By on December 10, 2012
YouTube Preview Image

General Motors will give the world their first look at their all-new full-size pickup lineup on Thursday, even as inventories of their current generation trucks continue to pile up.

The next-gen trucks won’t be going on sale until Q2 2013, so consumers will have to wait it out, or buy one of the nearly 140 day supply currently in GM’s inventory. The company has taken a fair amount of criticism for maintaining substantial inventories of their trucks in anticipation of the model changeover and the need to re-tool their truck plants.

 Reuters is reporting that the full-size trucks contribute as much as 60 percent of GM’s overall profits. The launch of the new trucks is as critical the inventory situation is worrying, but to be quite honest, the current GMT900 trucks still remain competitive, as we found out on our test drive of the new Ram 1500.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

74 Comments on “GM To Debut New Full-Size Trucks Thursday...”


  • avatar

    showing it now, over a year early has to be about as dumb as it gets.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Agreed. What good could it possibly do to promote the new truck more than a year before it’s release?

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Its not over a year…Derek screwed up the year. Its Q2 2013 not Q2 2014.

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        6 months earlier doesn’t make it any better.

      • 0 avatar
        BrianL

        Depending on the date, it could be less than 4 months out. Calendar year Q2 starts in April. 3 weeks less in December, it could be 3 months and 3 weeks. But, I still agree that this isn’t great timing. I thought it was going to be on sale sooner than this.

        Originally, I thought this was going to be revealed at the State Fair of Texas and be on sale in January. So, I wonder if they pushed back the new one because of some technical reason or to sell down some inventory.

        When are they stopping production for the GMT 900s?

    • 0 avatar
      WRohrl

      Wow, we are EXACTLY 140 days away from Q2 2013. So if they shut down production today, in THEORY the last truck will leave the lot right on time and the new trucks will take up where the old ones left off. Wouldn’t that be nice…Yes I am being facetious.

    • 0 avatar
      Prado

      Why don’t they debut it at the Detroit or Chicago show coming up in a month or two? Is that too logical for GM?

      • 0 avatar
        sunridge place

        Some of the high volume reveals have moved away from the big autoshows..they kind of get lost in the mix. Its not as stupid as you seem to think it is.

        2012 Camry was revealed in the summer away from autoshows.

        It gives a chance to dominate the automotive news for more than a half a day before the next big reveal in the afternoon.

        I’m pretty sure the new GMT’s will have a big presence in Detroit. It will also be the first chance for the public to see one in person.

    • 0 avatar
      mjz

      This is why GM needs a car guy at the top. Why in heaven’s name would you show the 2014 models NOW, when you are stuck with over 240,000 2012 and 2013 models? Sell down the old inventory FIRST, then show the new models. Duh! This will be another botched introduction like the 2013 Malibu, with perhaps even more disatrous results.

  • avatar
    86er

    Maybe they’ll be so ugly, that customers will rush to their dealership and pick up an old one.

    Stupid like a fox…

    • 0 avatar
      Brian P

      We already know what they look like, thanks to spy shots. The styling is about as much a departure from GMT900, as the GMT900 was from the GMT800 … not much. They’ll be recognizable as GM trucks.

      Under the hood will be more interesting.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I realize that the government is pushing hard, and apparently succeeding, to get consumers with anything over a 350 FICO score and a pulse to be able to buy new, $30,000+ vehicles again (as consumer DEBT just hit a record 2.75 trillion dollars as of a week ago), but I’m glad that I am not hallucinating when I see Chevy/GMC pickup trucks literally piling up at my local dealerships.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      You are correct.

      And when the next round of personal finance collapse comes – fueled by mortgage and car loan defaults – the incumbent government (Democrats) can always blame the greedy bankers who ‘tricked’ consumers into these loans.

      I am stunned by the “we’ll finance anybody” schtick that continues only a few years after the last catastrophe.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        I recall reading that people are much less likely to intentionally default on a car loan than on a mortgage.

        If you lose your house, you can move into an apartment (or in with mom and dad). But you still need the vehicle to drive to work, the store, etc.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Unless you’re buying a Denali, special order, or HD truck, there is no reason you should be spending over $30k on a GM truck right now.

