Chevy offers this truck in both diesel and gasoline versions, this time we got the gasser. Displacing 6.6liters, it is difficult to actually see the engine when the hood is opened as it’s well in there. To close the hood again required a mighty stretch by the way, if you are under six feet tall, do not let the hood just extend all the way up when opening it in public, you’ll be embarrassed and need to seek assistance.
This direct-injected, variable valve timed cast iron block engine provides 401hp @ 5,200rpm and 464lb-ft of torque @ 4,000rpm. Having driven the more or less equivalent model Ford F-250 with the 7.3l as well as the RAM 2500 with the 6.4l, this engine was no slouch comparatively, in fact I’d be hard pressed to choose between them when not literally driving them back to back or comparing published performance results.
In power, smoothness, and especially NVH, this in fact may be the best of the bunch as far as a combination goes, it was certainly quieter to my ears than each of the others. Just simple, smooth, strong, long-lasting waves of power whenever needed.
The transmission in this case was a 6-speed, and while that isn’t the latest tech (the diesel gets the 10-speed) it was well suited to the job with seamless shifts and really no way of telling in which gear it was in. At 80mph, the engine was turning at around 2000rpm, both fifth and sixth are overdrives.
This truck was equipped with a 3.73 axle ratio and with the wheels not being grotesquely oversized the combination worked well from a power and drivability standpoint. While driving on the freeway one morning I was on the phone with a friend near Chicago (via the Bluetooth of course) and mused that I would happily make a left turn and drive the 900+ miles in this truck and likely make it there before needing to rest.
Part of that random thought was borne of the suspension, while heavy enough to handle massive loads it was still composed enough to ride very well in town and on the freeway. Thinking back to the other trucks, this was no worse and in some cases, especially lower speed ones around town, seemed better in that aspect.
On the stretch of concrete freeway that caused the jiggles in the RAM and was relatively smooth in the Ford, the Chevy was somewhere in the middle, and on an absolute scale fell on the acceptable side whereas the RAM would have you really thinking about your actual need for this size of a truck if that particular stretch of road was a common traverse.
Tires of course matter too, and apples were not being compared to apples. Here, the truck was equipped with the Z71 package, which is Chevy-speak for off-road oriented. On top of that it was the Z71 Sport Edition (maybe that explains the red paint).
This means that along with the 18″ High Gloss Black Aluminum eight-lug wheels which were absolutely not my thing (but to each their own), also came equipped with Hankook DynaPro M/T2 tires in 275/70-18 sizing. M/T usually stands for Mud Terrain as it did on the Chevy’s Monroney sticker although the tires themselves said Maximum Traction.
Either way though, there were on the knobby side of All-Terrain tires and when setting off from a stop you could feel the treadblocks through the chassis which smoothed out quickly to be replaced with some noise, specifically that sort of howling noise we’ve all heard when driving next to a lifted off-road machine. To be fair it was very subdued inside, even at speed, but was the external acoustic element most readily notable from the inside.
It could have been better without it, but it was so well damped that it was no kind of deal breaker, I wouldn’t refuse the tires or the truck due to it. Perhaps it speaks more to the isolation of the cabin from the elements otherwise that it became noticeable. Even in corners on my little handling loop the truck acquitted itself quite well, certainly better than expected (as is becoming the norm with most trucks these days).
Heavy braking on a downhill with a corner looming as usual raised the pucker factor a bit as the weight becomes really apparent in a hurry but it all worked out yet again, the brakes are large, strong, and bite well, equipped with 14″ rotors on all four corners.
One thing I very much appreciated this somewhat snowy and slippery week was the fact that the drive selector buttons had not only 4Hi, 4Lo, 2Hi, but also 4Auto. I drove partly in 2WD, but then switched it to 4Auto as the roads were just mixed for most of the week, and being able to not think about that aspect is a huge boon.
4Auto allowed me to power out of deep snow, make U-turns and not concern myself (as much) with the pavement boundary and on the snowy highway be able to just forget about it.
The way this particular truck was equipped resulted in a GVWR of 10,650lbs, curb weight of 7,337 pounds, maximum payload of 3,313 pounds, conventional TWR of 12,000 pounds with max tongue weight of 1,200 pounds and a gooseneck TWR of 16,620 pounds with a max tongue weight of 2,490 pounds. I didn’t tow anything with it or load anything into the bed besides the snow that was in there all week.
