GM’s new 2019 pickups, by far the most important vehicle in their portfolio, are not off to a roaring start. There is a growing consensus that its interiors are not competitive. And now it’s apparent that its fuel consumption isn’t either. Certain versions of the 2019 Silverado have EPA ratings as much as 3 mpg lower than comparable 2018 versions. The apparent (and rather obvious) reason: worse aerodynamic drag thanks to that oversize blunt front end. Progress.
Here’s one example. Same engine and 6-speed automatic. That’s an 18% drop in combined mpg rating. 4WD versions of the 4.3 L are down 2mpg. 5.3L V8 versions (the most popular) are also down 1 mpg (4WD) and 2 mpg (2WD).
According to an article at autonews.com, A Chevrolet spokesman responded with this:
Monte Doran, a Chevrolet spokesman, attributed the difference in fuel economy to the redesigned trucks being more capable and larger than the outgoing models, which in turn increases aerodynamic drag.
“We increased towing capacity, payload, and it’s a much larger bed and a much larger cab,” he said.
While aerodynamic efficiency increased 7 percent and the automaker cut out hundreds of pounds on the redesigned Silverado, Chevrolet says the frontal area also increased…
And here I thought the whole point of this new generation was to be lighter and therefore more fuel-efficient. Silly me. But yes, the previous generation was obviously too small.
Also, there’s an EPA ratings disappointment with GM’s new turbocharged 2.7L four, as per this AN report a few weeks back. (we covered it here) The new high-tech engine’s EPA numbers (20 mpg combined) are lower than anticipated, and represent only a very small 1 mpg improvement over the existing 4.3 L V6. And it’s no better than the Ram with the Pentastar V6, and a whole 2 mpg worse than an F150 with the 2.7 L Ecoboost V6. And both the Ford and Ram get up to 25-26 mpg on the highway, while the GM four is rated at just 23 mpg. GM’s response: “Don’t look at the sticker”. Seriously. Maybe it should have been “Don’t look at the front end”.
And if you think the 2019 Silverado front end is a bit tall, wide, blunt and…um…not exactly very subtle in its styling, feast your eyes on the 2020 Silverado HD, just announced. Where will this end?
Time to start a GM Deathwatch?
The look of these things is hideous. Mind you, I consider most gigantic family cars hideous, but we have to give GM the award for Yet Again Screwing their Customers.
Trouble is, the customer demographic keeps responding positively to these ever expanding behemoths. Which is why they keep growing them.
I swear that looks like something Bruce McCall might have drawn in a modern version of “Zany Afternoons.”
+1. Haven’t you heard that Bulgemobile has stopped building cars? They’ve punched up the brand name too, now it’s just BULGE.
It is easier to fit the name “BULGE” across the tailgate in 10” tall chrome letters.
I think it is a generational thing. Young men today are raised watching DC and Marvel comic book movies. That’s what these trucks look like to me. They look sinister and evil and a lot of guys are going to like this kabuki styling. The Camaro looks like a movie prop for a cartoon. These look like that too. It’s OK – we’re old. These trucks are not designed for us.
They are designed for young men who need a family vehicle. They are what you guys were a generation or so ago.
Furthermore – they are outselling cars. That is where the money is now. Trucks.
As to fuel economy, I don’t think it’s a big deal anymore. Gas will stay inexpensive. There is no shortages coming for a long time. The US is a net exporter, for crying out loud. We can do this.
Bottom line – it’s a new world. We don’t fit in like we used to because we’re done consuming. We don’t have the kids anymore. We don’t deal with the family issues anymore. Welcome to Grumpytown, Gramps!
I’m done consuming, but I’m not grumpy. I’m a 90% retired widower. I drive myself around without many places I need to get to. New trucks big, ugly and expensive? My S-10 retired with me. If I save it for truck stuff like hauling dirt and motorcycles it could last as long as I do. New cars designed by manga artists? My Volvo 940 wagon laughs at them! I ponder new things with kind of a horrified fascination. Get them off my lawn!
Bruce McCall gave me more than a few snickers/guffaws when he was featured in “Car & Driver” magazine.
Fun fact: Bruce’s brother, Walter M.P. McCall, was a longtime PR guy for Chrysler in Canada and authored a number of Crestline books.
As for these trucks. Ugh. And have you noticed the deep discounts GM is offering now on their predecessors? It’s going to be interesting to see what happens to the full-size truck market once the Gladiator, the Ford Ranger, and the upcoming mid-size Ram pickup join the Colorado/Canyon twins and the Tacoma. I suspect there’s a decent part of the market that would be happy to trade down from these beasts.
Do they come with a ladder in case you need to check anything under the hood?
It’s really going to be a pain in the butt getting my hoist over the hood to get the Gen-V V8 out.
It’s the same ladder you need to load anything into the bed.
One word: Fugly.
ButtUgly
When gas prices spike (again) in the future, GM will (again) be in a world of hurt.
Well you know I’m gonna comment on this…
Perhaps we’re nearing the end of the big scary front end theme. Just like when tailfins had gotten so ridiculous that they had to end. Then the cycle begins again.