      In fact a GM truck is probably one of the few vehicles you can get right now under $16k.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Where are you getting your numbers?

      http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/national_economy/householdcredit/DistrictReport_Q12012.pdf

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        US consumer borrowing rises to record $2.75T – The Denver Post
        http://www.denverpost.com › Business News
        By MARTIN CRUTSINGER AP Economics Writer
        3 days ago – WASHINGTON—Americans swiped their credit cards more often in October and borrowed more…

        http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22147009/us-consumer-borrowing-rises-record-2-75t

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        Looking at the actual fed report mentioned in the article, you and the author appear to be incorrect. Consumer debt peaked in 2008 – see the first chart in the report.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        That chart is only current as of the 1st quarter of 2012.

    • 0 avatar
      Type57SC

      Geeber- There used to be the assumption that mortgages would be paid first, cars second and credit cards third, but somehow the notion of defaulting on a mortgage became “strategic” instead of unethical and a failure. With the stygma gone, many defaulted, but few mortgage payers “moved in with parents” (although many renters likely did given the depression in household formations). I think the argument of “people need a car but can find shelter anywhere” is bogus. There used to be the common belief that when you loose a job, you often default on the car if you’re in the bottom half. If you then get a job, you go buy a (often used) car. This is still probably true but clouded in the weird mortgage interventions and popularization of defaulting on your mortgage.

      Like many have said through the ages, “there’s a new paradigm” will probably not turn out to be true.

      • 0 avatar
        rnc

        “but somehow the notion of defaulting on a mortgage became “strategic” instead of unethical and a failure. With the stygma gone”

        If our government is supposed to provide guidence, especially all of the agencies that were supposed to be watching and controlling through the various mechanisms given to them (mechanisms that were actually used to accelerate the mess). And that government decided that it was these companies were too “Strategic” to be allowed to fail in an “Ethical” manner, why exactly should it be any different for the consumers? Why were these companies saved to the tune of trillions of dollars and the re-writing of rules while the consumer was left on thier own (perhaps a hey were giving you a few hundred billion, letting you mark your assets to fantasy and borrow from the fed at 0% (while paying you interest on your deposited reserves) perhaps you should re-write a few mortages to more realistic terms (rather than having more and more houses dumped on a market that doesn’t have any room for them anyways? The consumer is what makes a country work, somewhere that was lost, if I watched companies that deserved to die be saved off my tab, then why wouldn’t I say screw it? The government and every TBTF company got too. and yes I would save my car and access to credit before trying to save a house if my economic situation ever degraded to that point, me being Too Small to Matter and all.

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        The far bigger issue is the abandonment of 20% down-payment requirements. People didn’t pay their mortgages out the goodness of their hearts, they paid because they had skin in the game.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Exactly.

        The housing bubble was fueled in good measure, but not completely (obviously), by abandonment of the conventional 20% down requirement that had existed for so many years.

        And now that we’re back to the FHA financing (directly or indirectly) 84% of all new home mortgages in the U.S., with a requirement that the buyers put down a mere 3.5% (when the 1st time home buyer credit was in effect, people were using the credit to fund the 3.5%), happy days are here again.

        What did Einstein have to say about insanity, again?

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        The strategy now is, if one is upside-down on a mortgage, and no hope of securing a better deal, you walk away and take your credit lumps for a few years, then everything’s good again!

        Glad I don’t have to worry about that.

  • avatar

    Soon we’ll be talking about how much Tundra is dated…. Oh wait. Nobody cares about Tundra.

    • 0 avatar
      Bill Steege

      I’m shopping for a new full-size half-ton truck now and I’ll gladly give GM a chance at my money. Maybe GM has a winner. Things change, maybe.

      But there are a few things I really like about the Tundra and the thing I like the most is that 5.7-liter engine! I really like their big Limited 4-door with the 5.7-liter engine. I drove one last month and it drove and handled better than any of the Big 3 trucks. $48K is an attention-getter for a half-ton truck.