Note that all of these particular numbers were specific to this actual truck, gleaned from the information sticker in the doorjamb, the actual maximum towing number for an HD2500 is over 18,000 pounds, but would require some different equipment choices including the diesel engine. (And a 1-ton could tow up to 35,500 pounds just for comparison when properly equipped)
I shouldn’t be shocked when a large truck that weighs 3.5 tons and can outrun many sports cars from not that long ago gets poor fuel economy but I suppose I’m spoiled by all of the relatively recent advances in fuel saving technology. Compared to even a decade ago this truck is quite good, but obviously not compared to a car whose weight can safely be put into the bed of this truck. I drove this truck a total of 276 miles which can be handily split into two segments.
First I drove a total of 86 miles around town and the hills to run errands, get a feel for the thing, and take pictures. At the end of that the display showed an average of 9.3mpg. The remainder of 190 miles was done in one day and consisted of mainly freeway driving to Denver and its environs with a little higher speed highway mileage mixed in. Much of the last fifty miles though was in very snowy conditions on the freeway that reduced speeds significantly as compared to normal. With all of that said and the first 86 miles included as well, the overall mileage figure for the week and 276 miles was 12.9mpg.
At the end of the snowy freeway drive, I checked the rolling figure which I had set for 25 miles (it can be set for much longer ones as well, an interesting feature), and that showed 17.0mpg. So steady motoring with light throttle at speeds of 50-60mph can in fact be very economical. Everyday errand running with lots of cold starts and some idling are murder on the pocketbook though. The tank holds 36 gallons, I did not need to refill it before returning it.
What’s it all run? Well, I’m once again astounded that a Heavy Duty truck isn’t really much costlier than a half-ton (and it explains why they sell quite well). This truck in CrewCab 4×4 LTZ trim starts at $53,700. That includes (in their listed order on the Monroney) a Teen Driver Mode, Auto-locking Rear Diff, Trailer Sway Control and Hill Start Assist, Trailer package with Hitch Guidance, and Trailer Brake Controller (besides Toyota, I believe all of this is not standard in most half-tons).
Continuing (deep breath and off we go…), there is also the 8″ Touchscreen with the tech mentioned earlier, OnStar and in-vehicle 4G LTE WiFi, Satellite Radio, 120V power outlets in bed and dashboard, various USB ports, Color Driver Info Center (between the gauges), Keyless Open and Start, Remote Start, Dual Zone HVAC, 10-Way Power Heated Seats, the folding Rear Seat with Storage Package, Memory for Driver’s Seat and Mirror, Heated Leather Steering Wheel (heater button is on the wheel, the best place for it), Rubberized Vinyl Floor Mats, Exterior Steps, 12 Tie-Downs, Power Adjustable Heated Trailering Mirrors, LED headlamps and fog lights, Rear Window Defogger and Rear Wheelhouse Liners.
To that in this case was added the LTZ Plus Package for $2,645 which included Front Ventilated Bucket Seats with Center Console, Rear Sliding Power Window, Universal Home Remote, Heated Second Row Outboard Seats, Power Up/Down Tailgate and Lock, LED bed lighting, Front/Rear Park Assist, Lane Change Alert with Blind Zone Alert, and Rear Cross Traffic Alert – so the big trucks when properly equipped can look out for other road users.
The Z71 Sport Edition Package for $1,470 added Black Badging and Trim as well as Body Color Bumpers, Door handles and Grille (yes I know the door handles are black instead, I don’t know why), the black wheels and M/T tires, as well as black assist steps.
The Gooseneck/Fifth Wheel package runs $1,340 for which you receive Stamped Bed Holes with Caps, 7-Pin Trailer Harness, ChevyTec Spray-On Bedliner, and a Bed View Camera feature so that you can keep an eye on the hitch while in motion if need be. Safety Package II includes Forward Collision Alert, Lane Departure Warning, Automatic Emergency Braking, Auto High Beams, Following Distance Indicator (a light that changes from green to orange if you follow too close), and the Safety Alert Seat – this package runs $645 although I strongly believe it should all just be standard.
On top of all that, the Z71 Off-Road Package for $325 includes Off-Road Suspension including Twin Tube Shocks (they are white and red, presumably Rancho), Hill Descent Control, Skid Plates and the all important badges on the fenders.
The Destination Charge is a further $1,595 but there is an LTZ Plus Package discount of $500, taken altogether resulting in a final price of $61,220 as shown and equipped.