Looked at another way, it reminds me of Terminator 2 when the T1000 (not the Pontiac) is in the molten steel going into all of it’s past forms in ever more distorted ways in a vain attempt to stay alive, fighting the inevitable end of it’s life. Screaming and howling all the way.
Or styling will continue on as it has and we can look forward to double-decker pickups that cost $2 million getting 2.8 (combined EPA) mpg on coal or baby seal or puppy tears. And lots of chrome. And rhinestone LEDs. Applied with a shovel. In China. Sparkly!
Maybe it’s all the extra Chinesium. . .
Chinesium! That’s brilliant.
Yes, it is time to start the GM Deathwatch.
Having seen a few of these on the road already, I’m not impressed. These are simply trying too hard and this fuel mileage drop won’t help.
Yes, I get full-sized pickups aren’t everyone’s sugar stick but there is a fine line with them – you need to entice customers into something unique without repelling them. These are repellent.
While I’ve been highly intrigued with the four cylinder option in these (I’m working on getting a test drive of one at work) I think it’s going to land with a thud in parts of the country. There’s too many V8 aficionados in Middle America and while a turbo V6 in a Ford is a good substitute, a turbo four might be viewed as step too far.
Bad styling and bad fuel economy in your cash cow? Problem is will GM be able to determine if it’s crappy styling or crappy fuel economy that will allow FCA to take the #2 spot in light pickup sales? Isn’t FCA building or purchasing a factory somewhere near Detroit?
I’m getting whiffs of something with an unpleasant aroma.
As I work nearby the GM Tech Center, I’ve seen several of these in the last few months, both in and out of camo wrap. My first thought was that it was a deliberate attempt to fool the spy photogs… I couldn’t believe that the “styling” of these vehicles could be so awful. But it is.
Good luck selling the turbo four to tradesmen and midwestern farmers –
The turbo four where I work would be going into fleet vehicles that tend to idle a lot. My hope was on a per hour basis, the fuel consumption would be reduced from that of a 4.3 liter. I struggle to see the turbo four making its way into very many retail units, but I’ve been wrong before.
Years ago (mid to late ’90s) a friend of mine went to work at the Tech Center right out of college. He gave me a tour of the place one night before the ’98 model 1/2 tons were introduced. Like you, he was uncertain about how those would resonate in the market. Those are tame in comparison to these. 🙂
Jason, I’m guessing that you meant ‘99 model year, as the ‘98 is the last of the prior body style. I agree with your assessment, however, as I was at the time taken aback by what seemed like a radical styling cue – “hit in the face with a chrome 2 x 4” – but in hindsight it seems no more than a gentle shape evolution. So maybe I just don’t “get” the 2019s yet. Give me 10 years…
On another point, I think that FCA killed the 200 at SHAP in order to produce the new RAM pickup at that facility.
Sadly, GM has started it themselves. To be competitive, they must produce vehicles that are usable, stylish (fashionable), and cost-effective, both for the producer and for the consumer. These fail on the last 2 points, and I can only assume that the usability is not any greater on these than any comparable truck. So, GM will have a failing luxury brand, a failing truck line, and reduce their sedan portfolio to negligible levels, while bringing out a new Corvette that will almost certainly not sell to current devotees and be overpriced for those who might purchase versus a “real” sports car from Europe.
Perhaps a mercy killing would be better. The other dead OEMs of yore are fondly remembered, even with their last few years being regrettable at best. Think Packard. Other than slapping the name on the Studebakers at the end, that marque kept their dignity (for the most part) intact and are still held in regard. GM is losing any goodwill by their current actions, and it does not bode well for them.
Now, perhaps Mary Barra is a genius, and she is having it all fail so she can revive the company in a new image. However, it is more likely she is leading GM down the same path it has always taken and will simply see it implode. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. This reeks of insanity.
I don’t know if a genius would spend $14b on stock buybacks with all the issues GM needs cash reserves for.
It IS genius if the majority of her compensation is in stock. Buybacks raise the stock price, if only temporarily.
The whole problem with industry as a whole is that it is predicated on short term stockholder interests and nothing else. In our recent history, companies took into account the needs of all stakeholders, from workers, suppliers, management, shareholders, and the surrounding community where they existed.Not any more. All that counts is that the shareholder’s stake is maximized, everyone else be damned. And when CEO pay is primarily in shares, guess who they favor as well?
Since Barra may not be there much longer, nor may there be a GM in the near future, at least not one as we know it now, then yes, she is a genius for maximizing her compensation and net worth by doing buybacks. That it kills the company should be of no concern to us peasants, at least in management’s view.
A return to 1950s levels of design garishness.
One of the absolutely ugliest vehicles I have ever seen-call it the Flying Brick. I hope we are nearing the end of the screaming aggressive front end. And worse gas mileage to boot, too. I hope this thing is a total failure.
Except calling it the Flying Brick would be an insult to the BMW “K” series line of motorcycles.
These trucks are butt ugly. And it seems buyers in my area agree as I see many more new Rams and F-150’s on the streets than these new Chevys.
You called?
If you listened to CEO Mary Barra this week, GM is focused on meeting customer needs including autonomous cars,rental scooters, and hulking pickups.SUVs with less fuel economy. GM bought a scooter rental/sharing company and the next thing you know Ford did too. Looks like FCA is the only smart one in the bunch.