      I hope GM had enough sense to put something similar to the Tundra engine under the hood of the new Silverado and Sierra. The F150 Ecoboost has GM’s pushrod engines beat and the Tundra is light years ahead of all of them.

      I never cared for Dodge/RAM trucks. Know too many people who had problems with them. And the only Ford truck I would want to buy now is the F250 HD 4-door with the big gas motor.

      But so far, Tundra leads the pack for me. I’ve had them all and all trucks were good at some time, but the Tundra really is something special. Outdated or not, ride, handling, NVH, stability and braking are the best I have ever experienced in any truck. But that is subjective, I know. And since I’m the one buying it, I can be subjective.

      So I am looking forward to see what GM brings on line for 2014, in 2013.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The Tundra would be great if Toyota could get about 400 lbs more payload capacity out of it.

        I personally prefer the Ford 6.2L.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Did they seriously upgrade the Tundra for 2012/13? The 2008-2010 models that I have driven or spoke to other owners about have been the exact opposite of what you said. The earlier versions have the wiggly frail tailgate issue and the C-frame is know for not being as rugged as the big 3 trucks. The 5.7 makes impressive power but many have had transmission issues, leaks and other drive line issues. The ride has been called harsh but I find it rather busy and not nearly as good as the current Ram. The Tundras dash is also odd placing certain controls away from the driver and certain interior components feel cheap. I also see 2007/08 frames that are already pretty rusted here in the Upstate snow belt so I have to wonder if they will need total replacement like the earlier Tundras and Tacomas.

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    Maybe they’ll pull a fast one on all of us and offer a truck that’s low enough that you can use a shovel, spade, or other implement of physical labor to load things in and out of the truck without a “man step” or a very sore back? One where you can lean over the side of the bed and reach in without hyper-extending something?

    • 0 avatar
      bills79jeep

      Isn’t this the truth. My Dad’s ’92 Chevy work truck was perfectly usable, you COULD reach over the sides of the bed to get something out. Unfortunately, it was replaced with a ’05(-ish?) Ram when it finally crapped out after 250k miles, which I can’t say the same thing about.

      Honestly, I 6′, young, and reasonably limber. If it’s work for me to get anything out of the bed, it’s too damn tall.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The F-150 that I half-own has a cargo-floor that’s about as high as my sternum. I’m not especially tall, but I can easily adjust the driver’s seat to fit me.

      It makes the truck look more badass, but it makes the truck less useful for work than it would otherwise be. The ground clearance is useful in the truck’s current application, because its purpose has been served, and it’s too freaking big for my purposes. When I need another truck, I’ll run out and get a Ranger 4×4 and put a flatbed on it.

      Don’t get me wrong, the F-150 is an amazingly well engineered vehicle. It’s durable, smooth, and can move amazing amounts of stuff. It’s just a miss for my purposes. An AWD or FWD Ranger with a flat-bottomed bed would be way better.

      Alas, I see every one of these mistakes repeated on GM trucks. People seem to buy them, so I guess it’s a success — but I want a practical tool, not a badass monster truck, so I’ll probably just get a minivan and a trailer hitch. Why doesn’t anyone make a truck-like truck anymore

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      Real men… Manly men… have a front-end loader.

  • avatar

    Does “the world” really give a flying poop about GMs “new” oversized trucks? Or anything GM for that matter? Wake-up and smell another bankruptcy.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      The world cares as much when a new F-150 or Camry is launched in the US or Golf in Europe. That is what happens when a major nameplate gets an all new model.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Despite half-owning a Big American Pickup Truck, and respecting the engineering and utility of these vehicles (but not their misuse as grocery-getters and cultural/status symbols), I’m a little perplexed by this too.

      But lots people do buy a lot of these trucks, so it’s a big deal for the industry. And THAT is fascinating!

