rmc523 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Does anybody like those square wheel wells? They look terrible, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 GM offers three revamped engines: a 262-horsepower, 4.3-liter V-6 that GM says can tow a substantial trailer; a 325-horsepower, 5.3-liter V-8 that will get better mileage than the 22 mpg the current model gets on highways; and a 6.2-liter V-8 with 376 horsepower." Those HP numbers have got to be low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoser768 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Those HP numbers have got to be low. I think somebody got the in^3 and hp numbers mixed up. I haven't heard any HP numbers released yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) GM's estimating 17MPG combined, which is either below average or awful, depending on the engine that they're referring to. And that barely matches the 2013 F150. Like i said above, it will probably sell OK but not to the full potential a refreshed Silverado should... Edited December 14, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) I'm no big fan of GM and probably have more reason to dislike them than most on here far removed from SE MI, but there is real talent there, always has been, and I sure hope they prosper just as much as I do for Ford. It's not the engineering's talent that is in question here, it's the diversion of funding away from Silverado for years that's appalling. Left to their own devices, I'm sure GM's engineers would have suggested many of these upgrades years ago to match the current F150. Surely, you would agree that if GM had been steadily upgrading Silverado for the past three years, things would be very different now.. Edited December 14, 2012 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Wow it's fugly...and the interior is Fisher Price the whole way. Reading some of the comments on autoblog, they are having a field day with negative comments, can't say I read anyone who really loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 So wait...is this a new truck or just a refresh? Those comparison picture a couple posts up make it seem like they are pointing out what has been changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 So wait...is this a new truck or just a refresh? Those comparison picture a couple posts up make it seem like they are pointing out what has been changed? It's somewhere in between. GM source says all sheetmetal and interior work are new, but frame is 98% carryover. Also, details 101 GM... You know, wouldn't it make more sense to have the covers fold down so that they are not in the way of the switches when these ports are in use ? If I recall, the current ones fold down. As pointed out by the ironically-named "PositiveAboutGM" user on GMI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Seriously? He thinks it still has the camo on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 GM offers three revamped engines: a 262-horsepower, 4.3-liter V-6 that GM says can tow a substantial trailer; a 325-horsepower, 5.3-liter V-8 that will get better mileage than the 22 mpg the current model gets on highways; and a 6.2-liter V-8 with 376 horsepower." Source for those numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Source for those numbers? Hoser768 is correct - GM has yet to release power and torque numbers for the EcoTec3 family engines, and the quoted horsepower numbers happen to match the displacement of each engine upon converting liters to cubic inches. Additionally, GM's current port injection 5.3L engine peaks at 320 hp and the 6.2L at 403 hp. The source for the numbers may be a journalist who isn't particularly skilled in either reading or arithmetic. Edited December 14, 2012 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 It's not the engineering's talent that is in question here, it's the diversion of funding away from Silverado for years that's appalling. Left to their own devices, I'm sure GM's engineers would have suggested many of these upgrades years ago to match the current F150. Surely, you would agree that if GM had been steadily upgrading Silverado for the past three years, things would be very different now.. When you mention "diversion of funding" from these trucks, I assume you are referring to the new Cadillac ATS (which could not have been cheap to develop)? Is GM still trying to do too much, or is it unable to prioritize how it spends its development dollars? If so, I guess we now know why the F-series is so good, and why there isn't a line of rear-wheel-drive Lincolns on unique platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 If so, I guess we now know why the F-series is so good, and why there isn't a line of rear-wheel-drive Lincolns on unique platforms. :rolleyes: Yep, Ford chooses to put its money where it knows it can make money in return instead of throwing it at a black hole. Don't turn this topic into a "wah, no RWD or unique platformed Lincolns" thread too. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 When you mention "diversion of funding" from these trucks, I assume you are referring to the new Cadillac ATS (which could not have been cheap to develop)? Is GM still trying to do too much, or is it unable to prioritize how it spends its development dollars? If so, I guess we now know why the F-series is so good, and why there isn't a line of rear-wheel-drive Lincolns on unique platforms. This is the refresh Silverado needed two years ago to keep the refreshed the F150 in sight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Well, GM is just not as smart as the armchair quarterbacks on here that are only positive about one auto company and everyone else is incompetent or worse. Very seldom does any BOF fanatic say anything positive about any new product posted on this site. I'm no big fan of GM and probably have more reason to dislike them than most on here far removed from SE MI, but there is real talent there, always has been, and I sure hope they prosper just as much as I do for Ford. I'll say something positive. If I ever bought a truck other than Ford it would be a Ram. (I still think of them as Dodge) Father in law just bought a Ram 1500, nice truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Does anybody like those square wheel wells? They look terrible, IMO. They were going for the retro 1973 - '87 look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 ...Looks better than any of the Ford Trucks IMO, except that dashboard...I couldn't stomach that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddysystem Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Does anybody like those square wheel wells? They look terrible, IMO. It's interesting how many foks don't like the square wheel openings. I think they are fine. Maybe I'm biased by the old Willys and Jeep square wheel opening designs. The new front ends are too much. In general I don't like how truck designs are intentionally getting tougher/uglier. Just make them handsome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 They were going for the retro 1973 - '87 look. Like it or not, a fair number of people love those old GM trucks. They are very popular with those who collect and/or modify trucks. Whether that love will be transferred to the new truck remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I'll say something positive. If I ever bought a truck other than Ford it would be a Ram. (I still think of them as Dodge) Father in law just bought a Ram 1500, nice truck. Rams are gas guzzling hogs and would be third choice for me. Ford, Chevy, RAM, and Toyota in that order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Rams are gas guzzling hogs 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): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 The Chevrolet U.S. website now has a "visualizer" section where all available colors, trim levels, and wheels are shown. 2014 Silverado visualizer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Pretty conservative effort. The GM faithful will like, but I'm not sure it will pick up many conquest sales. I really chuckled at the statement by engine design manager, Jordan Lee, that the engines are the most "technologically advanced engines ever offered in a light-duty pickup." These engines are all cam-in-block with pushrods. Maybe technologically advanced for 1955, but not today. 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? Seems to work rather well for Corvette which is an awesome sports car with more than enough power to win ALMS GT series and help it handle better also with its compact design. So I would think it will work great with new Silverado that will have more hp and torque than present Silverado. And those engines have always bested Ford's modular engines in fuel mileage also. Give Chevy engineers some credit...they know what they are doing and have massaged the small block V8 pushrods to more than hold their own against anyone. Not sure how you can compare 1955 Chevy small block V8 with V8 that is sitting in latest Corvette/Camaro/Silverado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 It's a fricking pickup fan boys. A cab and metal box on back. I mean there is not a lot you can do other than some grille changes and rear tail light design. 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. They can lighten it without changing the looks much. Chevy likes the muscular look, and decided to keep it. Big deal. Choice is good, and it's not like the Silverado has been a poor seller like Tundra/Titan over the years. The Silverado just needed updating as in more power, torque, better fuel mileage, and more updated features/interior. They did that, and more to come each year after as Chevy has stated. I imagine a V6 turbo will be out within 12-18 months after shipping with 8 speed auto. So I expect the major players to keep the rugged, work truck look with big toothy grilles, and who cares about what the tail lights look like on back of metal box. Features, power, and utility is what really matters along with better fuel mileage. The future means less dilletantes buying them and more who really need them putting out the dough to buy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 They were going for the retro 1973 - '87 look. I actually think they look alright on the older truck, but ugly and outdated on the new one, but that's just my opinion. 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.