RichardJensen Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And those engines have always bested Ford's modular engines in fuel mileage also. Citation needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) I'll take the middle ground here, the 2014 Silverado is intended to get buyers back into the new truck market and IMO, GM will achieve that aim. The DI VCT 4.3, 5.3 and 6.2 will give comparable performance and fuel economy numbers as their F150 opposites, Chevrolet has done this in the past and this is a big catch up for them and their buyer demographic will be pleased. GM's main problem is shifting mountains of stock with high incentives before the 2014 Silverado arrives, moving so many vehicles with aggressive incentives usually results in a huge pull forward of sales, resulting in a corresponding collapse in sales when incentives are withdrawn, the absolute last thing GM should be doing right in front of the new Silverado.. I only hope that Ford doesn't get drawn into an incentives war, Ford's lower inventory levels would suggest it's completely unnecessary. Edited December 23, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I'll take the middle ground here, the 2014 Silverado is intended to get buyers back into the new truck market and IMO, GM will achieve that aim. The DI VCT 4.3, 5.3 and 6.2 will give comparable performance and fuel economy numbers as their F150 opposites, Chevrolet has done this in the past and this is a big catch up for them and their buyer demographic will be pleased. GM's main problem is shifting mountains of stock with high incentives before the 2014 Silverado arrives, moving so many vehicles with aggressive incentives usually results in a huge pull forward of sales, resulting in a corresponding collapse in sales when incentives are withdrawn, the absolute last thing GM should be doing right in front of the new Silverado.. I only hope that Ford doesn't get drawn into an incentives war, Ford's lower inventory levels would suggest it's completely unnecessary. With Chevy now offering $9,000 in Silverado incentives, and stating now that December sales are so good they should be able to meet 200,000 in inventory goal by end of this month, I would think Ford has no choice but to sweeten incentives a bit more. Chrysler is offering big incentives on Ram also, but of course not up to $9,000 like Chevy. A good time to be a Chevy buyer with too much Silverado, Malibu, and Cruzes in stock. Not good for the workers or shareholders, but good for customers. The good news though is Chevy has 13 new or refreshed vehicles hitting dealerhships in 2013, and thuse incentives will fall as Chevy then will have freshest lineup or as fresh as Ford anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Citation needed. You and I both drive DOHC 24 valvers, and Chevy always bragged supported by EPA that their pushrods beat our vehicles in fuel mileage. Now that has changed with Ecoboost, but the 3.0 OHV engines that were used right up to 2012 in popular Fusion and Escape models never were known for class leading fuel mileage. Always had reputation for being a bit thirsty. I'm very happy with my 3.0 Duratec engine as it has never missed a beat, but there were model year Corvettes with 350hp that could beat my fuel mileage on the highway in overdrive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) You do know right that Chevy small block pushrod V8's are more compact and fit lower and much better into engine compartment as compared to OHV engines? In today's parlance, OHV is synonymous with pushrod. You and I both drive DOHC 24 valvers, and Chevy always bragged supported by EPA that their pushrods beat our vehicles in fuel mileage. Now that has changed with Ecoboost, but the 3.0 OHV engines that were used right up to 2012 in popular Fusion and Escape models never were known for class leading fuel mileage. Fusion's engine was always DOHC, never pushrod or SOHC. Edited December 23, 2012 by papilgee4evaeva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) With Chevy now offering $9,000 in Silverado incentives, and stating now that December sales are so good they should be able to meet 200,000 in inventory goal by end of this month, I would think Ford has no choice but to sweeten incentives a bit more. The $9,000 incentive only applies to the last of the 2012 Silverado stock, both companies have limited numbers of 2012 trucks compared to their 2013 truck inventorysso we need to be careful with what is going on here a lot of those Silverado sales as GM could be moving older heavily discounted stock whine mountains of its 2013 Silverados sit there. The bulk of GM's dillema rests with the current amounts of its 2013 product inventory and how to move that without killing profit. By contrast, Ford's 2013 Inventory is only a fraction of the size, so Ford's issues are nothing like the problems facing GM. Chrysler is offering big incentives on Ram also, but of course not up to $9,000 like Chevy. A good time to be a Chevy buyer with too much Silverado, Malibu, and Cruzes in stock. Not good for the workers or shareholders, but good for customers. The good news though is Chevy has 13 new or refreshed vehicles hitting dealerhships in 2013, and thuse incentives will fall as Chevy then will have freshest lineup or as fresh as Ford anyway. FB, my concern is with what GM has to do with aggressive selling and incentives on stockpiles of inventory ahead of those new models, we know that pump and dump has consequences and the pull ahead on sales numbers could impact severely on those new product launches. By comparison, Ford's inventory levels are much closer to normal, therefore it doesn't need to move the same volume of stock as GM, nearly all of Ford's popular 2012 car and utility inventory is gone so no heavy incentives are needed, I'm betting attractive leases will do the trick. GM needs to shift lots of stock, huge numbers in fact where as Ford has no such problem with balanced production and sales levels. Edited December 23, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Honestly, it looks like a solid truck exterior wise, so anyone blasting its style needs to check themselves. The interior does suck however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The new Pentastar V6 + 8 speed ZF automatic powertrain in MY 2013 Ram 1500 should resolve that issue. Famed hypermiler Wayne Gerdes managed to achieve 40+ mpg in a 2013 Ram 1500 4x4 (LINK): Why does this Ram have the Check Engine light on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) Why does this Ram have the Check Engine light on? Probably because the truck is off but the ignition is turned on. That will give you your gauges as well as the idiot lights (hence the 0 RPMs). Edited December 24, 2012 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terraformer Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I