General Motors Eyes Carbon Fiber Beds for Future Pickups

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

General Motors, the company that ran a campaign criticizing Ford for moving away from steel on its F-Series, is expected to implement carbon fiber in the beds of large pickup trucks within two years. Hopefully, the wait gives consumers time to forget some rather negative ads that bemoaned the use of aluminum for its high repair costs and chance of deformation in an impact.

Carbon fiber is ridiculously strong and should hold up in any side-by-side impact test against aluminum. That is, until you start considering price. Carbon fiber costs substantially more to manufacture, form, and fix than either steel or aluminum. That’s probably why GM plans to limit its usage to only highest trim levels, at least until it can figure out a way to keep production costs down.

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, General Motors doesn’t want to keep the exotic weave limited to ultra-expensive models indefinitely. It’s considering the widespread implementation of carbon fiber, as the lightweight material would improve fuel economy by cutting down on weight. But selling it to consumers might be difficult. We know that truck buyers are willing to spend more than ever on a pickup but we don’t know if they’ll option for a bed that isn’t steel without it being roped into an appetizing premium package. They certainly didn’t with GM’s plastic composite beds in the early 2000s.

Carbon fiber isn’t the only lightweight material that appears destined for the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado, either. The report indicated that we might soon see more aluminum used in both vehicles’ construction — again, to save weight.

It’s hard not to feel bad for the engineers in this case. You can imagine one of them mentioning the need to lighten General Motors’ fleet before someone said, “Well, we can’t use too much aluminum. Those advertising people made that an impossibility for us. What about carbon fiber?”

Selective availability or not, simply using the material will give GM some serious bragging rights. That’s important in the highly competitive truck segment, where every added feature or extra pound of payload capacity can make a difference.

[Image: General Motors]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 36 comments
  • TW5 TW5 on Dec 07, 2017

    I can't wait until this one-upsmanship finally delivers stealth trucks to the market. What could be better than knowing the truck you'll never fly, has no radar signature on Russian SAM sites?

    • Stuki Stuki on Dec 07, 2017

      I can think of plenty of radars less exotic than Russian SAM ones, I would gladly pay to have no signature to.....

  • Geekcarlover Geekcarlover on Dec 07, 2017

    But, will "CARBON FIBER!!!" be stamped all over the truck? We wouldn't want the owners, who paid big bucks, to have their bed mistaken for a drop in or spray on liner. Alternatively, since GM has spent so much time bashing aluminum beds, they could patent an aluminum alloy. Then rebadge it as Duratanium®.

  • KOKing I owned a Paul Bracq-penned BMW E24 some time ago, and I recently started considering getting Sacco's contemporary, the W124 coupe.
  • Bob The answer is partially that stupid manufacturers stopped producing desirable PHEVs.I bought my older kid a beautiful 2011 Volt, #584 off the assembly line and #000007 for HOV exemption in MD. We love the car. It was clearly an old guy's car, and his kids took away his license.It's a perfect car for a high school kid, really. 35 miles battery range gets her to high school, job, practice, and all her friend's houses with a trickle charge from the 120V outlet. In one year (~7k miles), I have put about 10 gallons of gas in her car, and most of that was for the required VA emissions check minimum engine runtime.But -- most importantly -- that gas tank will let her make the 300-mile trip to college in one shot so that when she is allowed to bring her car on campus, she will actually get there!I'm so impressed with the drivetrain that I have active price alerts for the Cadillac CT6 2.0e PHEV on about 12 different marketplaces to replace my BMW. Would I actually trade in my 3GT for a CT6? Well, it depends on what broke in German that week....
  • ToolGuy Different vehicle of mine: A truck. 'Example' driving pattern: 3/3/4 miles. 9/12/12/9 miles. 1/1/3/3 miles. 5/5 miles. Call that a 'typical' week. Would I ever replace the ICE powertrain in that truck? No, not now. Would I ever convert that truck to EV? Yes, very possibly. Would I ever convert it to a hybrid or PHEV? No, that would be goofy and pointless. 🙂
  • ChristianWimmer Took my ‘89 500SL R129 out for a spin in his honor (not a recent photo).Other great Mercedes’ designers were Friedrich Geiger, who styled the 1930s 500K/540K Roadsters and my favorite S-Class - the W116 - among others. Paul Bracq is also a legend.RIP, Bruno.
  • ToolGuy Currently my drives tend to be either extra short or fairly long. (We'll pick that vehicle over there and figure in the last month, 5 miles round trip 3 times a week, plus 1,000 miles round trip once.) The short trips are torture for the internal combustion powertrain, the long trips are (relative) torture for my wallet. There is no possible way that the math works to justify an 'upgrade' to a more efficient ICE, or an EV, or a hybrid, or a PHEV. Plus my long trips tend to include (very) out of the way places. One day the math will work and the range will work and the infrastructure will work (if the range works) and it will work in favor of a straight EV (purchased used). At that point the short trips won't be torture for the EV components and the long trips shouldn't hurt my wallet. What we will have at that point is the steady drip-drip-drip of long-term battery degradation. (I always pictured myself buying generic modular replacement cells at Harbor Freight or its future equivalent, but who knows if that will be possible). The other option that would almost possibly work math-wise would be to lease a new EV at some future point (but the payment would need to be really right). TL;DR: ICE now, EV later, Hybrid maybe, PHEV probably never.
Next