I’ll admit this was one of the harder trucks to like, at least initially. I suppose I was guilty of judging it from the outside at least a little bit, perhaps more. Over time though, as limited as that was and without actually being able or needing to use it to its fullest capabilities, it proved to be a very good truck. While the design and some of the features weren’t what I myself would have chosen, what was under the skin absolutely impressed.
Were I to have a need for something like this right now and be able to utilize the existing best parts of it, I think I’d probably want to look at the GMC fraternal twin version, but a more basic Chevy version without the bling factor might fit the bill as well. It seems that the public has become more accepting of the new Chevy half-ton trucks over the last couple of years (I know I have), time will tell if the same will occur with the HD series.
What’s fairly certain though is that I doubt GM will rest and call it a day, likely there will be improvements made. A little plastic surgery could go a long way here, and likely be far easier to accomplish than a heart transplant or similar, which is thankfully not needed. Perhaps it’s a bit shallow of me, but the truck has a great personality as well as much capability, if it could just tone down the costume a little it’d be an all around winner.
A great big Thank You to Chevrolet for letting us sample one of their big boy (and girl) toys this week and supplying it with a tank of fuel to boot!
Pages: 1 2
The front end looks like three cars stacked in the crusher.
That’s the best description I’ve heard for these trucks.
Chevrolet assumed that there is no bottom to the amount of ugliness personal truck buyers will endure, but it turns out that 3/4-ton truck buyers have at least some taste. I can confirm Jim’s anecdotal observation of these being less commonplace than their Ford and RAM counterparts. Hopefully Chevrolet sees the error in their way in the next refresh.
Now if we could just get the RV industry to do the same thing…
Now if we could just get the RV industry to do the same thing…
Along with the obnoxious swirl and stripe stickers all over the RV…
Okay, so the front isn’t as attractive as it could be. Don’t argue that and no doubt we’ll see some disdain thrown that way.
However, the appearance is superficial. The drivetrain, on the other hand, sounds fantastic, something which GM can knock out of the park when so inclined. It takes much more to overhaul a drivetrain than it does some plastic bolted to the front. I would love to experience this drivetrain as GM powertrains in pickups have almost always been good in my experience. I can’t say that about Ford or Dodge.
While I have not driven any size of this current generation of GM pickup, I have ridden in a few. The biggest observation I have had in my limited time in them is the visibility doesn’t seem to be as abundant as it is in the Ford. However, I have not experienced the Dodge/Ram, nor have I been in any of them back-to-back.
It’s good to see GM giving you a 3/4 ton to test. It seems these are the unsung player in the pickup brigade and it’s good to see them showered with some attention.
The Ford trucks have, in my opinion, excellent, clean and functional styling. Ford doesn’t seem to see the need for gargoyles and fake air intakes. They are also the best seller by a large margin.
I’d be in the market for one of these if it had an aluminum body. That would save weight, get better gas mileage and end the threat of rust. Up here in the salt-belt it’s sad to see six year old GM pickup trucks with rust perforations and paint bubbling knowing the owners paid 60 grand originally. So I’ll be buying a Ford, just as capable with the 7.3 liter and no rust.
I’ve always thought of the GM integrated bumper-side (and now bed-side) steps as a brilliantly simple and easy solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Of course the REAL solution would be to build the whole truck a foot lower, but Marketing would probably scream blue murder if Engineering were to seriously propose that.
On HD trucks, the ride height does serve a functional purpose, though. GM has been making their HDs taller since at least 2001, just like Ford and Dodge/Ram.
Glad I have a 2000 HD at a reasonable height.
This rubber-tyred small locomotive is clearly not for me, though through CC, I have come to understand its role in the unique vastness and climate-variability and rural transport needs of the (somewhat) United States. (Here, all three brands of truck are being converted to RHD by a bit of the former Holden HSV, in numbers enough to cause long waiting lists even at $120K plus, and they have no role beyond selfish wankery and I cannot stand the sight of them, but that’s horses and courses and a digression anyway).
My ponder about this little train relates to a word used in the review regarding the red-cliffs-of-dozer front end styling, and it’s a word used a lot by many: aggressive, or aggression. (Also very clear the author didn’t approve of the look, noting in fact its awkwardness to many). I’m in the grumpy camp that doesn’t much understand modern styling whizzbangery, finding a great deal of it either ugly or aesthetically asinine, but I have long wondered why any vehicle should look aggressive? What has that got to do with driving, ever? Most of all, when one is driving 3.5 tons of one of the biggest units on the road, why has GM turned that threatening look up so loud? One minute this untrustworthy company is pouring forth the platitudes of electric green and corporate goodness – though not for trucks, natch – the next it puts upon the roads a giant whose weight is as a matter of physics a greater danger to others than something smaller and then dresses it for maximum aggression. And it’s not like old actual trucks of yore, whose sometimes scary faces were not styled but suffered from their general gigantism. This is a choice.