just don't think these will compete too well with Ford. My 0.02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Oh wow, that's horrible. Maybe it's me, but a big/bulky grille like that doesn't look appropriate on a GM. Sure big bulky grille on Super Duties and Ram 2500/3500's, because they've been that way so long. Just doesn't seem to mesh with the rest of the GM truck design. As for those headlights, I don't know which design (Silverado or Sierra) I dislike more. I thought I disliked the F150 projector headlights, but the new F150 headlights look light years better than those on the Silverado/Sierra. And looks to be the same old same old for GM on the interiors. Still reminds me of the cheap rubber and plastic interiors from the late 80s/early 90s. I'm sorry GM, you keeping falling down the pickup choices (IMO). Ford, Dodge and Nissan would all come before. Then a last place tie for the Tundra/Sierra/Silverado, when it comes to design and style that is. And I would bet the next F-150 will look much like the present one. I doubt if Ford is going to radically change what has been successful for them. That would be dumb. Ford went from the Pre-96 style to the 97-03 style to the 04-13 style of current day no problem. All were drastically different styles and Ford still held onto the #1 selling full-size truck. But will admit, the Super Duty, base has been around since 1999 and believe is in a need of investment and upgrades. But it's still a great truck either way. I actually think they look alright on the older truck, but ugly and outdated on the new one, but that's just my opinion. I blame those squared off wheel wells looking horrible on the new design due to the way the fender flares bulge out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) The 97-03 style was a bad time to be an F-series truck. The current Super dutys are very nice however. I loved seeing this sexy blue truck one during an episode of Burn Notice Edited January 9, 2013 by probowler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The 97-03 style was a bad time to be an F-series truck. Depends very much on the body style I think. The extended cab short beds and flaresides didn't look bad in my opinion. The Lightning of the era looked particularly badass in my opinion. A regular cab long bed, on the other hand, looked very homely. The styling fit in with other vehicles on the road at the time. It hasn't aged particularly well though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Is it just me? With the 05-09 models I thought the supercabs looked the best and that the supercrew bed looked too short. But on the current models I like the supercrew better than the supercab. The bed doesn't look as stubby. I've tried to figure out if they changed dimensions or something else in the design or if it's just an optical illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Depends very much on the body style I think. The extended cab short beds and flaresides didn't look bad in my opinion. The Lightning of the era looked particularly badass in my opinion. A regular cab long bed, on the other hand, looked very homely. The styling fit in with other vehicles on the road at the time. It hasn't aged particularly well though. Agreed! I LOVED my '99 regular cab flairside. With 4x4 and the off road package, it looked sharp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Is it just me? With the 05-09 models I thought the supercabs looked the best and that the supercrew bed looked too short. But on the current models I like the supercrew better than the supercab. The bed doesn't look as stubby. I've tried to figure out if they changed dimensions or something else in the design or if it's just an optical illusion. Actually, it was 04-08 models. In '09, the Supercrew cab grew (6" I think), and it seemed to make things look more in proportion. I don't know why, because the bed got shorter in relation to the total length of the truck (the actual bed length stayed the same). Maybe it's the extra length of the rear door?? I've often wondered the same thing as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8-X Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) The 97-03 style was a bad time to be an F-series truck. The current Super dutys are very nice however. 97-03 sold A LOT. Many liked the 96 & prior style and disliked the drastic change. Others loved the change. Me, I liked them both and love the current style. My 2002. Sorry for the horrble pic. Is it just me? With the 05-09 models I thought the supercabs looked the best and that the supercrew bed looked too short. But on the current models I like the supercrew better than the supercab. The bed doesn't look as stubby. I've tried to figure out if they changed dimensions or something else in the design or if it's just an optical illusion. You have the same beds for many years. On the Screw from 04-06 models, you could only get the 5.5' bed. On 07-08 they started offering the 6.5' and 5.5' bed. For the 04-08 Screw models, I much prefer the style of the 5.5' bed. Now for the 09+ models, I think the 6.5' bed looks much better than the 5.5' bed. This most likely is due to the increased/stretched cabin size makes the proportions look more in line. Where as the 6.5' b ed on the 04-08 models looked odd. But to each their own. Actually, it was 04-08 models. In '09, the Supercrew cab grew (6" I think), and it seemed to make things look more in proportion. I don't know why, because the bed got shorter in relation to the total length of the truck (the actual bed length stayed the same). Maybe it's the extra length of the rear door?? I've often wondered the same thing as you. Actually, the front doors grew not the rear. From 04-08, the Scab and Screw used two different size front doors. Starting in 09 when they stretched it, they started using the same door size up front for both the Screw and Scab. You'll notice the difference in the images below by the amount of extra front window glass, and the length of black trim before in makes the drop down. My 2006 2009+ Edited January 9, 2013 by V8-X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Actually, the front doors grew not the rear. From 04-08, the Scab and Screw used two different size front doors. Starting in 09 when they stretched it, they started using the same door size up front for both the Screw and Scab. You'll notice the difference in the images below by the amount of extra front window glass, and the length of black trim before in makes the drop down. Ahhh, yes, I knew that, I just mis-typed. The extra length in the cab was added to the rear, but the increase in door length was added to the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 You're right Nick, I totally forgot about the lightning and flare sides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.