Which electric scooter rental companies did GM and Ford buy? Bird?
You know, something these guys should consider is offering a small, reliable electric scooter option to carry with their electric vehicles. The logic would be that, often times, EV charging stations are at least a mile or two from the actual destination. An electric scooter would provide portable, secondary transportation to that location and back while the EV is charging.
Certainly. After all it never rains, snows, is freezing cold, or blisteringly hot outside, and say a 70-year-old driver will have no problem doing the final mile or two with their spouse, grandkids, and packages on a small electric scooter under those conditions.
Reductio ad absurdum- They could drop off the spouse, grandkids and packages BEFORE they drove the vehicle over to the charging system and drove back on an electric scooter (in the rain, snow, freezing cold or blistering heat…).
Why is GM going this way? Are Fords bigger and with more aggressive front ends? I don’t think these are so ugly, or at least not so different from their competitors.
Also, crazy how far the Juke styling went, after being modified by the Citroën C4 Cactus And Hyundai Kona. Everying is now coming with being headlamps down and skinny DRLS where headlamps used to be.
At least old trucks and cars with poor aerodynamics had looks that more than made up for it.
And more capable my ass. I don’t see this displacing any real work trucks where that metric actually matters.
It’s climate change be damned, everybody knows that’s a hoax anyway. I need the biggest truck to show everyone out there just how much of a man I am.
So sign me up for an electric. Tesla and Rivian trucks will be the biggest, fastest, towingest, baddest trucks on the road. It’s not like they’re going to be too expensive either. Through September, the average price of a new full-size pickup truck checked in at $48,369. My electric truck will get to that price soon.
Then I’ll be the big man on my street. Eat my Torque.
Ram pickups have arrived here new now via Aussie for the RHD conversion prices start at $89,000.
Just saw a ad for a Ram 4×4 Laramie starts at $114,000 yet tosee one driving around.
Indeed. You’ll be the king of the road, paying twice as much for a vehicle with half the utility due to range and charge limitiations, with electrochemical batteries that will lose capacity year after year. Sign me up! (Oh, and you are correct that human-caused climate change is a hoax, but this of course is not the place for that discussion.)
3mpg because of a small decrease in aerodynamics????….Don’t think so. Has to be another explanation
Rear axle ratios are a bit higher numerically, undoubtedly to compensate for the additional aero drag. This is how it works; one thing leads to another. Normally, it’s in reverse, meaning improved aero drag allows for a lower numerical rear axle ratio, and improved economy.
Which is even more pathetic with city mileage seeing nearly as abysmal a drop. I got an instant 2mpg bump per tank switching from 3.08:1 to 3.55:1 in my Cougar, which mostly saw city driving.
This front end is not only ugly (and I thought Ford’s was bad enough), but it’s ridiculously high. Is there really all that much stuff under the hood that it has to be so high? Or is it all for a macho image, trying to outdo the Ford? Another GM fail.
Did you really have to ask?
I can’t speak for all their engines(diesels) but people frequently fit Chevy V8s under the stock hoods of Miatas. I bet two engines would fit under this hood
Can somebody put the S-10 back in production? Or the first or second generation Dodge Dakota? Or, if you want ‘full size’ how about the ninth generation Ford F-150 (1992-97, which to me was the last pickup truck made that didn’t have male overcompensation as part of the design brief).
My take on the latest GM monstrosity is an answer to the availability of the Colorado/Canyon mid-size pickups. If you want a more ‘urban’ pickup, you get one of the mid-sizers. Otherwise, penis-compensation dictates getting the absolute largest light pickup possible, fuel mileage be damned. As someone else mentioned, when gas prices inevitability spike, these big GM pickups won’t be nailed to the showroom floor, they’ll be welded.
But I really like the earlier comparison to the late fifties tailfin fad. Just like today’s massive pickup trucks, GM was caught flat-footed when Chrysler came out with the enormously popular ‘Forward Look’ in 1957 and went bonkers coming out with tailfin-crazy stuff in 1959 like the batwing Chevy. And, then, a scant two years later, all the fins were gone from GM’s lineup (save Cadillac).
I think we’ve seen this design before.
The problem is that GM thinks, and is probably correct, that a significant % of their buyers are macho-man wannabees with certain diminutive anatomical parts that must be compensated for and love this look. It’s unreal how many of these things are being used strictly for commuting and schlepping to Mall-Wart, just take notice how many beds still look like new, years on. Personally I’m hoping for $5 gas, where it should be anyway, to put an end to this nonsense.
Another equally ridiculous trend is the “Soccer mom in the Black Escalade” idiocy. No fooling: yesterday within 10 minutes we saw two 30-ish Mommies ferrying their little Buffy and Buddy around in one of these absurd 14 mpg battle wagons, both of them piloting new black Escalade barges….just plain stupid!
+100
Yes, GM drank the Cool Aid on the bro-dozier thing. It’s a wonder they didn’t include an LED light bar as standard equipment.
I’m with you—I’ll raise you to $6 gallon!
Right. Well. I’ll just leave this here, then.
Yeeaah!
Ironic that Ram has gone the other way. Softening their trucks and moving away from the “peterbuilt” front ends. I find the Ram very refreshing and handsome
They look like Toyotas.