It’s just dispiriting.
Unfortunately aggression has seemingly become a large part of the american psyche so it’s likely part and parcel of that.
I do want to point out that GM was first to market (mild) hybrid pickup trucks and large SUVs over a decade ago (2005), an idea that unfortunately fizzled out around 2013. And Hummer is a GM brand that looks to be one of the most highly anticipated and EV pickup entries, coming soon, albeit as more of a lifestyle entry in the segment.
Old trucks had an intrinsically tough look, but in the manner of a bear in the woods foraging, where modern trucks have a look of a bear attacking. That kind of sums up the mentality of the kind of buyers who like the current look I think.
Beyond the aggression what I’m bothered by on the design is a peeve I have in a few other vehicles, which is what you intrinsically presume to be headlights are not actually headlights(the slits on top) and the things that look like auxiliary driving lights below are the actual headlights because the technology isn’t actually there to make the tiny would-be headlights effective.
I don’t care how many sensors and cameras it has, I wouldn’t want that high hood in front of me.
Or behind me at a distance that I can’t see the bumper! And these seem to be driven aggressively by a majority of their owners. Either a lack of patience for me being only 5 or 10mph over the speed limit or by lack of caring for what happens to me or them seems to be the cause.
These have replaced BMW drivers for incautious operation in my experience.
Your vehicle reviews are one of my favorite parts of this website because the backgorunds of the photographs feature many of my old haunts in Northern Colorado. On that note, sorry to see that the old feed store is closing. The seatback storage is also good to know about.
Looks like GM is finally giving Lexus some real competition – in the ugly front end market.
Not just that but the mirrors too, I just can’t get past them.
Is that front end copying Lexus or are they trying to evoke some of the early 60’s front end styling GM had?
I realize GM wanted to make their own design that wasn’t beholden to either Ford or Ram, but they look like the type of thing you’d see on a cutaway van motorhome chassis.
They do look more sensible IRL than in pictures, though. I just saw my first Sierra 1500 with the towing mirrors on, and they didn’t look too out of place.
If this has a GVWR over 10K, shouldn’t it be labeled as a 3500/Class 3 truck? I know Ford has been offering a similar package on the F-250 (10,6-10,800) since last year, and I’m not sure what the point is when one-ton SRWs already exist.
I don’t understand it either but over the years there have been a number of times, going back many years where the various mfgs have offered “payload packages” that give you the class 3 truck with the class 2 badge. Not sure why you just wouldn’t order it with the 3 badge.
I’m unaware of any such packages prior to just a few years ago. But I’ve definitely seen the opposite: until the ’99 Super Duty, many 350/3500 trucks had a GVWR of 9900 lbs., putting them in Class 2.
It was back during the great slide in Camper boom where the Camper Special packages for some 20/200/250 gave GVWs as high or higher than the base 30/300/350.
Oh, OK. I’ve seen those, but to my knowledge, they were all still under 10K.
Yes they were still under 10K but so were the 30/300/350 trucks.
But you had said there were vehicles that gave you “the class 3 truck with the class 2 badge”, which would mean a vehicle over 10K.
Good review on what looks to be a fundamentally solid truck. An obedient and smooth big V8 running through a transmission with six (not 10) reasonably spaced gears sounds like a winner to me.
While still not particularly attractive, this one with the body colored grille and bumper in red looks better than the chrome-faced luxo versions or the base grey plastic. None of the 3/4 and full ton pickups are remotely good looking and you’re ostensibly buying a 2500 class truck for its work capabilities, so I wouldn’t be caring much either way.
“Ford is more similar to GM as far as plastics and switchgear go, i.e. they aren’t really much better in an absolute sense”
I agree. Complaints about interior quality in this generation of Silverado are peculiar considering the F-series deserves similar complaints but rarely receives them. Someone could write a full page essay on the functional and perceived quality shortcomings of the current F-series interior, from materials to switchgear quality and design, to the lap belt covering up the seat recline lever. It’s a terrible interior.
Agreed, I think the front looks just fine.
