By on January 16, 2017

gmmansteptitle

General Motors loves to poke at its competitors, especially when it comes to trucks. We’re all familiar with its recent barrage of ads attacking Ford for using aluminum in the F-150’s bed, but another ad from 2009 may be coming back to bite them.

The ad in question made fun of a new feature that extended a step and handle from the tailgate of the F-150. Chevrolet didn’t have anything similar at the time, so it decided instead to make an ad mocking the step and making it seem like a feature for unmanly weaklings. Chevy resurrected a similar feature in the bumpers of some trucks a few years later, though a recent set of patents shows the automaker is almost replicating the step they ridiculed eight years ago.

The first patent, titled “Multi-Panel Hinged Endgate Assembly With Edge Support For Step Panel”, was published in October of last year and shows a two-piece tailgate with an upper portion that folds out to become a step. The step shown in the diagram is similar in theory to the earlier Ford step, but instead of sliding out of the top of the tailgate, it uses a multi-hinged panel to drop down — providing additional surface area to step on.

gm-step-tailgate-assembly

The second patent, titled “Tailgate Assembly With a Step Assist Handle,” was published just a few weeks ago and brings the design much closer to the earlier one. This patent shows the step assembly from the earlier diagram, but adds a retractable handle for the user to hold on to as they are entering or exiting the bed.

Chevy must not think that the feature is wimpy any longer, since it decided to put time into developing this solution. I am sure that, if it goes into production, there will be some long explanation on how this version of the step is better than all of the others. Perhaps GM should let its engineers work on a solution before deciding to respond with critical marketing.

I’m sure this won’t be an isolated case and that we’ll see a similar pie-in-the-face situation when GM eventually decides to move to aluminum beds.

(Edit: Chevrolet originally had a bumper step feature on the GMT805 Avalanche starting in 2001, as pointed out by commenter APaGttH)

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

80 Comments on “GM Patents ‘Man Step’ After Criticizing Ford For Selling One...”


  • avatar
    JimC2

    I wonder how many hicks will drive with this thing all the way down because they think that makes their truck get better mileage.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I see so many things that could go wrong with this. Just start with the tailgate latch handle, which is clearly on the back of the ‘step’ portion. I expect long-term reliability will be abysmal.

    • 0 avatar
      Trucky McTruckface

      It does seem needlessly complex. Seems redundant along side the corner steps they integrate into their rear bumpers, too.

      The mentality on display here is classic GM, though. I’m reminded of the retracting clamshell station wagon tailgates they came out with the ’70s to one-up Ford’s two way “Magic Doorgate” – good luck trying to get one of those to work right again after getting hit from behind.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      I’m thinking dirt and grit might be a problem. Plus, don’t forget that these days latch handles and their mechanisms are usually made of plastic.

      Anyway, I’m a senior and do find it to be difficult – leaping in and out the bed of my truck – as I once did. I now have a milk crate that has a plywood bottom that assists my ingress and egress into the cargo bed.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I actually just got drive behind a newish (previous gen) Platinum F150 with the passenger side retractable running board in its deployed in the down state, seemingly stuck. I wonder what prompted this, if it could simply be reset or if anything had actually broken.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          gtemnykh – My F150 has them on both sides. They worked okay for a year or two then became more problematic. They are exposed to mud, snow and ice. In the winter they are completely useless since they freeze into place. I’ve had them deploy in deep snow or in brush. It doesn’t take much to cause them to open. In the past few years both have been broken. One works now and the other is broken.
          They used to be a common option but now i rarely ever see a pickup with them. They are great for mild climate areas and for guys who don’t use their trucks as trucks.
          The tailgate step on the other hand is a great invention. I even made myself a dog ramp that rests on the step. The newest design in “cleaner” and since it totally retracts into the end of the tailgate is less likely to get filled with debris or damaged by dragging heavy objects over it.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            There’s an option in the menu to turn them off, leaving them down. Useful in the wintertime.

            My contractor uncle has a ’14 Limited with the power running boards, and he most certainly uses it “like a truck,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Sorry.
            I was refering to retractible steps on the side of the pickup box. They deploy manually.
            I don’t know anyone with any problems with the power side steps.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Oh, yeah, those. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any pickup with those steps.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Patent does not equal implementation.

