New Chevy Silverado for 2014
 

http://www.thecarconnection.com/over...rado-1500_2014


http://www.bloomberg.com/video/gm-ne...B4Ez0mbeA.html


http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/...erra-revealed/

Great. Now they've ruined the Sierra with the rectangle fenders.

I am pretty underwhelmed. Definitely not going to buy one for looks. They still look good, but not a big improvement.

Agree, I was looking for a bigger improvement on the interior. Have to wait and see one in person

I want to see what the HD's look like but heard they aren't being displayed until spring

Soft, Junk.

I have owned GM trucks since 1989, always owned several at a time (work trucks) and last year I bought my first Ford. I couldn't find a single GM 1500 truck NOT made in Mexico!

I have owned 6 GM "Trucks" since 1976. "Soft Junk"

You didn't look hard......

Problem is that is where the 1500 CC's are made. All 3/4's are made in Flint and mixes of everything else done between Flint, Indianapolis and Silao. So in reality 2/3 are done outside of Mx, just not the type you wanted.

Nice step forward- but I dont think they went far enough.

Dodge has 2 more gears in the trans now, and a six speed only puts them on par with Ford.

I dont see Silverados 6.2 competing with ecoboosts torque curve at low RPM without turbos especially in the heat and altitude.

On par with Ford for direct injection.

Behind ecoboost for cam timing efficiency with only 2 valves per cylinder.

On par with ford electric steering

I like the cylinder deactivation thats a plus- but will a 50% active 6.2 deliver better mileage than a lightly loaded 3.5 with a better combustion chamber or will it just beat a hemi or ford raptor?

Its going to be hard to beat the ecoboost.

Uncle Dave

fixx
 

oyou best watch the video,,he states that chebby has a direct injected engine..

read my post - I said its on par with ford for direct injection.

UD

You act like there was no way GM could develop a twin turbo application (or small diesel, etc) that wouldn't match or better Ford in the real world (maybe not EPA) if these powertrains were not a better application for power/efficiency/cost/durability......

The 5.3 is the ecoboost competitor by the way. The 6.2 is beyond it in power, etc. Consider where an LS3 is today to a ecoboost without DI.

Actually GM could make anything they collectively decided to.

They just didn't. They chose to massage what they had incrementally. This is why I said they didnt go far enough.

The 5.3 isnt even close to the EB

The 6.2 is very nice but I dont think it will make 400lb ft at 1900RPM at 4000ft in 100+ degree heat like the EB will.

maybe it will- well all see soon enough.

Id have rather seen a 4.3 TT with deactivation- THAT would have been new.

I tow in Arizona a lot and the heat combined with altitude annihilate NA vehicles.
Watch the EB tow my boat on the parker climb out up the hill in 100+ degree heat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfCEO6ipltA

UD

It wasn't done as a compromise or without investigating a TT options. It was done because gen V will be more powerful/efficient/durable than a FI car motor.

High heat and altitude is not a typical scenario, but it will be seen what the actual towing and driving reports say for that scenario. For all other situations gen V should be better.

Oh, and to indicate gen V is just an "incremental massaging" is vastly understating the tech. There is essentially nothing in common w/ the LS motor of today other than displacements.

Did I miss any tech in my prior post? Its great tech- its just two model years late.

What do you mean FI car motor? Or do you mean TT/DI/4VDOHC "car motor" (actually they are engines not motors)

Does that imply the vette has a "truck" engine?

I love my Chevies, but Ford beat Chevy to punch almost all the headline grabbing stuff direct injection , variable cam phasing, electric steering, and a 6 speed box.

Ford gives you a 4 valve DOHC top end with twin turbos- with a forged rotating assembly and side bolted mains.

Chevy has the active fuel management which looks really slick we'll see how it holds up as its been tried before, but I think they'll get it right.

Uncle Dave

Ford has a major advantage for about 3 years now, IMHO.

I'm not a Ford or Chevy guy either, and even I appreciate what Ford has done here in truck wars.

Actually only was looking for a 1500 and every single GM truck I looked at was Silao, Mexico from stripper 2 dr/long box 1500 to SLT/LT Crew. I was on a GMC/Chevy combo lot also (they sell both).

