOOT
"STANDARD" box is 7 1/4 feet
Long box is 8 FT

I assume the the Tahoe is the 143"
and the suburban grows to the 163"
Tahoe and Suburban are already off in their own worlds with 116" and 130" Wheelbases and coil springs that have little to do with the pickups.
I think the Suburban wb was decoupled from pickups in '73 when trucks all increased 2.5" from the '72s - 8ft RC went from 129" to 131.5" but the Suburban just moved to 129.5"
I believe the original '95 Tahoe had a 117.5" wb matching the 'standard box' Reg Cab pickup but it went to 116" in the GMT 800 era.

The current k2xx does not have a 'short box' Regular Cab but a standard box RC. Big increase in cab to axle distance of 8" allows us to have the Single Cab standard box and Double Cab short box on the same 133" wheelbase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,329 Posts
You realize these changes, which essentially make GM's trucks more in-line with Ford and Ram size-wise, will add significant weight? (one of the reasons GM has been the lightest of the 3).

It does make sense though, especially considering GM now has a mid-size truck - no need for their full-size to be the smallest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
You realize these changes, which essentially make GM's trucks more in-line with Ford and Ram size-wise, will add significant weight? (one of the reasons GM has been the lightest of the 3).
Nah - while they're at it, utilize some modern FRP materials for beds, front fenders, etc. and make 'em as light as the Fords, or maybe even lighter!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I was tempted to offer up several choices, but came down on the 72/87/97 box length for what I consider pretty good reasons. But I wanted to note 'runner up' plans that ranked near the top but I rejected.

A very very very close second was a notion of making the beds only 10" away from each other and retaining the "SIX foot SEVEN foot EIGHT foot BUNCH" theme.
76" short bed' 86" standard box and 96" long box. Similar to the my final plan, except cabs lengths are all one inch longer, and overhangs are all the 'short' 47."
We'd get this by increasing Regular Cab "bumper to cab" distance 7" to 124" and Crew and Double cabs to 144" and 154" and reducing "cab to axle" box length an equal three inches.

Advantages:
You could have a 'short box' 123" wheelbase Single cab model so that the Single Cab has three box options.
The double cab would also have three box options and the crew would have 2 so eight models vs. five we have now.
Only one box overhang length needed.

Disadvantage:
Eliminates the currently most popular 143.5" Crew Cab. Crew would move to 153" and 163" only. Would buyers 'cross shop' 76" bed vs 66" short beds of other makes?
Bigger question of why even have the 86" box. Might as well just have two boxes at that point, then the 133" wheelbase can be eliminated.
Adds two wheelbases 163" and 'short' 123" wheelbase instead of just one.
The 123" wheelbase doesn't conform well with the EPA footprint fuel economy target.


Second runner up plan 2. Make the cabs all 15" equal distance between each other. Use extra 5" / 52" overhang on all boxes. Then the Single Cab is 9" longer to 126, the Double cab is 0.5" shorter at 141" and the Crew Cab is five inches longer at 156." In this scenario we keep the 69" short box length, but Cab to rear axle distance goes down 5" to 27" and overhang increases an equal 5." This allows a 133" wheelbase Double Cab short box. Standard box length is 15" greater - 84" or seven feet even due to 5" increased overhang. Keeps current cab to rear axle distance of 41.5." Long Box is 99" - uses 5" extra long box overhang we have now +1" cab to rear axle distance. Also available on Double Cab.

Advantages:

Maintains wide 30" gulf between short and long boxes with equidistant standard box between them.
5" longer crew cab would have to be biggest in industry.
Only one box overhang length needed.
DC long box and CC standard box would still share wheelbase - 158" - and 250" length.

Disadvantages:

Necessitates creation of unique 128" wheelbase for Single Cab standard box.
133" wheelbase only supports Double cab/short box. Might as well eliminate it.
Regular/Single cab becomes 'bloated looking' and necessitates either a five window design or mini rear bay doors.
Massive crew cab "too much of a good thing" and would be not only biggest, but heaviest in the pickup game.

So why the 72/87/97 scenario?