Come on GM, you can do it! Add a stack and an external air filter box and you’re back in business!
I can’t wait to get a shot of my old workhorse next to the latest version of Optimus Prime. That HD model’s face makes the last version look really nice!
Can we call them Trucky McTruckface’s yet?
I’ll take the one on the right please….
I’ve owned a handfull of old 1-1/2 ton and 2 ton grain trucks with bed lengths ranging from 10 to 16 feet. Most were 48-53 Chevy 4100, 4400 and 6400’s, along with a ‘48 IH KB4 and a ‘68 Loadstar 1600. Also in the mix was a ‘68 F-500. What amazes me is that other than the length, the new pickups on the market are about the same size and those old medium haulers. I’ll have to post some photos later.
here’s one for ya…
inspiration from Grandad…
maybe we’ll get a COE version a.k.a. Two-Story Sliverado
Here’s a few of my old ones. .. 48 Chevy
’48 International
’68 Ford
’53 Chevy
And my ’68 International 1000C that I could actually reach over the bedsides and touch the floor of the bed.
@ PaulR, regarding that 1000C it is a IFS truck with a particulary short frame and a ride height that was significantly lower than IH’s own 1100 series trucs as well as those from the other mfgs. I know I’ve got a 1010 Travelall. Pretty much a factory low rider.
I had a ’66 1100C that didn’t sit much taller than my 1000. The 1000C was also a rare short wide bed.
Would it be fair to say that there is a slight height increase in the cab’s interior, plus a bit more for a much stronger structure, but most has come from making the 2wd basically the same height as a 4wd?
Yes they are now pretty much designed around being 4×4 and the 2wd trucks aren’t lower since they are not the best sellers. Back in the day 4×4 represented a small portion of sales and they were more or less an afterthought. So to get that front axle driven they had to jack the trucks up to do it on the cheap.
Did GM rehire the old, now geriatric Aztec design team, now paying them minimum wage as well? Based on results, apparently so. Does GM have a death wish? Again apparently so, with consistent GM mediocrity.
Alfred Sloan, Harley Earl, and Bill Mitchell must be shaking their heads in their afterlives, and John Z. DeLorean wouldn’t be surprised.
GM and Sears are seemingly walking off together into the sunset hand-in-hand. Sad ends to American icons that couldn’t adapt.
The ads served up next to this article offer me a $12,500 discount on a 2018 Silverado pickup. GM must be so desperate, it does seem like their end times are drawing near.
This is on last year’s model, not the current one so close out deals are not unheard of and a $10k discount is built into the price of 1/2 ton, crew cab, 4×4 pickups today.
Not saying it doesn’t look like they shot themselves in the foot, because it seems like they have with their new line of trucks.
Earlier I got an ad for employee pricing for anybody off the street on any new Chevrolet. This isn’t coming from any Christmas cheer at GM.
GM is dying but to me it’s a case of accidental suicide, much like sitting in the garage with the door closed while the car warms up. No harm intended but it just sort of happens.
Part of me really thinks the styling of this poor pickup was focus grouped into existence.
Alfred Sloan and company are indeed spinning in their graves these days.
And just like CO poisoning, you don’t know it’s happening until it’s too late…
“Part of me really thinks the styling of this poor pickup was focus grouped into existence.”
Well, those are real people in those ads, after all.
Not to mention the Henry Ford quote “if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse”
To think that our 61-66 Ford trucks are called “bricks” and that is why their gas mileage is bad. I think it was more the fuel inefficiency of the Y block and FE block if you had a V8. I would hazard a guess that Paul’s, with the six and overdrive, could match the above trucks. Our front ends certainly don’t look like bricks when sitting next to one of these monsters.
I was thinking GM couldn’t do any worse if they went retro with an update of one of these:
Do trucks have to meet the pedestrian-safety regulations which effectively require a higher hood? That could account for some of that ungainly snoot.
Yes and no.
Update; I should have checked on this before I answered. But even if it had to meet EU ped requirements, it certainly wouldn’t need to be tall like that. Just blunt, generally, but not necessarily tall.
That is a disturbing looking vehicle. It seems GM wants to appear more macho than Ram or Ford, I never understood why these huge pickups are always the best selling vehicles, owning one makes sense if you live in Wyoming or Nebraska, but they look ridiculous in the inner city – I don’t see many.
The worse gas mileage is shameful. The 1994 Dodge Ram that tried to look like a Kenworth was unfortunately a game changer. Maybe an aerodynamic midsize pickup could be a new game changer?
Those regulations are primarily for the European market, and move the hood up to create air space between the hood and the (solid) engine block. Since full size pickups aren’t sold in Europe, and hood-line on these trucks are above the typical pedestrian impact point, I’m going with no.
Also, given GM is taking some heat for the lower fuel economy numbers, if a regulation influenced the design, I’d expect their spokesperson would point in that direction.
Pedestrian-protection regs are present and strong in the UN (formerly “ECE”, “European”) regs used by most of the world’s markets. The US, almost alone in the world, doesn’t recognise the UN regs, and pedestrian-protection requirements are virtually or completely absent from the US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and their almost-identical Canadian counterparts. They don’t sell many of these trucks in countries that use the UN regs, so I’m thinking that’s probably not it.