      Companies create patents for things all the time that never see the light of day.

      Also engineering is never, ever, going to consult with marketing on previous ad campaigns on an idea. The whole piece in itself is ludicrous.

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        But engineering and marketing don’t work in a vacuum, they work for the same boss.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          You have never worked with folks like Melody Lee, have you?

          I’ve had the extreme displeasure of working for marketing leaders like that (and working for outstanding ones). Most actually do operate in a vacuum and couldn’t care less what engineering, product, or product marketing have to say.

    • 0 avatar

      Not to mention that most of the Chevys you see already have the plastic tailgate handle broken off.

      Why would you make this thing so complicated? Ford’s is easy and integrated, this is a folding monstrosity that would double the weight of the tailgate and I’m sure make replacing one cost a fortune.

      It’s kind of funny looking as to how it’s a tailgate inside a tailgate, I just have no faith that GM engineers can’t find 100 different ways to make this thing unusable, complicated, and expensive to fix. That’s what they are best at.

      Like the turn of the century (2000) impala warning flasher/relay switch that was a testament to modern complexity. Friend had his turn signals stop working at the time. Figured it was a relay and started looking for it. Rather than be in a fuse box like every other car it’s integrated into the warning flasher switch in the flimsiest part of the front dash panel. Needless to say the part was on back order at the chevy dealer for 4 months. Now you can get them on Amazon easy, but that wasn’t an option then. But opening the assembly to see how some GM engineer had designed all the pockets inside the switch to slide by the capacitors and parts of the little control board inside was both impressive, and stupid at the same time. Why did someone waste so much time to something that in every other manufacturer is a simple switch and relay.

      https://www.amazon.com/ACDelco-10359031-Original-Equipment-Warning/dp/B00493RJZI

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        I have a pet theory that a lot of engineers went into the field because their high school guidance counselors told them they should because they got good marks in math and science, rather than having curiosity about how stuff works along with doing well in math and science classes.

        Ask, around an engineering college faculty, how many of the professors have ever changed the oil in their car or even know how…

    • 0 avatar
      Funky

      I use a cane to help me get into and out of my Tacoma’s driver’s seat. When I need to load stuff into the bed (or arrange stuff that’s in the bed) I generally get help from one of my kids. If my kids can’t help, I sit on the tailgate and roll into the bed (this is not manly but it’s the best I can do). To be honest, given the choice between no help from a step or help from a man step that is unreliable (or not convenient), I’d rather not have the help. I can manage just fine on my own.

  • avatar
    FalcoDog

    That’s a ridiculously complex solution to a problem they didn’t think they had.

    • 0 avatar
      JustPassinThru

      It’s not a problem when:

      –the owner/user/driver is of the age that would reasonably be expected to be WORKING with a WORK vehicle;

      –the bed height is a reasonable distance off the ground.

      Neither apply with today’s trucks. I remember when Jeep and International both made a big thing about their trucks NOT being hoisted a foot higher than typical 2wd trucks.

      And the owners? L.J.K. Setright once wrote, of the later Jaguar E-Type, that if a car was so expensive that it could only be bought by palsied playboys and movie moguls, then it follows that it will have suspensions and controls that let those buyers drive it like old men.

      That’s doubly true here. The under-thirties have no problem getting up into the bed. Those of twice the age, who are the only ones who realistically can consider buying a vehicle that costs more than a starter HOME used to, 20 years ago…those old duffers NEED steps.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Trucks site higher partially because of tire size. I recall 215’s on 15 inch wheels as being standard. My current F150’s 275/65/18’s are considerably bigger. They are even bigger than the stock tires I had on my 1990 F250. Increased payload tends to make a truck ride higher. Larger axles shift the ride height as well. Everyone has pointed out that most 1/2 tons would compete with 3/4 ton trucks of a few decades ago.

  • avatar
    kefkafloyd

    Didn’t they already offer the cut-out sides of the bumper on the recent GM trucks in response to the pull-out step? Maybe even those aren’t good enough with the ever increasing bed and ride heights.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      “Maybe even those aren’t good enough with the ever increasing bed and ride heights.”