1. Highest priority: Keeps most of 'what we have now' - namely the profitable 143" WB CC short box and the 133/153 WB for neat ten inch segments.
2. All cabs get bigger - but not *too* big. Double Cab length is not 'sacrificed' to fall halfway between SC and CC as in my original cab/box thread.
3. Each wheelbase (except 153") supports two different cab/box combinations. (I should note that I originally planned just two DC choices of 72" and 97" boxes, then 153" could have been eliminated.)
4. SIX foot SEVEN foot EIGHT foot BUNCH. Class leading short box and standard box. Long box maintains an extra inch of play for the 4x8' sheets of plywood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
I think you are missing 1 important thing here which you will have to let me know in all these different numbers you are putting out. The question is which crew cab will fit in a garage??? My double cab standard box, which is the same as the crew cab short box, barely fits in my garage with only a few inches of space in the front and rear. May many people have this same dilemma and make purchase decisions based on size, because of the garage size used so much in homes. Thats why the crew cab standard box never took off and there is not that many out there.

Also I only like the looks of the single cab with the current short box, anything longer kills its proportions of looks imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
You have a point there: The whole plan involves 'everything getting bigger' because then no cab is sacrificed to make it work. That had been the chief complaint of my other plan: no one wants anything to get smaller.

But the CC 72" box would still be 235" - 5" longer than it is now, but still 5" short of the typical garage length of 20ft or 240"

Also, the proportions of the "Single" or Reg Cab change because the cab grows 6" in length from 117" to 123." I was kind of making a compromise between the RC 6.5 and RC 8ft we have now.

But it is true that the 119" WB is being 'sacrificed' for the sake of lower CAFE standards enjoyed by longer wheelbase vehicles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
I'm going to gild the lily here with my big engine carrots. These come in exchange for the stick of longer wheelbases. Here we completely eliminate standard V8s, yet offer more optional V8s than anyone, available on anything. Based on the premise of compression ratio reversal and engine block musical chairs leaving out the current 4.3 bore. Here we also pay *not* to be HP rated on premium fuel.

-----

First there’s a new 3.78” bore version of the familiar 4.3L ‘262’ V6. This marks the third bore stroke ratio used in the venerable history of this engine, which launched in 1985. Using the cam and 11.5:1 compression ratio of the current 6.2L ‘376’ it makes 293hp at 5600rpm and 315 lbs/ft torque at 4100rpm on premium fuel. It’s strong enough for the new 250” long, 163” wheelbase models thanks to the 3.42 axle ratio standard on both 2wd and 4wds. Higher compression maintains 2wd EPA rating despite lower gearing and boosts highway mileage on 4wd 1mpg to match 2wd EPA rating. All cabs and now even LTZ and High Country Trims become available with the strongest standard engine in the business.

New fourth engine of the ET 4 series is a 4.065” bore 5.0L ‘304’ V6. It uses the current V6 cam and 11:1 compression ratio for greater emphasis on low rpm torque – and running optimally on regular grade fuel. Has the easy power of a V8 - 355lbs/ft at just 3900rpm and 330hp at only 5300rpm – with lower fuel and maintenance costs. Standard with 3.08:1 axle ratio in both 2wd and 4wd models, it offers the same highway EPA rating as the 4.3L V6. With standard 4.10 gear ratio it's strong enough to be the 2500 Series new base engine .

We get the honor of bringing back the ‘350’ V8 just by combining the new 3.9” stroke with the current 5.3L V8’s 3.78” bore. Bigger new V8 also is rated for premium fuel using the 11.5:1 compression ratio of the previous 6.2L V8 for 392hp at 5600rpm and 420lbs/ft torque at 4100rpm. Our ‘small’ V8 is now bigger than the vaunted RAM Hemi. Higher compression means it maintains same highway EPA rating as a 5.3L Ecotec 3, despite increased displacement.

Big new "King of the Hill" 6.6L ‘405’ with 4.065” bore offers class leading gas power with 440hp at 5300rpm and 470lbs/ft torque at 3900rpm on regular gas. It's still in many ways a "Corvette engine" in a Silverado, but is now decidedly oriented toward bearing the heaviest loads up the steepest grades with the least apparent strain - and on less expensive regular fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I was going to post this exact same thing. My 2010 Extended cab fits with exactly 2" of clearance between the front wall and the garage door. I have to remove the hitch from the receiver too. I purchased the extended cab over the crew cab because it would fit. I'm trading for one of the new double cabs for the same reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I was going to post this exact same thing. My 2010 Extended cab fits with exactly 2" of clearance between the front wall and the garage door. I have to remove the hitch from the receiver too. I purchased the extended cab over the crew cab because it would fit. I'm trading for one of the new double cabs for the same reason.
Remember with the expanded model lineup, you'd have a brand new option of something 5" *shorter* but still with a full six foot bed.

 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top