Ford has crap from Mexico as well. Shhhhhhhhh

Ugh Its ugly, I will Keep My Old 2500, (6.0l 4l80e and a 14b) Ford and Dodge build better looking trucks Period.(I love gm) 4.3l Needs turbos to compete with the Eco boost. Um call it a ecotech? ( why the hell wasn't there a v6 version of Gen3/4 engine?)Why the hell Is the new vette engine called LT1? Confusing to say the least. And Dammit make the wheels wells bigger! Ford's And dodges fit 35's with a leveling kit. I have 4in lift and cut fenders to barley fit, cause the wheel wells are so small. Come on Gm 10 bolt rear end still? I hope to hell that they have a 14b semifloat in the half tons by now. ( probably not thats why the put the tiny wheels wells to keep the crappy axles alive) Gm has the weekest axles. And why The hell did toyota tow the space shuttle? WTF. End Rant.

No kidding, wtf is with calling it an LT1? It's one thing to come out with an LS6 decades after the original. It's another when original LT1s are all over the place. There's seriously got to be plenty of other letters and numbers to pick. WTF does it have in common with an LT1 either?

Drives me crazy too. It also sounds like garbage from the videos I've seen.

<disclaimer, I'm a huge LSx fan...two Trans Ams and a Z06>

I will Take gen 3,4,5 bottom end over and ford, forged or not. Chevy has had the active fuel management Out since 2005, it works great. now if they would just hang some snails off the manifolds.

The 8 Speed is development, it wont be ready at the trucks launch.

fixx
 

Gotcha!...ok lets wait until the ecoboost and the chebby engines reach over 100 k and we can go from their.. i see a whole lot of fords with problems from ford at that mileage then chebby..

to be continued!

fixx
 

let me get this straight! your towing a boat at 70+mph,up a hill ,talking and video taping whyle doing all this....

let me know when you on the road nextme so i can avoid that highway..:angry-smiley-038:

By any chance did you count how many people were on said highway?

Not sure talking and holding a 2 inch square box (that doesn't have an eyepiece) is really all that difficult considering a cell phone is harder to hold on too if you have ever done that in your life or maybe smoked a cigarette or coke while towing on a relatively straight uphill road.

- but thats ok- Ill make sure you aren't anywhere near me or my group next time I do it.

I could have pulled this off with no danger in a stick shift truck- what a wuss guys are these days.

UD

Help me understand then how is saying the new engine that has active fuel management a "new feature" if its been out since 05?

Is it new or not?

Dodges 8 speed is in the new Hemi truck and their 6 cyl truck. apparently good for 500+ lb ft of torque.

UD

The Active Fuel Management works great? Realy??? Do you have a 5.3 with AFM? I not impressed with it. We have a 2009 Suburban that had new pistons and rings put in it at 50,000 miles because of excessive blue smoke out the tailpipe and we're not the only ones. If you spend that kind of money on a vehicle, you shouldn't have to go through all this.

BTW, we also have a 2013 F150 with the 5.0 and love it so far.

Go read on the LT1 or gen V if you want all the tech details.

The AFM has been around, but was instituted rather conservatively in gen IV due to NVH and some other problems. I'd expect it to return much better efficiency in this implementation.

Yes, the ecoboost is a car "engine" (pedantic much?). Time will tell how it handles duty cycles of a truck. I guess Ford's strong history of bulletproof truck motors should give people confidence.:lolhit:

The 6.blow series was sure atrocious.
Especially coming off the excellent 7.3

The new 6.7 is getting mixed reviews....

In the diesel world I much prefer the Isuzus

UD

kind of dissapointed in the unveil. Truck looks nice and chevy finally updated the interior to look like it belongs in the 2000s. But in the end the truck looks like a refinement more than anything. They are saying these engines are new, but really theres nothing new to them. I was hoping they would provide an EB option and or a small diesel option in the half ton.

GM has not put performance numbers out yet, but they did leak that their 5.3 will have 350hp, wow good job chevy way to put out an engine that has less power than your competitors. To me it just looks like they made there new truck to compete with whats out there and not surpass anything that is on the market.