Completely off topic but I sure enjoyed re-watching one of the better bad movies of the 70s last night (Every Which Way But Loose) featuring this peak GM lovely truck tear assing all over the West with Clint Eastwood behind the wheel. Lots of automotive fond memories for this Gen Xer in that movie.
Visit the Car Chase Wonderland channel over at youtube. Lots of car chase memories for us Gen X’ers.
I’m a millennial and I subscribed there! But I didn’t have cable as a kid, so these are the movies I grew up watching on the network channels. I always consider my self Gen X from a pop-culture standpoint from that.
This is concerning. I guess not having any cars and only more yet-to-exist EVs to counterbalance pickups and SUVs is GM’s strategy.
I’m going to be the odd man out here but I think the HD grille and front end look better than the disorganized mess that’s on the 1500. But yes, the truck is too tall and bulky.
Agreed.
Retro is good, but this is the wrong retro. Echoing Exner instead of Earl.
Cover that DeSoto’s upper horizontal grill …….
and you have a ’59 Buick that wants to be a ’58 Lincoln.
As automotive fads go, canted headlights certainly seemed to have been one of the shorter-lived ones.
Or the most ahead of its time. Every modern car with the so called joker grin has canted headlight housings
I would had lowered the divider a bit to be more centered. It would had been a nod to the 1967-72 Chevrolet medium-truck duty. https://www.trucksplanet.com/catalog/model.php?id=1242
Actually the front of the grey pickup kind of looks good to me. Sort of 1959 GMC pickup it’s so ugly it’s nice.
However, the truck it’s attached to is about 30% too big.
On the positive side, if you’re the kind of truck owner who doesn’t use a bed liner, and loads bricks into your truck using a bobcat loader, this is the (steel) truck for you
Just don’t expose it to any salt spray…
…but I often hurl jagged objects into my truck from a great height while gushing “non-actors” watch in amazement! This is the vehicle for me! 😉
GM looks to be completely imploding in recent weeks.
This is going to be annihilated by the RAM and the Ford offerings.
My guess is that with gas prices staying low for the foreseeable future, most buyers won’t care about the mileage. If they did, they wouldn’t buy any full-sized truck. More serious is the fact that the truck just isn’t competitive with Ford and Ram. On the other hand, the ten year old Tundra design is way past its prime, and Toyota still sells a bunch of them. So, maybe GM will sneak by with this one. But, RAM is gunning for second place, ahead of Chevy, and this may well make it happen for them.
“most buyers won’t care about the mileage.”
I’d say most buyers understand full size truck mileage lags other market segments, but fuel economy is certainly a factor when comparing models within the segment- Good news for Dodge and Ford.
Even worse, fleet managers plug all these factors into a spread sheet, and lower fuel economy numbers drive up Chevy’s cost per mile calculation.
Are truck fronts now taller than they are wide? Someone go measure them. This compares to the article PN wrote about how thick the new gen Camaro is. I suppose trucks will go back to 8- foot beds soon. Eight foot tall and 5 foot long. I like the trucks in my ratty old neighborhood. Mostly ’80’s-’90’s Fords and a few Chevies and Dodges.
Looks like Clark Griswold has his vehicle for the next Vacation movie.
Putrid. I had a 65 Chev half ton with a 230 inline 6 ahead of a column shifted 3 speed with an overdrive. 20 mpg all day. 8 foot stepside that was totally reachable too. I’ll stich with my old stuff.
As another poster above noted, many of the people who buy very large trucks don’t care how much gas they burn. The local news tonight reported another drop in the price of gas,, the average in Michigan now being $2.31. As long as the cost of a fillup is under a particular price point, like $100, people don’t care.
I took the Ford Rouge Plant tour again yesterday, as The Henry Ford keeps showering me with free passes. Unlike when the CC crew toured a year and a half ago, there was not a single standard cab truck in sight, and only 1 extended cab.
It is apparent that, when it comes to pickups, the CAFE standards that the big three cry a river about do not mean diddly. This was baked in when the CAFE standard methodology was changed a dozen years ago. Looking over the proposals governing the 2017-2025 time frame, in 2011, Volkswagen said:
“Volkswagen does not endorse the proposal under discussion. It places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks. Passenger cars would be required to achieve 5% annual improvements, and light trucks 3.5% annual improvements. The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017–2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains. The proposal encourages manufacturers and customers to shift toward larger, less efficient vehicles, defeating the goal of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.”
And what VW predicted has happened.
I’m looking forward to GM’s announcement of the new, 2020 Canyonero at next month’s Detroit Auto Show.
https://youtu.be/7ZeFDe44Ddo
These days I am driving a Chevrolet Trailblazer.The front end sheet metal is also too bulky on it and there are some other issues. I’ve driven GM mostly over the years partly out of loyalty. No more! Heads need to roll at GM for the layoffs and these new trucks. No kidding!
Honestly this thing makes my ’77 Marquis look compact, sleek and sensible by comparison.
GM’s announcements this fall make me think its 1972 all over again….. all vehicle lines redesigned to be needlessly larger, uglier and less fuel efficient, making GM more vulnerable to the next market change.