      • 0 avatar
        rnc

        My little town had it’s christmas lights parade this weekend (I live in the country, so as the trucks started to line up 6 hours in advance (can’t have a night parade without drinking), probably 90% of the vehicles lining the roads were trucks, starting from the late 70′s through the present, almost like watching a Chia pet grow. I understand why Ford did what they did, to make the truck high enough that the transmission did not require a tunnel, therefore giving the cab a flat space, in a lot of ways this makes the four door version more roomy and useful than a car would be (+) you still have a truck and most likely a nice V8 (I do see more and more EB ones though), seeing as Ford dominates* the segment (they seem to be stealing share from GM more than anything).

        *by dominate I mean they are the ones dictating form and function (yes even toyota has to follow), GM’s trucks look dated, another thing I noticed this weekend, you really couldn’t tell a difference between GMT###’s and thier fit and finish isn’t upto Ford’s, Dodge’s or Toyota’s level (theres a reason inventory is piling up)

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Full-size pickup trucks are the 21st century equivalent of the 1960s Chevrolet Bel Air/Impala/Caprice, Ford Galaxie/LTD and Plymouth Fury (with Dodge now substituting for Plymouth).

        A new full-size GM truck is a big deal today, just as a new full-size Chevrolet was a big deal back in the 1960s.

  • avatar
    -Cole-

    Really excited about this.

    And is the new Escalade Lambda or not? This is the question!

    Excited about the new suburban.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      I had read (can`t find source at the moment) that the Escalade would stay on BoF. The current Lambda cannot take a V8 so a Cadillac version is out until an all new Lambda comes out sometime in 2015.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      They are keeping the solid rear axle on the SUVs which is good to hear. And why not, the current GMT 900s still ride and handle better than the IFS Ford and Toyota full-size SUVs. Plus the wheels don’t lay on their side when you hook a boat or an RV to the back of them with some tongue weight. The third suffers but screw that. If you want a people mover by a minivan. I’d rather have the towing capability.

  • avatar
    JLGOLDEN

    Whether we like these big beasts or not, we are going to see them in thousands of driveways and parking lots across the country. That said, the upcoming Colorado / Canyon can’t arrive a moment too soon. I have to wonder if the “sensible-sized” Colorado & Canyon will cause a ripple in demand for the giants?

  • avatar

    they should not begin promoting the new trucks until dealers have them. another novel approach would be to supply brochures before announcing rebates.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      That is a fair point and applies to most manufacturers. Honda and Toyota get it right. 6 months is actually, for a domestic, pretty good since the Fusion was close to year as was the Malibu before launch.

    • 0 avatar
      sunridge place

      Brochures? Really??? Is this 1988? How about Business Reply Cards too?

      You sound like an old man who found out Buick doesn’t offer front row bench seats and a column shifter anymore.

      • 0 avatar
        Joe McKinney

        I still have every brochure from every new vehicle I have ever purchased. There is just something about a printed brochure. The look, the feel, the permanence. Online brochures just cannot compare. I for one am glad the car companies still print these, though I can imagine the day will come when print brochures will be eliminated as a cost cutting measure.

      • 0 avatar
        chicagoland

        Brochures are nice, for us over 40, but current buyers with iPhones couldn’t care less. They want the apps, and all to shop.

      • 0 avatar
        Luke42

        I’m in the process of negotiating for a used Sienna.

        The salesman (who’s also in his early 30s) and I did most of the negotiating via text message while I was sitting with the loan officer at my bank (a temporal coincidence, but convenient). My wife was also in on the conversation. So, I had a 4-way negotiation during lunch, and didn’t even miss lunch.

        He said something about the other sales guys being a little miffed about him getting so many sales by being “the Internet guy”, but they were all in their 50s and 60s and didn’t seem to want to spend their days posting pictures on the Internet, obsessively texting on iPhones, and moving a lot of metal — apparently.

        I can see why the less tech savvy salesmen would be confused, because to all appearances, he’s selling lots cars by literally twiddling his thumbs on something that looks a little like a GameBoy. But, to me, he was unusually easy to communicate with, incredibly responsive, and forthcoming with information about the vehicle the instant I needed it. That, and being willing to sell the van at a fair price, has pretty sold the vehicle.

        Oh, yeah, you said something about brochures? LOL. I already read that stuff on the website, which is why I showed up at the dealership.

  • avatar
    Dave M.

