By on February 12, 2015

Chevrolet-Silverado-Custom-679x415

Just like it did in Detroit, General Motors showed off a new trim package for the Chevrolet Silverado at the 2015 Chicago Auto Show.

The Silverado Custom trim package — targeted at customers who want a fancier pickup without spending their life savings to do so — throws chrome all over the Silverado LS, including the bumpers, door handles and mirror caps. Body-color top cap and 20-inch aluminum wheels make up the rest of the exterior enhancements.

Inside, front occupants will be greeted by a 40/20/40-split front seat and access to the truck’s 4G LTE WiFi hotspot. Cruise control, power locks and a tilt/telescoping steering wheel complete the picture within.

The Custom trim will be offered with either 4.3-liter V6 or 5.3-liter V8 engines, with a well-equipped V8 model expected to start at $33,820.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

47 Comments on “Chicago 2015: Chevrolet Silverado Shows Off Custom Trim...”


  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Sounds like they’re out of good ideas already? The front of these is just awful. I can tolerate the GMC version.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Bring back Cheyenne and Scottsdale packages, it was stupid to turn Silverado from a trim name to a model name in the first place.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    For much less you can get a Ram with the same configuration and more power or better MPG.

    Seriously if GM wants to win back those customers they need to reasonably price the 6.2L and make it availible for all trims.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      4WD custom starts at $39,000

      ….For an LS trim truck, bottom of the bucket…

      Now this isn’t apples to apples since I’m comparing it to a truck that has discounts included, but, I can find a Laramie trimmed Ram with the 5.7, crew cab, leather, 8.4 Uconnect, heater/cooled seats, heated steering wheel, 4×4, basically a ton of options, for about $39,500. I’m 90% sure I could get about $2-3k more off the Ram, right now.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @Hummer,
      I do think a top of the line V6 4×4 Colorado can be bought cheaper and it can tow 7 000lbs, better FE, probably out accelerate this “bargain” Silverado.

      Why not have more bling and just as capable pickup to suit what most use a pickup for and that is to drive to Lowes, collect the kids and take them to soccer and drive to work on your own.

      An article the other day has shown that GM is selling more pickups than any other manufacturer in the US. So why “if they want more customers” comment?

      The Colorado Canyon will keep it at the top for a while. Ram will increase against Ford and Ford will become second largest selling pickup manufacturer in the US.

      This doesn’t even include the SUVs based on the half ton GM platform.

      GM is doing quite well with it SUV and pickup platforms.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Big Al,

        A Colorado with the torque-less wonder 3.6L V6 will not tow 7000lb comfortably, or tow even smaller loads anywhere as competently as this fullsize.

        I know you’re now going to talk about a 35mpg diesel compact pickup truck that can haul 2 tons of gravel in the bed while towing another 10k lb, but the simple fact of the matter is that a heavier vehicle with a longer wheelbase will be a more stable towing platform.

        Even the 4.3L V6 in the Silverado is much more up to the task for towing than the 3.6 equipped Colorado.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @gtemnykh,
          How many American’s actually use the capability of a pickup they buy?

          Very few.

          The Colorado will with the V6 will tow 2 and a half tons well enough. This is the size of a 20′ fishing boat.

          Most who buy a pickup want a big car and they want carlike performance.

          Why do you think the 3.5 EcoBoost sold so well, 47% of all F-150s.

          Because people want carlike performance from the large vehicles. I don’t see 47% of pickup in the US when I’m there towing massive 7 000lbs + loads. I actually see mainly HDs towing. Full size 1/2 tons are relegated for more domestic duties.

          Remember only 25% of full size 1/2 ton pickups are used for work. Even then how many are used primarily as tow vehicles.

          The Colorado will deliver carlike performance with the 3.6 and probably out accelerate a 5.3 Silverado.

          It will still go to Lowes, take the 1.8 kids to school or soccer and tow the fishing boat to the boat ramp.

          I do think some of you guys should really look at who, what and why to full size is so popular.

          75% are SUVs and how many of them would even tow 3 000lbs.

          So this constant bullsh!t of using tow ability as a reason for justifying the WANT for hp is quite silly.

          Anyway, when the Colorado Canyon come out with the diesel these will tow better than the 3.6, if you really want to tow or even own a trailer.

          Yep, the pickup marketers have many of you guys thinking people only buy pickups to tow 10 000lbs.

          Don’t believe them.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    What’s the point of having a foot of ground clearance between the wheels when the front bumper is 4″ off the ground?

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    But…

    Custom is a Ford trim level!

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      How’s 1993 treating you? :P

      I originally wrote that as, “How’s 1981 treating you?” But then I went and made sure 1981 was the last year of the Custom trim, and lo and behold, it wasn’t.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I always thought designating a specific trim level “Custom” was ironic.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          Especially when said trim level was always the lowest.

          Well, I’m not sure about the trucks, but the custom trim on Ford cars was always the lowest.

          The point is, Custom was a Ford trim level for decades (I think it started with the 1952 Ford line) and I’m always going to think of it as a Ford trim level.

          • 0 avatar
            CobraJet

            Up until about 1970, the top trim on Ford pickups was simply called “Custom Cab”. It usually meant a better seat, some cab interior trim and a chrome grille. Maybe even a cigarette lighter – woo hoo! I had a 74 Ford Custom pickup that had a round chrome plate where the lighter should have been.

            I believe Chevrolet called their higher trim pickups “Custom” until 1967.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          AFAICT, the Custom name was because it came with _nothing_–and if you wanted anything above that basic _nothing_ level, it automatically became a “custom order”.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Let us not forget the various times Custom was used (as base trim below Limited or Ultra in some cases) on Buicks.