You’re not kidding. Honestly even today’s “small” trucks make fulls sized sedans look small and sleek by comparison. A few weeks ago I was stopped at a light, and there was a late model Crown Victoria in the other lane, one car length ahead of me. Next to the Crown Vic was a Chevy Colorado. Behind it was a Toyota Tacoma. Next to those two trucks the Crown Vic looked sleek and compact.
When I saw the first photo of the 2020 HD I thought it was a Photoshop of a Ford HD.
I still do!!😱
That truck is ugly. It is ugly enough to press it’s face into dough to make gorilla cookies. Gas is cheap now but,….. It always goes back up, and it will. When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
Today’s pickups are the epitome of ugliness. The Ford and the Ram don’t escape this indignity either. They all look like they are trying to outdo each other. The General has to be the worst of the bunch.
My God what an ugly truck. I see Dodge picking up a lot of sales at the expense of those things.
GM is turning into Chrysler from the late ’70s
I miss the old General Motors that built great cars and trucks
I won’t be surprised if rumors of a takeover of GM begin to rise.
When we see these trucks could we said “plucked chicken”?
Disclaimer: I currently work in inventory for a moderately large Chevy dealership.
I’ve driven dozens upon dozens of the new 2019 1500 around our 12 acre lot. Admittedly, I haven’t road driven one yet. Bur from my perspective, the size is comparable to the outgoing model. I personally think the seats and interior are superior to the outgoing model. Styling is highly subjective, but I’m not repulsed, I expect it to grow on me. Almost every Chevy product in my memory didn’t “take” with me right away, though some were immediate “winners” with me. I’ve always liked Ford styling over Chevy, but liked Chevy engineering better. As far as aerodynamics is concerned on these new Chevys, I don’t quite get the “snouts” at the leading edge of the front fenders? I’m told it increases aerodynamic efficiency. I don’t see how? I haven’t really looked at the Maronie stickers, but I’m shocked that fuel economy is reduced. We’ve already received over a hundred new Silverados, and so far they’ve all been crew cab with LT trim or higher, except for four double cabs (extended cab); one of which was a dealer trade, and two were basic WT work trucks with the V6. No regular cabs, no turbo fours…yet. The new HeavyDuty is a long way off. Whether it’ll be introduced early mid-year like the 2015s were is questionable. The 2014 1500s were introduced early mid-year in the summer of 2013, but this new 1500 is dribbling in and it’s already December. As in previous generations, the old 1500 was continued as a 2019, however only for fleet sales. Rather than calling it “Classic”, they’ve denoted it as a “LD”, as in “light duty”.
I think Chevy will be okay with the new truck. They’ve got too much on the line. They really should bring back a long bed Colorado, as in at least 7 feet; they have the chassis in the crew cab 6 foot bed. It would likely sell like hotcakes to the fleet crowd. Only problem would be the fender well width. And I still can’t believe they discontinued the 1500 double cab (extended) with an 8 foot bed with the 2014 model year. Ford still makes a long bed, extended cab F-150. Ram trucks? Give me a break. They’re “also rans” and always will be
It’s modern design genius! Make the front end grotesque and replace the V8 with a turbo 4…and the kicker, only get 20 mpg with the 4! Genius! Just make the nameplate even BIGGER and no one will notice!
One factor driving the front end styling of all heavy duty pickups is the need for increased airflow to properly cool these ridiculous 900+ ft. lbs. torque diesel engines their customers demand. Or at least think they need. Honestly, the 1500’s styling is neutral to to me, but I think the Silverado HD looks pretty good, all things considered.
I guess if you one you coul;d find an angle of approach to get in where you didnt barf, its awful, Dodge and Ford must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Other than the Ram, any of full sized pickups got coil rear suspension?
I expect this generation of pickup to sell well initially, it does provide the biggest boost to the below average sized crowd. The boost would be short term as below average are minority, once those demographic were satisfied, the sales will drop. GM is betting her future on these ….
Scary thought.
Hmmm, not a good look.
This will be interesting to watch. I don’t believe there is another market segment where good old fashioned brand loyalty is so strong. The diehard Chevy guy will lap them up and there are still enough of them that it will be a significant number. OTOH, all the action will be at the margins. Interior? Fuel mileage? Looks? A turbo 4? It looks like Chevy is piling on with reasons for the undecided buyer to go elsewhere.
Initial quality may become *the* determining factor in whether these succeed or not. A bunch of recalls and quality problems could add to all the above and send sales into a slow dive. Or this could prove to be the best Chevy truck in a generation. But any growth will be slow.
Clearly, GM is pandering to the brodozer crowd and not those interested in subtlety and efficiency with this look.
It seems like large trucks are entering into the modern equivalent of 1959 over-styling excess for cars before (hopefully) a new, more restrained era of styling eventually takes hold. This is the ’59 Eldorado of trucks.
These new trucks are starting to make Griswold Family Truckster look absolutely gorgeous!
Their gargantuan size make my 1986 square body look like a sub-compact truck.
Coming soon for 2023! The limit will be bridge underpass height!
That’s awesome! It is now my tablet wallpaper.