      Yup! Now, I respect the rights of others to choose personal transportation that resembles an old tyme passenger train. I also reserve the right to laugh at the consequences of their choices (and I promise to have a thick skin when they laugh at my choices).

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      “Ever increasing” isn’t really accurate, since the ride height of Chevys hasn’t increased since the GMT400s (comparing basic 4×4 to basic 4×4, of course), and bed height hasn’t increased since the GMT900s (and then, only marginally over the 800s).

      Ford is the worst offender in my experience.

    • 0 avatar
      CobraJet

      Get a Weather Tech “Bumpstep” to install in the hitch receiver. Works great.

  • avatar
    Bill Wade

    How about a much more reasonable solution, quit building trucks with beds 8′ off the ground and sidewalls higher than the border fence.

    It’s almost impossible to get a truck that’s useful for anything other than trying to impress others with how “manly” it looks. Try reaching from the sides to pick up something out of the bed. I’m 6’2″ and can’t do it on most.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      But… but… “Professional Grade!!”

    • 0 avatar
      dukeisduke

      Exactly. Bed liftover heights are ridiculous now, and boxes are deeper (Ford started that trend with the 2004 redesign).

    • 0 avatar
      CobraJet

      I have a 94 Silverado and a 2009 Silverado. Parked side by side the bed height difference is dramatic. It’s difficult to reach over the sidewall and get things in the bed of the 09. For heavy things that have to be lifted into the bed, I only use the 94.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Are both 4×4 or 4×2? See Lou’s comment on why bed height isn’t always because of taller bedsides in older vs. newer trucks.

        • 0 avatar
          JMII

          Even 2WD trucks seem way taller these days. Between 20″ wheels, oversized fenders and huge sides it appears full size trucks are just over sized now. Maybe the answer is bed sides that raise UP when you need them, similar to those extend-a-bed roll cages for short bed trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            20″ wheels, though available, are still the exception–average size is 18″, but that’s still bigger than when 15″ was the base wheel and 16″ was the largest option.

      • 0 avatar
        CobraJet

        Both are 2 wheel drive

    • 0 avatar
      grinchsmate

      In Australia you tell the difference between a work ute and a toy ute by whether it has a tray or a bed. 99% of tray Utes are for work and 90% of bed Utes are toys.

      One thing that always gets me is manufactures claiming these huge load ratings but then making it impossible to fork a pallet on. Are we all such manly men we are just meant to hand load.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    That design looks way more complicated, expensive, and heavy, than Ford’s. Rube Goldberg would give it a thumbs up. The integrated bumper corner steps on the current Silverado/Sierra seemed like a good idea at first, but I can see those being a problem when it’s wet or muddy – I can see people slipping, and smacking their heads against the corner of the bed; not good.

  • avatar
    True_Blue

    In the minority, but adding a step to a full-size’s bed is a good idea. I don’t have the fancy fold-out ladder and getting up into the bed – especially in winter – is an exercise in age-realization. I used to scamper in and out of these things, notsomuch any more.

    The handle placement seems a bit awkward (right in the center of the loading area), but the oversize platform is a “step” in the right direction.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Wouldn’t a real man’s truck squat down as he approaches so he can get his Chicken Fried Steak eating behind up into the bed?

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    I’m calling anachronism on that first drawing.

    Elvis and that style of pickup sheet metal never coexisted!

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    Before anybody nitpicks too much based on the specifics of the diagram I’d like to point out that the purpose of patent drawings is to clearly show the *idea* being patented.

    The specific execution of the production version will often vary significantly from the images in the patent.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      So the promo will show Aaron Rodgers instead of Elvis?

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        According to wiki, Howie Long just turned 57. Maybe the patent drawings could have him loading the bed with bits and pieces for a bocce ball and shuffleboard tournament instead of bags of cement. I mean, 57 isn’t quite ready to be put out to pasture but on the other hand, playing in the pros ages your body like dog years…

    • 0 avatar
      B-Man

      Actually, you cannot patent an “idea”. You can only patent your implementation of hardware to accomplish your “idea”. The purpose of a patent drawing is absolutely to describe, in minute detail, exactly how the hardware is assembled to create a product, system, etc. If you significantly deviate from your submitted drawings for a patented item, you are no longer protected by the patent and, quite possibly, you might be infringing on someone else’s patent.