    • 0 avatar
      bumpy ii

      Naah, “Custom” was basically the brightwork trim package on GM trucks in the 1960s. Came with a fancy script badge and everything.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      I think it is the lack of a trim level. Friend had a Ranger Custom he got from Georgia Power. No Radio, 4 speed stick, vinyl bench, and no AC. Even the XL trim got AC at the time if I remember.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    It’s been Chevy “Truck Month” for a long decade now.

    Love RAM or hate RAM, but at least they’re not freakin’ catatonic.

  • avatar
    ktm_525

    As a wise old man once told me out in the middle of nowhere:

    “Chrome don’t get you home”

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    More and more, they’re pushing us to the absolute most basic trucks to avoid all the glaring chrome.

    Then there’s much cash left over for customizing them ourselves. It’s a win/win if you ask me.

    You can paint on top of chrome, but it takes a lot of sanding.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      I definitely think the trim packages that offered body colored grills aged better than the ones that offered chrome, especially the 94-on GMT400 Sierra and Yukon.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        My opinion is just the opposite. The chrome on my 97 2DR Tahoe was hardly what I would call over the top. The one’s with painted grills and bumpers always looked dated to me. The painted surfaces never held up as well as the chrome and made the truck look old rather quickly IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      @DenverMike,
      Most of the chrome on todays vehicles is a piece of plastic with a chrome film on a plastic backing adhered to it.

      Sanding would not be of much use.

  • avatar
    Roberto Esponja

    Chevrolet designers should look at their 1973-83 designs as reference on how to do a proper square wheel opening on the fenders.

    On this modern version, they could put 24″ wheels on them, and the wheels would still look tiny due to that overwrought, garish opening. Its design is downright awful. It makes the 20″ wheels on this example look like they’re 17″‘s.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      It really is God awful, these trucks have ~3 inches horizontally from the outside of the tires to the midpoint of the wheel well, yet a freggin foot of space from the top corners of the wheel well. I’ve seen only one truck that looked half decent, and it was leveled and had the air dam removed.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I really do think this vehicle should of come out with the V6.

    If it is supposed to be a basic pickup why the V8.

    The V6 would of made it cheaper and probably do what most want a more basic vehicle for.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Doesn’t it say the 4.3 V6 is the standard motor? If you want the V8 they’ll sell you one but the V6 is standard. Still like the Ford better though. This is not a basic truck. I own a basic truck (a 2013, not some 70s stripper model). Roll up windows and a grey plastic front bumper. I do like the bench seat though. The console and floor shift in my Frontier is stupid.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @mkirk,
        Yes, you’re right.

        Sorry, I was going by Chev’s advertising, which in Australia would have Chev fined.

        Look at the advertised price at $33,280 and the add shows it comes with the 5.3 V8, not the V6 as the article states.

        Maybe TTAC should do an article on shonky marketing. Doesn’t the US have laws against this type of activity?

        http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2015/02/chevrolet-returns-to-basics-with-2015-silverado-custom.html

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          What Chevy advertising are you talking about? It’s an article by Cameron and he got his facts wrong.

          Going to your link it says “$33,820*”

          Do you know what (*) means?

          *Mfg suggested retail price V8 engine optional at extra charge

          http://fleetowner.com/site-files/fleetowner.com/files/uploads/2015/02/SilveradoCustom1.jpeg

          Do they fine readers with low comprehension in Australia? Wouldn’t you all be in jail?… Oops, never mind, sorry about the historical reference

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    The front bench seat would send me to a different trim level immediately. My first PU had a cloth bench seat. Never again – Give me buckets or give me death! The console is a must have as well.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      FWIW, there hasn’t been a “real” one-piece bench seat in any truck since the ’06 Tundra. Every “bench” since then is buckets with a flip-down console/center seat. Which is objectively the best config, since you have an armrest/storage most of the time, but can also seat a sixth passenger in a pinch.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        My ’93 Toy compact PU had a 60/40 bench no flip down console. Should have done it right and just spent the money on the SR5 trim with the bucket seats. When it comes to long trips, especially while towing, I want the support, comfort & adjustability I get with a nice bucket seat.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          …Which is what every seat is now. The only difference between a 40/20/40 bench seat and bucket seats is the center console. The only advantage I can see to having a large, immovable center console is that it includes ducting for HVAC vents to the rear seats.

          And also, I was wrong about 2006 being the last year for a true one-piece bench. It seems the 08-10 Super Duties also came with a one-piece vinyl bench on the XL models. But it looks (in my uneducated opinion) to be the same bench they used on the original ’99 models.

          http://2-photos4.ebizautos.com/used-2010-ford-super_duty_f~250_srw-2wdcrewcab156xl-10834-12890078-10-400.jpg

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I didn’t realize that about the 40/20/40 front seat. Great idea for the people that need/want that 3rd seat in front. Your right about HVAC. The vents for the 2nd row are on the back of the console along with some radio controls & head phone jacks which have never been used in the 11 years I’ve owned the truck.

  • avatar
    Stovebolt

    Woo hoo


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • bpscarguy: Ha. Same with my I35. It was a great car. Gas/oil/tires/brakes repeat. I like the EClass, but it is for...
  • Corey Lewis: I think keeping the price down was paramount, so it had to have pedestrian underpinnings. Sort of like...
  • Corey Lewis: And my first Infiniti was a white I30, from 97! No problems with that car.
  • bpscarguy: Agreed. When I went to get the Mercedes, I left on a 8:00 am (ish) flight from Baltimore, got to...
  • Gedrven: A 2019 Continental I recently drove had collision warning turned on, but not active braking. As is par for...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States