Chevy’s a little late to the game. The Tundra has been doing Ugly + Bad Mileage since 2014 :/
I’m not a big fan of Toyota’s recent styling efforts, but the Tundra is positively handsome next to any of the big three’s offerings.
Agreed. It’s 13/17 MPG ratings for the past 12 model years, the pudgy ugly front end and the silly partially blanked out rear window with mis placed up too high door handle on the smaller 4 door model is just pitiful in 2019. The Tundra’s low sales are justified.
ButtUgly
How many pick up truck buyers really NEED a truck this tall, this wide, this long, this hideous?
A need to tow or haul something that necessitates owning this monstrosity? No. A need to FEEL something they’re missing in their lives? Probably.
In the Bay Area town in have my office in, which is crawling with Teslas, Porsches, and the like these trucks are also all over. They are not used for work or play when you notice how clean and who drives them. They are basic around the town transportation. There is one fellow in town who drives an F-650, tall enough my 9 year old can walk under, and the polished black paint hasn’t seen any dirt.
Need and underlying psychological compensations rarely has much to do with most pickup sales. Trucks are in and cool, and most suburbanites who drive them do so because it’s fashionable to do so. It’s no different than the PLC of the 70’s. How many people needed a car with a 6 foot long hood, massive amounts of wasted space and tiny back seats? Yet, family men bought them, because they were in style. At least with a pickup, they have far more practical uses than some of the previously fashionable car styles.
Around my area, pickups are hugely popular, and it is very common for most households to have a crossover and a pickup. Most of these people are just regular working families, and the pickups have become family vehicles that replaced the minivan in many cases. You can argue the logic of that choice, but the fact is driving a pickup shows your in style compared to the uncool minivan guy (most of whom in this area are now the 50+ crowd).
Pickups do have big advantages over minivans in the snow country. They are far more capable in winter conditions, they are great for snowmobilers and ATVers, lumberyard runs, hauling lawn and garden supplies, fisherman and hunters. And even for cottagers they are great hauling all your junk, boats, canoes, kayaks, bikes, etc to the lake for the weekend. All these activities are common with many regular families that drive these pickup.
While I am sure there are some people that buy pickups for the reasons mentioned by people here, almost everyone I know with a pickup is just an average Joe, who likely would have owned a minivan or midsized SUV 20 years ago.
I can’t fathom how a Canadian working family would sink so much money into a pick up truck. I never had a car costing more than my Golf, which is about half an F-150.
That $25,000 difference sends my son to university for a degree.
You know, priorities.
Many people I know have the finances to buy a truck and send their kids to school. Some don’t and still buy an expensive truck or whatever else and live beyond their means in massive debt. It’s not my place to judge others choices Iife or vehicles.
You’re also making the assumption that everyone buys a fully loaded truck brand new. Their are lots of used trucks at or cheaper than your VW wagon. I am glad you like your car and it suits your needs but not everyone is in the same situation as your are for life needs or finances. FWIW, I actually looked hard at Golf wagon, but ended up with a competitor that better met my requirements.
I would agree with the consensus here that the styling on these new Chevys is not very attractive. That whole front fender is a mess on the 1500s. Although, I think the HD models look nicer, with less busy body lines and a front end that reminds me of the early to mid 1960s Chevy Trucks. That said, it’s really only the front and possibly the rear styling that is the big problem on these trucks. Look at them from a side profile and they really aren’t that much different from a Ford or a Ram. And lets be honest, all these new trucks are overstyled gargantuans.
Ever since the GMT-400s, GM has been very conservative on its truck restyles, too conservative IMO. GM finally went less conservative with the styling on this truck, but the results are questionable. Only time and the market will tell if it is accepted. Regardless, GM can fix this truck, with a facelift but by then the damage might already be done. Regardless of the consensus here that the styling is a miss, I wager that the minority of CCers are full-size truck owners, and even less of them are actually willing to actually fork over any money for a truck. Sure its a miss with CCer’s, but we’ll see how the truck buying public takes to it soon.
And while many of us lament for trucks of the past, modern trucks are generally far more versatile, comfortable and feature laden, while being more fuel efficient, better handling, better braking and better tow vehicles then trucks of the past. While the old trucks generally had bigger beds, the modern trucks have payloads pretty on par, and handle that weight better.
From those who have actually driven and tested these trucks, they seem to be a improvement over the previous generation, with the interior being the only area drawing any negative comments. There are several major improvements. One is the bed on these trucks has increased in volume by 20%. The 5.5 foot box has as much volume as a 6.5 foot box from a competitor. That is a big plus for many who use these vehicles as family vehicles and are more interested in cargo volume than weight carrying ability. The truck has also drastically lost weight, bringing it more in line with fully aluminium Ford. While the performance of the trucks has improved substantially (for the 5.3L V8 anyway), and the V8 supposedly has improved MPGs.
Here are a couple of reviews from people who actually drove the trucks:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-chevrolet-silverado-pickup-truck-lighter-larger-first-drive
http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/22662/2019-chevrolet-silverado-first-drive-review-the-peoples-chevy-picks-up-changes-big-and-small
Ford must have a gaggle of double-agent saboteurs working in the Silver Silos.