Funny thing about the latest generation of Chevy trucks is that the *least* obnoxious version of the front-end design can be found on the lowest spec work truck trim.
the self-imposed issue of the high bedsides – which are probably a result of demand to be able to carry greater volume due to the greater weight capacity over the old days. There’s no point in being able to carry over 3000 pounds of gravel or blocks in the bed if it won’t actually fit in the bed.
I don’t think that’s the reason. It’s because the top of the bed needs to line up with the belt line of the cab, otherwise it would look terrible if the bed were lower than that.
My anecdotal experience is that these HD pickups invariably haul trailers to haul loads, hence the overwhelming preponderance of short bed versions. I se them in two most common settings: used for work to haul a work-related trailer of some kind or another, or used for driving to work and then haul a big toyboy trailer on the weekends. That’s real common here, to haul a big combination trailer that hauls ATVs and provided living space for weekends at our endless expanses of dunes on the coast that are open to ATVs.
“It’s because the top of the bed needs to line up with the belt line of the cab, otherwise it would look terrible if the bed were lower than that.”
You got me thinking – I agree, but once upon a time such a look was common. I imagine that the Cameo/Styleside/Sweptline look changed our collective idea of what a pickup truck’s profile should look like.
Quite true, and good observation. The cabs were still very high, and a higher bed would have looked odd, never mind harder to load from the side.
In the case of the Cameo Carrier, it actually didn’t go up to the beltline (as typically defined), but that shoulder from the front fender that continued through the door made it the obvious location.
Even the 1960 Chevy pickup still had a bit of a step down from the true beltline:
It wouldn’t be until 1961 when Ford and Dodge finally had cabs low enough to have the beltline line up with the tops of the bed.
And they’re not all used for “pickup truck” jobs either! Sometime in the mid-2000s most of the major commercial bakeries did the “independent contractor” thing with their route drivers, and 250(0) pickups towing 15-20′ box trailers replaced the traditional step-van bread truck. Usually these are mid-trim crewcab shortbeds since the whole point is to do double duty with a single, business-expense-deductible car payment.
I’m rather surprised that there’s no comments about the asymmetrical badging on the sides of this truck. I found it quite embarrassing for GM, especially having been approved for the press pool. Hardly a DS, but pretty pathetic.
You mentioned an early opinion that only sports cars and fire trucks should be bright red, but I think an American pickup belongs in this category also. Has there ever been a year since at least WWII when every single American pickup sold did not offer red as one of the color choices? With this history, I think this bright red Chevy truck is just what it is supposed to be.
You describe a truck that is pretty nice to drive. As the guy who would daily drive a nice 61 Plymouth or 58 Studebaker if either came my way, I am not going to throw stones at its looks. If it drives right, I’m in.
I am just happy to see Chevrolet proudly spelling its full name out on its vehicles again.
I think the offering of red may be the Nebraska effect. It seems like fully half of all trucks in Nebraska are red, due to the fact that it’s the color of the only football team in the state. 🙂 Ohio and Oklahoma may contribute to that too I suppose. Red trucks are far less plentiful here in Colorado, except there is one builder that has used the red Chevy’s across his operation for years.
It was quite nice to drive and yes the spelled out grille lettering is one of my favorite features (spelled out on back too), I actually prefer the looks of the base white work model 1500 with the black grille and knockout lettering.
Maybe living in the land of old red barns, Indiana University and International Harvester farm equipment has traditionally made red pickups popular here.
Agreed on red pickups. In the Boston area they are almost always – what else? – black. And then plenty of fleet white. My search for a truck started with “red” and it took me a while but I finally found one.
I have nothing against black cars and in fact I own one now, but do they ALL have to be black?
I live in Southern Ontario and a local general contractor has all red trucks. He built our house (did a great job), so I got to know him quite well. He told me he always buys his trucks used and has no problem finding red ones although not always the same brand. It surprised me because there are not a lot of red trucks in the area.
His personal truck is just as you describe, it is a 3/4 ton crew cab which he uses to tow his large trailer on weekends.
“My anecdotal experience is that these HD pickups invariably haul trailers to haul loads, hence the overwhelming preponderance of short bed versions.”
My (much, much lesser) anecdotal experience agrees. At least, for trucks made in the past 20 years or so, since crew cab/6.5’s went away in the ’80s and didn’t come back until the late ’90s. Building materials have gotten so long that even an 8′ bed (or 9′ like the old one-tons) isn’t long enough, so you pretty much have to go with a gooseneck. And a gooseneck doesn’t care if your bed is 8′ or 6.5′, so you might as well get the shorter one just for ease of parking.