    “6 months earlier doesn’t make it any better.”

    For GM it does. It sure beats the 3 year lead time for the Volt and Camaro.

  • avatar
    BlackDynamiteOnline

    I can’t see any upside of showing this car before the NAIAS
    The show should be about the all-new Silverado and the Vette. Perfect way to start the new year!

    But if the company was well-run, it wouldn’t be Government Motors, now would it?
    BD

  • avatar
    340-4

    Wow. Talk about a fire sale on the current impacted-bowel of truck inventory!

    This makes no sense that I can see.

    Unless for some reason they are working to scare up a ton of trade-ins when this thing hits the cul-de-sac.

  • avatar
    chicagoland

    GM boss probably said “F– it, show the dang things now, we need some good PR!”

  • avatar
    gslippy

    With a 140-day truck inventory, GM could just about stop building them now, and spend their efforts perfecting the new ones.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    “Meet the new truck, same as the old truck” per The Who.

    • 0 avatar
      geeber

      Like it or not, that is what lots of customers want. Making a radical change to an existing model with a proven customer base is very risky, particularly when there is no proof that customers are unhappy with the old model.

      The current Silverado is long-in-the-tooth compared to its Ford and Dodge competitors, but I don’t see any evidence that customers have been unhappy with it.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Me: So do they have any special discount pricing on the current GM trucks you have?

    Dealer: No, why?

    Me: The new ones are coming out soon, and you have way too much inventory of the old ones.

    Dealer: They’re selling like hotcakes. We can’t keep them on the lot.

    In all seriousness, if you drive a current edition GM pickup, you will get hosed on trade-in values (even more so) if you don’t dump it now. And GM hasn’t helped matters with this reveal.

  • avatar
    jaje

    Want to differentiate your product and win over some new customers – add a light duty diesel option to the 1/2 ton. Everyone wants the duramax diesel but it’s often too big and too expensive b/c it’s full class upgrade for heavy duty.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      If the new Transit is being built-in america and it is going to offer the 5 cyl. diesel, I bet you it will be in the F-150 with in 1/2 model year later, thus beating everyone else to the punch, offering torque heaven, but without superduty monster diesel overkill.

      • 0 avatar
        jaje

        Ford would be smart to do this. Reason why diesels cost so much is their rarity and option levels are usually much higher (they get to gouge for more profit). Mazda6 and the Cruze will have a diesel next year as well creating competition for the TDI who has owned that market for years and has a 50%+ take rate for most its lineup that offers the TDI option.

    • 0 avatar
      FJ60LandCruiser

      Coming from someone who owns a 2500HD and regularly tows farm equipment and critters, there’s just no economic reason to buy diesel. “Clean” diesels cost a fortune, don’t save as much fuel as they used to, and highway diesel fuel is expensive as hell–not mentioning you have to add what is essentially overpriced cow pee into some reservoir hidden somewhere on the truck every few months.

      With the 5-10 grand premium of a diesel, higher fuel costs, whatever economy gains are lost unless you’re pulling a rig on the highway on a regular basis. I got a 6L gas 4×4 WT V8 for 30 grand, I figure the 10 grand I saved will buy enough gas to offset the benefits of diesel for years to come.

      A small 6 cyl presumably non-turbo diesel would be slow as hell and wouldn’t deliver the acceleration most “casual” truck drivers expect these days and probably wouldn’t give the torque and towing capacity us farmboys have grown to expect from the bigger gas V8s.

      Diesels are only for construction foremen and rich boys with their ridiculously lifted trucks. Everyone else can’t afford them.

      • 0 avatar
        jaje

        So you say it’s not worth it as it is too expensive or costs more to drive it.

        Diesel in my area is right now $3.80 a gallon and the cheap unleaded gas is $3.15 so it’s .65 cents a gallon more or about 20% more than a gallon of gas (this is primarily b/c gas has a much higher refining capacity than diesel in the US thus limiting supply and the reason it costs significantly more). My 4wd Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD I bought used is the same price for a similar 5.7 Hemi Jeep (similar setup). Even if we look at the EPA #s where the CRD (diesel) gets 19mpg combined versus 15mpg for the Hemi it is 4 mpg difference which is about 21% better meaning it’s a wash and not a loss but in the end you use less fossil fuel but come out the same.