I got 15k on mine in one year towing a 10k boat and no issues yet. I have not heard of any EB problems to date from anybody. Swing by the dealers and you cant find them used people are hanging onto them. As for the eco, the 3.5 has been out for a while now in cars and such for a long time, granted throw turbos on its kind of a different engine. Europeans have utilized this concept for years of having a smaller displacement engine for mpg and turbos when power is needed. To be frank I dont care how many cylinders it his, i am concerned with performance, and right now there is not a stock 1/2 package that can tow 11,300lbs, have over 2k payload, and get the mpg that the eco gets.

I'm sorry, but anecdotal 15k mile "evidence" is so far from long term duty cycles or statistically significant I don't even know what you think you are proving by mentioning it? Hopefully for the owners this is nothing like any diesel they've done since the 7.3.

You don't seem to be talking real world mileage, especially towing. Further, as tow ratings are not yet regulated (changing soon) the tow claims are simply mfg marketing.

Oh, and now you've heard of a problem. http://www.f150forum.com/f38/ford-f-...issues-157704/

Funny, I just tried googling to see what's out there as I've definitely heard of issues, and if you type in "ecoboost" and pause the first thing that pops up is "problems"........

I love how people without knowing any of the performance of the gen V's are slamming them because they didn't do something drastic like go v6 w/ turbos, etc. As I've been saying, that is easily in GM's skill set and the development indicated these improvements to a proven small block are better than twin turbo's for a truck application. So maybe we should wait and see the real world comparisons rather than claiming it isn't a worthwhile improvement.:lolhit:

edit: just a little time on goggle led to tons of threads and articles about ecoboost problems, mostly all like the link above with shuddering, lost power, and limp mode. Sounds like condensation gets in the intercooler. Hopefully they get it figured out.

Ive owned chevy trucks and have a camaro in the garage right now, so its not chevy vs ford thing. And I understand that my 15k miles isnt a true representation. But I have two people I know that have them as well with a combined almost 100k with no issues, again not a huge data set. And Of course any platform will have an issue and a few and far between.

What about the 5.3 and the notorious oil consumption/leak issue, or water pump failures. 5.3 was a great engine in 2007 and still is a good engine with good mpg numbers but it is not the best engine out there.

My real world MPG is exactly as advertised and towing i get 12mpg with cruise set at 68mph, with towing 10k lbs. I dont have any complaints. I agree with towing and manufactures and their numbers, but for now what is what we have and if I cant beleive ford as you suggest then I surely cant not beleive chevy or dodge as well.

And I have said on other forums we will have to wait and see what chevys performance numbers are. And Ill be honest with you I want to buy a new one, but the numbers for now dont support it as from what I have seen the "new" 5.3 only puts out 350hp, which why build something to only match current competition and not surpass it? Again it just seems like refinement more than anything, but we will have to wait and see if GM has any surprised and have to look at one in person.

I actually owned a 2007 new body style truck nice truck but it only got 13.5mpg and leaked water into the cab all the time. Between that truck and having two diesels, I can tell you for overall cost of the vehicle, maint/operating cost, and performance the eco is the best truck Ive had since 2007, and Im not a ford guy but more or less have taking the stance I am now going to buy the best american made product that fits my needs when I am shopping for a new car.

I have heard of the shudder and from what I gather it was the earlier model and had something to do more with the tune than anything. I have never experienced myself, but 12s and above I think the issue has been corrected.

I just think I share a lot of peoples attitude that we were hoping for something big, ford and their eco and dodge now claiming 25mpg(again manufactures numbers like you suggested) what is chevy going to bring to the table? We have to see their numbers but it looks as if the 5.3 will compete with the 5.o and nothing more. I just think if chevy comes out with a 1/2 ton diesel that get 25-30mpg and can tow 11-12k, why couldnt somebody buy it, heck most people wouldnt need to spend the premium on a 3/4 anymore. As a competitor you have to look at ford and say geese the guys that sell the most trucks have a turbod engine thats makes up over 50% of their of their product sold, shouldnt we do the same thing but make it better? Instead well just revamp what we got. That irritates me with all manufactures take for example the dodge extended cab the four small doors open on their own, now why doesnt chevy and ford copy that, at least chevys extended cab doors open flat, fords only come out 90 degrees. Thats just my initial thoughts.