The compartment in the seat for smuggling contraband is interesting, but I have to wonder how it affects the comfort of the seat having that section separate rather than a single piece. Still it looks large enough to store a tow strap, tie downs, gloves ect.
It is surprising that it has taken someone this long to put steps in the side of the bed like that. There used to be aftermarket units available. However I still prefer a full running board or step rail. My old F350 had the wheel well to wheel well diamond plate running boards and that puts them down at a more useful height and allows for more foot room. Ford now offers bed side step bars as an option but I still don’t see many trucks with them.
The bumper step is another good idea, but It would be nice if there was a little more room on the top of the bumper especially in the corner. Useful when stepping over the tail gate to get in the bed.
Too bad about the face though, the profile looks pretty good but that grille makes many Toyotas look good.
I’m not a big fan of the bumper step. To me it spoils the lines along the bottom. An answer to a question no one asked for or needed since forever? When folks slip off of the step and break an ankle GM will lose millions in settlements. I see a big rust hole there in 6 years.
The Avalanche debuted almost 20 years ago (September ’01) with the bumper step (and only on those with the polarizing gray cladding), then it went away at the end of the first gen and didn’t return until the 2014 Silverado. So far, I’ve not seen any of either with rust around the bumper. But on the Avalanche, it may be covered up by the cladding.
Test that finger protection system of the tailgate with a soft twig, pretzel or Twizzler before you trust it! How much pressure will the sensor react to when the kid’s fingers are at their natural height at the base of the gate while Dad’s attention is distracted by the dog?
What happens when you need to close the gate against a load of firewood that fit with some shoving, repeated slamming and pushing like we used to? How long before the gears (undoubtedly carbon fiber or plastic) wear or break? These are fragile solutions to fix an artificial problem that shouldn’t have been created.
These brodozers will always have something wrong with them by the third owner, who will undoubtedly be charging the last repair on a card with a fresh limit extension while stubbornly insisting nothing ever breaks and the ‘other’ trucks are junk.
“stubbornly insisting nothing ever breaks and the ‘other’ trucks are junk.”
Having worked in dealer service at both GM and Chrysler, my direct personal experience that it is usually the first owner who starts making off-warranty repairs. You are right on the money, literally.
The men who buy trucks are intensely loyal. When their PRD breaks they can’t tell their buddies because it will make them look less manly. A good example was a short time back on a COAL for an F-150. Said truck blew out the transmission right out of warranty and the owner went out and bought another one of the same brand. There is no need make a higher quality vehicle.
The car makers know this and they make very nice profits from it because the guys will keep on buying them.
An old friend of mine is a finance manager at a Ford store in Tulsa. He tells me it is rare for a truck to be paid off before it is traded.
I bought Ford stock at $5 last March. It’s worth $12 today and pays a 5% dividend. I am getting more like 12% so I say keep makin’ those trucks just the way Ford always has!
I would have to wonder about the quality of a vehicle which obviously has the issue of wrong emblems on it. Were all the employees this slapdash? What about the QC inspectors?
Ocean have been crossed in smaller vessels. At 12 mpg, this vehicle isn’t using that much less fuel than a ship anyway.
That said, I wonder if there is a limit to how “badass” a vehicle can be.
Reminds of the late 1970s, when I would ride my bike to the local Dodge-Chrysler-Plymouth dealer to check out the new cars. Some F-body compacts were an Aspen on one side, and a Volare on the other.
That fuel economy is abysmal for a modern machine. My 98 Jeep ZJ with a 5.2L, full time 4WD, and an ancient 4 speed get 12 city and 17 highway. That being said some of my friends who own giant half tons with gas V8s allege they can get into the 20s.
A Prius gets 50mpg.
This truck weighs literally twice what your G.Cherokee weighs and has twice the power. What kind of mileage does your Jeep get when you tow a 12,000 pound trailer with the normal hitch?
“Bold and expressive.” Nah. Just FUGLY. These otherwise great HD trucks are ruined by some of the worst exterior styling on any truck in modern history. The design team should have been fired over their horrendous work, plus whoever approved it for production.
While the most loyal Chevy truck buyers may not care, I’d suspect these trucks are like wolfsbane to most other potential “conquers.” Understandably GM is rushing out a re-design for for MY 2022.