  • avatar
    Drzhivago138

    Bed height is all relative. I’ve never found half-ton beds to be too high (mostly because I’m still a young buck with all his flexibility), but HD pickup beds are unneccessarily* tall IMO.

    *Okay, there actually is a reason, so it’s not really “unneccessary.”

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I’m 5’9 and I’m of Appalachian decent. yep, I’ve got a 29 inch inseam. Yep, I’ll use the steps

  • avatar
    ceipower

    GM and its bad habits. The article could have been written about Donald Trumph who uses the same sort of bologna to “fight back” when his opponents (he’d say enemies)challenge his way as maybe not the best way. “Only GM can build great products…trust me” Forget the past history of failures and mis steps ,of lies and cover ups. This is why I stay off of GM showrooms.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …Chevy did implement a similar feature in the bumpers of some trucks a few years later,…

    Not true. Chevrolet implemented a bumper step in the modern era in 2001 on the 2002 Avalanche, years before Ford implemented a step. They even marketed this, and highlighted it as a feature in the Avalanche.

    When the GMT900 Avalanches came out, the step bumper went away (something the Avalanche community was upset about) but interestingly, the hand grip on the top corner of the bed remained.

    The second picture down, taken in 2001 clearly shows the integrated bumper step.

    http://www.trucktrend.com/features/163-2002-2013-chevrolet-avalanche-timeline/

  • avatar
    Not_a_luddite

    I think the real novelty of this design is the mini tailgate inside a tailgate design. It should allow you to fold down the mini tailgate to allow you to load extra long items without going over the top of the existing tailgate. GM had the tailgate that only went halfway down to allow you to load long items up to the fender well top where the have the slots for 2x4s to make a load area above the load floor.
    I think this is the same idea, but it also allows you to integrate a step as a bonus.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      “the mini tailgate inside a tailgate design”

      I am Rust. My pals Salt and Water share my eagerness to see this come to fruition.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Yup, my 2002 Avalanche did this. You could lock the tailgate in a semi-open position. My 2011 can’t, and if you did, you would lose the backup camera and rear park assist in the process (the camera is in the tailgate).

      The Avalanche has a notch in the side of the beds where you can take some 2X8 and create a tailgate within the tailgate. This is perfect for grocery getting and keeping your items from rolling to the bulkhead (err Midgate?). You can take those same 2X8 pieces of lumber and put them in two sets of notches in the bed that enables you to create a second tier in the bed.

      The Avalanche is unfortunately hard to market because it defies definition. Is it a pickup, is it a SUV, isn’t it just a Suburban with a truck bed (yes and no), doesn’t the Midgate allow rain and water to come in when you use it (no, you can have the rear window in with the Midgate down, or the rear window out with the Midgate in place, or…). Would get all of these questions.

      I hated the thing when I first saw one at a carshow. Thought it was completely ridiculous, overpriced, over the top. While waiting in service one day they had one on the showroom floor and I started looking around at it and realizing this thing was truly a Swiss army knife on four wheels.

      Meh, I super digressed – I wish GM would bring the Avalanche back, but get the economics on why they didn’t. I’ll probably drive my 2011 until it turns into dust.

      • 0 avatar
        rudiger

        I loved the Avalanche, too, and was really hoping GM would bring it back in a bit smaller, more fuel efficient package like, say, on the new Colorado. I’d much rather have a midgate than the tailgate step.

        But, alas, it’s not to be.

      • 0 avatar
        kefkafloyd

        The side-step did return in the 2014 GMT K2XX trucks, so at least one piece of the Avalanche still lives on.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Wicked cool illustration work, GM!

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    The Studebaker Wagonaire offered a optional tailgate step. Revolutionary for its time.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a2/4e/d3/a24ed3ae375b830410760ad83f20cbd8.jpg

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      Stude probably had easier design parameters for their step. I bet 95% of ’65 Wagonaire buyers were probably between 130-200lbs, cf the figure for 2017 bro truck buyers which is probably 130-400.