I get what you are saying here. I think the issue is people are viewing gen V as some tiny change to what's there. What I'm saying is it is not. Read up on the details. Just because someone else uses turbos doesn't make this less advanced. The combination of VVT, DI, and much more aggressive AFM can lead to greater results through a different strategy.

I'm saying this as I work at GM (not in powertrains) but do know some people. These gen V's are good enough to cancel work on the turbos and small diesels....... which should tell us something. Ford has never had the same success with their V8's so the complexity of the ecoboost was worth it for them on the truck, as they couldn't get there with a V8. The eco-boost is a very expensive motor for them to build, and more than they thought it would be (used to work at Ford and have some insight). So, if GM can match or exceed what they're doing with a lower cost, less complexity ie more durability than it's a win.

I believe the 5.3 is to compete with the ecoboost, the 6.2 is going to be just stronger period. Considering the current LS3 makes 430/430 ish I think with out any of this tech that should be believable.

Last, Ford didn't always sell the most, only since they have refreshed twice since GM's last update in 06. Considering the lack of change I think people have been still happy w/ the GMT900's and small blocks. I still like my 08 w/ 100k on it. Runs strong and I get almost 14 avg despite 33's and a 6 in lift.

I dont see the 5.3 ever out pulling an EB but I can understand GM's marketing strategy to try to bracket it in that category. In the real world with heat and altitude EB will slaughter the the 5.3 because every engine guy knows it isnt about the displacement per se its about how much air you can move through the displacement you've got.

I agree IF the 6.2 can beat it with less complexity and offer a substantially longer life and on par fuel economy then it is indeed a win for GM.

I disagree the HP number is the benchmark that will make it a winner though. I think its the low end torque that will determine weather of not the 6.2 is a better truck engine than the EB.

I see no evidence the 6.2 was specifically designed from the ground for trucks only so GM calling the EB a car engine is just more marketing spin. Maybe I dont know where to look for this data though.

It interesting that GM has yet to announce HP and Torque for it.

No doubt the chevy will boast a towing number higher than 11,200 because thats a game they all play. The last guy to announce always has the highest capacity in the class and Ford even re-announces after they announce to win this game.

I want to see what kind of HP and Torque it makes at 1900RPM- top gear freeway speed towing. This will determine how much the truck has to downshift and engine RPM has a tremendous effect on cabin noise. It it has to bomb along in 3rd like the rest of the NA trucks where an EB can pull 4th or 5th in my mind - it looses.

I need a new truck and would rather not buy a diesel, and Ive been lucky enough to have towed with 2 new EB's and find them incredibly impressive, and I have an open mind about GM.

UD

My dad worked for GM and I did as well one summer and tend to bend that way. but like dave i need diesel like power and prefer to stay away from diesel hence the ECO option. It just doesnt seem that GM will quite make it there, and if they do they will only match and not surpass, which I am dying to by a chevy but from a finance stand point I cant justify buying new just to get matching capabilites.

One thing about the ECO is I get all 420 foot pounds at 2500 rpm not 365 foot pounds starting at 3 grand or so and have it stretch over a few thousand rpms like the 5.3, makes a big difference when towing. But if the 6.2 can out perform anything and get compariable MPG i am with Dave. But in reality the 6.2l whether its ford or GM is a terrible idea currently both engines do nothing more than there smaller counter parts and suck gas while do it.

But its interesting that GM has held back numbers. Ill be truthful with ya, if that truck comes in being able to tow 11k or greater and they boost their MPG to something like 18-19city/25HWY, Ill have an order in before you do. But I just dont see it at this point.

And ford does sell more F150s then chevy and has for like 30 years, now GM at times when you combine chevy and gmc has beat ford, which is kind of a marketing gimic but I get your point. I think within the last year Ford out sold GM as whole by about 40,000 units.