        I actually get ~ 24-26 mpg highway (engine is stock with no tuning or filter, etc.) and 20 mpg combined which is quite a bit better than EPA where where most Hemi JGC owners often are lucky to get only the EPA estimate. However, if I add a $700 ECU reflash it will bump up power from 250hp to 310hp and 380 ft lbs to 465 while also getting me another 2-3 mpg (dyno proven by tuner and 100s of owners who have had this done). Reason why is Daimler Benz CRD motor uses diesel fuel pulses to make the engine quieter and has no other purpose. The engine doesn’t require the use of urea as it has diesel particulate filter that burns off soot into ash every 750 – 1k miles. In the end I come out ahead with a truck that can tow 7,500lbs fit in the garage as it’s a mid size suv and not a full size pickup and get mpg of what CUVs get.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Some people will inevitably call me a “conspiracy-er,” but I’d not be the slightest bit “shocked, shocked I tell you” if there wasn’t some sort of collusion to price fix diesel.

      • 0 avatar
        rnc

        Actually there is, paper mills are required by law to use diesel in the production of paper even though it makes it cost more along with the environmental issues, those extra costs are taken care of via tax breaks of course*, thus taking diesel that would be used for transportation and directing it into an area it doesn’t belong, increasing (or intentionally stabalizing) prices. (similar to corn and transportation).

        *I’m not sure that they are required to, I do know that if they don’t the tax benefits given to the ones that do, outweigh the costs of not using it.

    • 0 avatar
      Numbers_Matching

      jaje – you may recall that each of the domestics had light duty diesels ready to go for their light duty pick-ups. Ford had a 4.4L V8, GM a 4.5L V8 and Dodge a 5.0L V8. All were shelved back in 2008/09 due to a perception that they would not do well in an uncertain market.

      the 4.5 GM unit looked the most promising – google it – some impressive engineering.

      • 0 avatar
        Numbers_Matching

        - and that’s generally the challenge with modern light duty diesels – they require a rather complex solution compared to their gasoline counterparts….complexity the light duty market may not be ready for.

      • 0 avatar
        jaje

        I do recall the talk of bringing them but they had the obstacles of the ever changing emissions laws. It was a disappointment it never materialized. So in order to work around diesel’s greater efficiency to gasoline we did e85 which was the exact opposite effect as it had even worse energy density to gasoline (about 25% less) – then hybrids to increase gas efficiency but again at greater cost and complexity. I guess you pick your poison.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        Those light duty diesels weren’t ready to go. They were designed. Ready to go was a billion dollars and two years of tooling up away.

        For why those diesels never actually went, see the EPA’s extremely strict Tier 2 emissions laws that phased in from 2004-2007. Tier 3 is still up in the air but there’s little doubt that it will be even more expensive.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Talking Trucks:

    It’s not really something to brag about in the age of volatile gas prices, but GM can still claim a whopping 33.5% U.S. market share in something…namely body-on-frame vehicles (pickups, vans, and SUVs).

    This is a slight Edge (no pun intended) over Ford (30.8%, including the last of the Crown Vics), more than double Chrysler’s 16.1%, and miles ahead of Toyota (12.4%) and Nissan (6.2%).

    Ford dominates in pickup (F-Series) and van (E-Series) sales, but GM makes up the difference and then some everywhere else, as its range of large Chevy/GMC/Cadillac SUVS outsells the Expedition/Navigator four times over.

    Rounding out the BOF pie: Land Rover (the LR4 and Ranger Sport are good for 0.8%), Suzuki (takes 0.07% from Equator sales) and last but not least, Mercedes-Benz (0.05% from the ancient G-Class).

    Honda, Hyundai, and Kia? All BOF goose eggs. Kia’s Borrego experiment ended in 2011, and Hyundai isn’t importing their ubiquitous H-1/H800 vans.