Is Mary Barra the right person for the job…considering these truck products, the utter failure of Cadillac and Buick in USA, and the insipid “Real People, Not Actors” Chevy advertising campaign?
The question answers itself: Hell NO!
Only Ford? I thought FCA, Toyota and Nissan have sended a pinch of double-agent saboteurs as well. 😉
What was wrong with old ones? I briefly rented a 2018 GMC regular cab long bed and it seemed like even the basic U-Haul spec had all the necessary comforts and conveniences and everything was easily understandable and usable, Which was a major improvement over some circa 1999 GM cars I rented.
The styling of this new generation looks ugly and angry as if overcompensating. GM should have tried a retro style harking back to the 70s trucks.
I agree it’s ugly. Very ugly. But IMHO that also applies to most new cars from the last 5 or 10 years: too many lines coming or going in all directions. Too many design and “decorative” details. Too Baroque to my taste.
I agree with the 59 tail fins analogy.
Maybe in 10 years car (and truck) designs come back to function over form, or at least a reasonable balance between them.
Pity that FoMoCo and GM cannot spend as much time, effort and dollars in refining and updating the classic rear wheel drive passenger car as they have on their pick up trucks.
Well, had more folks continued to purchase classic rear wheel drive passenger cars, FoMoCo, GM, and Chrysler (and everyone else) would have plied money into their updating and refinement.
Actually, the RWD sedan has pretty well reached its nadir. What can one really do to update it mechanically or refine it? You reach a point where any changes are just subjective, and we reached that point some time back. The ride can be made cushy again, or firmer again, as it has been both at one time or another. The engines are pretty much at peak efficiency. So, other than loading up on needless options, what can be done to a RWD sedan that hasn’t already been done? When a Rolls and a Chrysler 300 are more alike than different, what else is there to change? Engine up front, check, diff in the back, check. All the rest are just different levels of trim and luxury.
The simple fact is that OEMs build what makes them the most money. The days of offering a full line just to make dealers happy is gone. They are not building models to grow the brand unless it is a derivative of an existing model slightly tweaked to meet perceived consumer demand. Trucks sell, sedans not so much.
Poor GM. They catch hell for not adapting to a changing market quickly enough. Then, when they do adapt, they catch hell for that, too.
With that said, that new truck is ugly as hell and I’d be surprised if they sell. Frankly, they’re so ungainly relative to the competition (which, honestly, isn’t so hot, either), they remind me of the 1960-1962 Plymouth and Dodge situation.
But, then, I’ve been wrong before.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=768
I’d love to have the truck described in the sticker! Maybe with the V8 though. But what great looking trucks they were.
Me too. Wouldn’t it be possible to buy a 1985 C10 and restore it to better than new and more reliable than new for much, much less than the purchase price of the 2019 Chevy Peterbuilt, even using NOS parts?
Not a uniquely North American thing either, as this thing plainly shows.
It looks like an SUV version of a ’60 Valiant.
Contrasted with a cleaner, earlier version.
It does look like that. Is it the fenders mainly?
Old GM must have gotten custody of the wind tunnel after the bankruptcy.
Love it!
Good one, Acd!
🙂
GM’s former plants will make nice Amazon fulfillment centers.
Or, automobile assembly plants…
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-tesla-interested-buying-idled-gm-plant-60-minutes-interview-2018-12
Just by happenstance a new, spotless, temporary tag in the window Chevy truck was parked next to me at Lowe’s yesterday.
Even though the driver had done a fine job of parking it in the center of the painted parking slot (NOT always the case!); I couldn’t help but notice that it really did fill out the allotted parking place width, with very little space left over on each side. It stuck out in the travel isle noticeably more than the early 2000’s Ford pick up truck next to it.
I wonder how many tries it took for the owner to get it so neatly “centered” in the parking slot?
Just too dayum wide, tall and long for me to even consider purchasing this Macho Monster.
The HD is overblown, but it does make the 1500 look understated. And from what I’ve seen, the ’19 1500 looks better in the metal than in any CGI’d publicity shot.
Despite all the comments on how ugly this truck is I am literally seeing them everywhere including the thruway. And the F-150 with its silly backward C headlights is hardly any better. If anything the Ram is the best looking of the bunch but also the thirstiest in the real world it would seem. TFL did a real world test of a 2019 Ram Rebel, a new body Silverado Trail Boss and the F-150 Raptor. Guess which one came closest to 20 highway MPG in that test. And guess which one came over 4 MPG under it’s comical EPA rating of 22 MPG. If you answered Silverado for the first and Ram for the second you would be right!
And just for the record it is the old carry over 5.3 AFM that lost one MPG compared to last year and that engine is only offered in the cheaper trim levels. The LT on up to the High Country has a newer designed 5.3 with DFM or Dynamic fuel management and the MPG numbers on that setup stayed the same on the 4X4 models at 16/22 and up one on the RWD models at 17/23. Real world mileage test results will be interesting. The 4.3’s 2-3 MPG loss is head scratching unless they drastically changed the rear end ratio which would account for maybe 1 MPG.
Two owners of 2015-2017 Silverado double cab trucks at work have 4.3 engines tied to the 6 speed automatic and say they are easily beating the 22 MPG highway number with 23-24 often reported so again some real world numbers are definitely in order.