Also from the pics that GM has put out there they have obviously put the LTZ out there. What scares me is what the LT1 and such might look like as sometimes the loaded option can look a lot different than the middle options. Which is another thing that I feel GM has lacked behind on, for years theyve had the LTZ, LT, and WT, where as dodge has laramie, power wagon, big horn, outdoorsmen, etc and ford has Xl, XLT, FX4, Laraiat, Platinum, harley, etc. But all manufactures for a period of time a few years ago were basically saying heres your options deal with it. And I hate option grouping that they all do to. I would prefer to pick my base model and add individual items but from a manufacturing stand point I can see the cost savings.

Like I said nobody is claiming in extreme heat and altitude NA will be the best choice. For the rest of the country I wouldn't discount it. Just as you say it's not about peak power. Factor in the weight of the truck and declaring the ecoboost the victor is too early. Sorta like the 6.7 having "more power" than the D-max but losing to it in every single type of comparison.

The towing will I think next year use a SAE standard so if everyone uses that it becomes a real comparable metric.

I agree with everyone the EB is an impressive implementation. What I don't agree on is that it is the end-all, as there are other ways to skin the cat. Combined with the durability question mark it'd be tough for me to throw my money at it, if buying a Ford (I wouldn't, forced to go non-GM it's a Ram) I'd still think I'd go V8 for now.

The numbers won't come out until closer to launch for a few reasons....they're still being tweaked to optimize and then the competition can't react already. Also, the 25 Hiway is for the V6 Ram only no?

I'm talking GM, not Chevy. Ford has way more variations of F series where as GM has two brands. Only for the past year or 2 has Ford sold more, and it took a big refresh and all new powertrains to beat old GM product.

Everyone is basing their comparisons on gen IV. That is lacking DI and the AFM is very conservative. These two variables will allow to add much more power and improve fuel economy through higher compression, etc.

No the ECO is not the be all or only way to skin a cat and I think its just scratching the surface on what can be done with that technology. But as far as durability were on the 3rd model year with yes a few issues but nothing that the Eco is being "known for" yet unlike the power stroke 6.0 or some other junk that has been out there. But in the end thats what a warranty is for. A turbo application on a gas engine is nothing new in concept and in the long run is a lot healthier on an engine than say a blower. I would have to imagine ford has limitations built into the computer to keep it from comsuming its self, they would be stupid not to as they have 5 years on every truck they kick out to fix if it breaks. I understand the skepticism as I was one and many ford owners were and still are. But if you follow the ford forums you should need the numbers switching sides, and sales figures show it. the last time I looked the eco was like 56% of sales with the 5.0 being 38% and the rest down the line. I mean there has to be some by in on the concept. And again think as a consumer some of us were looking at chevy like come on put something out it doesnt have to be a turbo, but put something out there. Yet again we will have to see the numbers. I wouldnt be surprised if chevy has a black cloth over a 3.0 turbo or 4.5 durmax that they are going to use that has long since been rumored.

You can keep hoping on the turbo and 4.5.......but I know very factually about one of those (and pretty well about the other) and like I said they aren't necessary technology as decided by the people that know the cost and efficiency of all options out there (including Ford/Ram current offerings).

All of this coulda/shoulda/woulda been out earlier to compete against Ford if not for a small cash flow issue in 2008, and fuel efficient cars were the priority.:lolhit:

However, I'd still contend that sales are not too crazy off considering how new everyone elses trucks are and how much incentives they have all ready. Paid off capital selling fewer vehicles at similar transaction prices may not be so bad a business decision to wait on.

Did anyone see the rear "bumper" pic in the Fox link?
Can we say "crumple zone"? That thing looks like it will cave if backed into a bush. The way it is molded into the bed means the bed gets creased as soon as the bumper folds 3/4 of an inch.
I see high insurance repair costs for a rear end collision (or just ooops I backed into something) in exchange for car like collision absorption.

The larger rear door on crew cabs looks interesting but I have not seen any interior numbers to determine if there is also more cab room. I feel GM already has the best rear seat room of a standard CC. The Tundra and Dodge Mega cabs have huge room but at the expense of full sized beds.
Interesting the Extended cab gets rear opening doors. Getting boxed in with both doors open in a parking lot is a big negative on most current models.