      • 0 avatar
        MRF 95 T-Bird

        Considering the weight increase of the average American over the past 50 years I doubt that step would hold up today. Between mall moms, soccer dads, contractors etc. a modern version for a CUV or truck would have to be well designed.

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          OMG, today’s average 14 year-old would buckle the “U” in the middle and probably rip the pins right out of hinge.

          But in fairness, it appears so delicately built that I imagine it was only for grade school kids of the era.

          • 0 avatar
            MRF 95 T-Bird

            Or just look at the weight of the typical NFL player. At one time 250-280 was freakish, now its the norm. Though granted they are a bit quicker on their feet.

            Not to go off on a food policy tangent on a auto blog but when Nixon/Ford era agriculture secretary Earl Butz proclaimed “Cheap food and lots of it” its had profound effects to this day.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Let’s not get started on Earl “get big or get out” Butz.

          • 0 avatar
            MRF 95 T-Bird

            Note I’ve left Earl’s infamous joke out of it. Though today that would get him an analyst gig on cable news.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Also consider that there’s no handle.

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          On the other hand, I don’t think tubby is going to climb out of the scooter in the WalMart parking lot and shimmy up the man step…

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    We need these steps. I’m in the building industry and a lot of the best field guys are getting old and physically wearing out, just as pickups have gotten absurdly tall. You can’t reach in from the side anymore, and climbing into the back isn’t as easy as it should be.

    Making fun of it was a dumb move. Copying it, a good one.

    • 0 avatar
      JimC2

      But making pickup trucks absurdly tall was also a dumb move.

      Trucks are supposed to be functional. Not being able to reach in from the side because the wheels are tall for no functional reason is dumb. Oversize wheels make a truck less functional. They make a truck look like a giant child’s toy, rather than something that will get the job done. What makes a truck look good is function over form, capability to do get the job done. An absurdly tall truck, that makes the job more difficult because it is so tall, is a dumb truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Why not just shrink the truck, instead? There is absolutely no reason they have to sit more than 21 feet long and stand nearly seven feet tall.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        Where would you remove length?

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          I think that’s a private discussion with one’s plastic surgeon.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Hood, wheelbase, rear overhang. The interior space of today’s full-sized 4-door pickup is equivalent to a ’70s-vintage Cadillac with a much taller ceiling. You don’t need a 15″ wide console between the front seats, so you could slim the truck’s width down somewhat, too.

          And for those who say the trucks aren’t that long I would point out that a 4.5′ bed is almost too SHORT to tow one of the larger fifth-wheel travel trailers and I’ve read in more than one case where a truck has received cab damage from jackknifing a trailer trying to back into a campsite.

          I would also note that many, right here on these forums, declare a 4.5′ bed too short when speaking about any “smaller than full sized” truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Where is the hood going to be shortened? It’s pretty full of engine right now.

            Width cannot be decreased, because that’s what seperates full-size from mid-size and smaller pickups, and it’s been constant for over 50 years. Having a narrower HD pickup would be a liability when towing a wide trailer. Many buyers don’t have a 15″ wide center console up front, but they do appreciate the full-width front and rear bench seats when it comes to seating adults and child seats alike.

            Wheelbase can’t really be decreased without decreasing cab space, which no company would want to do.

            Rear overhang would involve either shortening the bed–and bed sizes have been essentially standardized–or lengthening the wheelbase.

            There are no pickups with a 4.5′ bed, except maybe the S-10 crew cab from the early ’00s, and you really wouldn’t pull a fifth-wheel with that.

            I agree that even a 5.5′ bed on a half-ton is “too short” for a fifth-wheel hitch, but they have sliding fifth-wheel hitches now that mostly mitigate the issue of potential cab damage when turning.

            Yes, full-size pickups are big, but they haven’t gotten larger since the F-150’s 6″ cab stretch in 2004/09. They’ve hit the ceiling. They can’t get wider (legal reasons) and there’s no good reason for them to get longer.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Where is the hood going to be shortened? It’s pretty full of engine right now.”
            — You’re kidding, right? With the exception of the largest V8 and diesel engines, you’ve got more than a foot of empty space in front of that engine. It only looks full because of all the cosmetic covers and shrouds that simply make the engine look larger than it is. Look at that engine outside the truck, without all those covers and shrouds and it’s almost tiny by comparison.