  • avatar
    8rings

    Interested to see this much needed redesign, especially changes to the engines. I really hope they have some engine changes as that is where they are lagging behind the competition. Although I have heard nothing in the rumor mill about any “new” stuff.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The 2014s looks just like the current Silverados if squint a little. But then a Chevy truck should look like a Chevy truck.

    http://www.pickuptrucks.com/.

    The 4.8 V8 is gone and rightly so, but otherwise it’s the same push rod V8s for 2014. Now that’s not a bad thing and they’ll likely have a few new technical tricks to aid fuel economy. I mean ‘simplicity’ has been a selling point so far and or GM truck buyers just don’t care. It just takes a bigger 2 valve V8 to make the power of a DOHC.

    The 4.3 V6 is finally gone, so enter the Camaro’s and CTS’ 3.6 V6.

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      Only GM would keep the 4.3V6 in production for 30 years, skip the Atlas I-6 (yes that would have made me buy a base Chevy truck), and then put the supper rev hapy 3.6V6 in a truck. Sigh… I shall never own a brand new I6 powered 1/2 ton American made truck. I was born at the wrong time.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        Only GM would have built the Atlas at all.

        GM Powertrain spent five years and well past a billion dollars building a brilliant new midsized truck and SUV motor while GM Truck didn’t bother to ensure it actually fit in their new midsized truck. GM Powertrain then spent another couple hundred million dollars completely redesigning the motor at the same time that GM SUV decided not to build a new Trailblazer. Brand new Atlas II was sold (slowly and at a loss) in the final years of the old Trailblazer and then died without any car to sell it in.

        The best part of this story is that through the entire decade that this comedy of fail was taking place, GM Powertrain apparently never realized that they already had the world benchmark truck motor in their small block V8 which made the Atlas redundant. Or it would have if the Atlas wasn’t down 60 lb-ft.

        GM Truck was wholly aware of that such that they never asked to use the Atlas at all. GM SUV noticed the same thing, and put the cheap OHV V8 in most of the higher trimmed GMT360 products – as an extra cost option ! – while the all aluminum DOHC Atlas went to base models with $6000 on the hood or Enterprise.

        There are a lot of reasons you and I own GM. This was one of them.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Buick Envision Photos Leaked

    brn - Agreed. If Buick is going to try and compete as near luxury, they need sensible lux-type names. Shoulda named it %#$@#.
  • Re: Buick Envision Photos Leaked

    Clarence - If anything is going to steal sales from Audi in China, it’s a faux-marble dashboard. Mental.
  • Re: Ford Announces 2015 F-150 Pricing

    DeadWeight - Thank you, koschei. 1) Rear wheel drive (or light AWD system, sending no more than 18% of power to front wheels) 2) Diesel (turbocharging a diesel, unlike a...
  • Re: Lexus GX Sales Double, Profits Pile Up

    VenomV12 - My neighborhood and area are inexplicably littered with these ugly things as well as the less ugly, but still ugly LX. After years of seeing them, I can...
  • Re: Buick Envision Photos Leaked

    340-4 - Last night I checked out the new Lincoln MKC. Looked nice, seemed well built, SMALL, particularly the cargo area. And. $44,000 and $48,000 for the two on the lot....
  • Re: Reader Review: 2010 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen

    tedward - carlson fan Diesel doesn’t produce as much heat as quickly as a gasoline motor which explains the slow heat issue. Contributes to engine...
  • Re: Ford Announces 2015 F-150 Pricing

    DeadWeight - Not everyone who is critical and/or skeptical of the claims surrounding the Ecoboost (3.5 and upcoming 2.7) in terms of long term reliability & alleged...
  • Re: Mitsubishi Vans Are A Delica-te Matter In Canada

    danio3834 - Good post. If only all auto enthusiasts were that dedicated.
  • Re: Buick Envision Photos Leaked

    thegamper - Looks good. I saw a new MKC today and I’d have to say I would take this over the Lincoln based on looks. But I’d like to see how they stack up in other...
  • Re: Reader Review: 2010 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen

    tedward - Kyree I own the exact model reviewed in the article (13 model year so different feature set), but have made a lot of changes to mine. The...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India