            “Width cannot be decreased, because that’s what seperates full-size from mid-size and smaller pickups, and it’s been constant for over 50 years.”
            — False. Width could easily be reduced by a foot, bringing it BACK to the full size of 1990, only 25 (ok, now 27) years ago. This is also why I argue that today’s mid-size models are equivalent to yesterday’s full sized models–meaning there is absolutely room for a modern, compact model.

            “There are no pickups with a 4.5′ bed, except maybe the S-10 crew cab from the early ’00s, and you really wouldn’t pull a fifth-wheel with that.”
            — Would you like me to present examples of TODAY’s full-sized trucks with 4.5′ beds? You only have to go to any brand’s web page to see that the shorter bed is the standard bed and that a 6′ to 6.5′ bed is considered the ‘long’ bed.

            “Yes, full-size pickups are big, but they haven’t gotten larger since the F-150’s 6″ cab stretch in 2004/09. They’ve hit the ceiling. They can’t get wider (legal reasons) and there’s no good reason for them to get longer.”
            — Outside of continuing to dodge the EPA fuel economy requirements, which is the SOLE reason they’re as big as they are now.

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            A lot of modern full sized pickups are already wider than their owners’ competence.

            When you have a big truck but you park it on the edge of a parking space because you can’t figure out how to park it in the middle, it should be:
            – big truck
            – driver’s license
            – man card
            You don’t deserve all three anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            “— False. Width could easily be reduced by a foot, bringing it BACK to the full size of 1990, only 25 (ok, now 27) years ago. This is also why I argue that today’s mid-size models are equivalent to yesterday’s full sized models–meaning there is absolutely room for a modern, compact model.”

            Width of a modern F-150 or other full-size, less mirrors, is 79″. Width of a mid-’60s F-100, less mirrors, is 78″, as taken from here:

            https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3562/3315624130_29ce30c807_b.jpg

            There has been no decrease in width between those two points. Decreasing width of current full-size trucks (79″) by a foot (12″) would make them narrower than the first Ford Ranger (68″).

            Unless you were talking width with mirrors, which isn’t valid because no-one is asking for smaller mirrors.

            “— Would you like me to present examples of TODAY’s full-sized trucks with 4.5′ beds? You only have to go to any brand’s web page to see that the shorter bed is the standard bed and that a 6′ to 6.5′ bed is considered the ‘long’ bed.”

            By all means, go ahead. But while you’re doing that, we’ll look at the official measurements:
            F-150 shortest bed: 66″
            Silverado/Sierra 1500 shortest bed: 69″
            Ram 1500 shortest bed: 67″
            Tundra shortest bed: 67″
            Titan shortest bed: 67″

            Those are all a little bit longer than 4.5′ (54″), methinks.

            This isn’t about what’s considered “short,” “long,” “standard,” etc. GM calls the 6.5′ “standard and the 5.5′ “short” on their half-tons, since the 6.5′ is the only bed available on all three cabs (a similar situation.

            “— Outside of continuing to dodge the EPA fuel economy requirements, which is the SOLE reason they’re as big as they are now.”

            [Citation needed], since a Silverado has essentially the same wheelbase from a GMT400 model all the way to today. Only F-150s and Rams had any sizable length increase, and Occam’s Razor says it’s more likely they got longer in the cab _because_people_liked_having_a_bigger_cab_.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • redapple: Corey A380 is the massive – bigger – than a 747. I think it was a A 320 or 319. PS- I do like...
  • FreedMike: That’s a feature, for sure. You might want to find out if the former owner bought a service contract...
  • Fordson: I agree – since you’re going to look at the car in person before you buy it (for this kind of...
  • Stanley Steamer: I’ve done that before. Bought a Wrangler on ebay and flew out with plates and drove it home...
  • redapple: Defensive Parking is a must. I usually have a massive PIG up Truck next to me. Ha Ha! $4-5 /gallon gas...

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