Yay! GM to introduce 2 new pickups while ford makes only one.

[Scalded Dog]

From the Dallas Glazette, December 20, 2018:

Dallas, TX- Police are looking for a band of GM truck- driving drug addicts, after another F-150 was found today in a suburban driveway, with nothing but leather seat covers and a steering wheel remaining. The aluminum panels comprising the body, the aluminum frame, and the wheels were taken, and the copper wiring and tubing were taken by roving recyclers, who find the recyclable materials too tempting to pass up. Glass recyclers apparently struck immediately after the strip had been performed. Even the newspapers used to upholster the seats had been taken by recyclers.

It is estimated that since mid- 2015, the average recycle value for an F-150 has risen to nearly $200. Most thieves who recycle aluminum Fords drive around in heavy- duty, more- handsome, and less recyclable Chevrolet Silverados.

Ford has discontinued plans for the gold framed luxury edition.

[Rhyder]

Originally Posted by shaffe

My family has had both trucks, silverado and f series and my honest opinion is the ford trucks are just better than the gm. My dad grew up a die hard gm guy, and we had three or four silverados ranging from 1500s to 3500s. Then one day dad went and test drove a ford in 2004 and it was just all around a better truck.

Looks wise tho, I think the Sierra is the best looking truck on the road.

From what I have heard on ecoboost mpg s when just driving around town or on the highway, it's much better than the v8 but the gas mileage suffers when towing.

I havent seen the new one, but as of last year I think the Titan has them beat in the looks department....but if im buying a truck again, its the F150 unless something drastic changes.

[Bob Cosby]

Originally Posted by big hammer

strange. around here the ecoboosts are not good. the 5.0's are doing better on fuel. even the local dealer isn't recommending them.

If you say so.

and my 6.2 gm is better on fuel than my 5.3 was.

For 2012...

The 5.3 is rated at 15/21/17.
The 6.2 is rated at 13/18/14.

Pretty significant difference in ratings for your 6.2 to do better than your 5.3....assuming they were about the same year truck. However, if you had say a 2005 5.3, that one is rated at 14/19/16....very similar to a 2012 6.2. Then again, kinda silly to compare a 2005 5.3 to a 2012 6.2, but I digress.

Source: www.fueleconomy.gov

[PalmerGA]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

So they should just stop trying? That's absolutely ridiculous.

If GM followed that logic, they should discontinue the Malibu, because the Camry is the top selling midsize. They should discontinue the Cruze, because the Corolla is the top selling compact.

Hell, they should have discontinued Camaro for good long ago in that case. Just a waste of time and money, right?

Take it easy now... that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps if you put all the GM pickup sales combined (Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, I think that covers it) they would outsell the F-150, and bully for them - I'm all for it. But no single badge (Silverado, Sierra, and whatever that ugly Cadillac is called) is going to even come close to overtaking the F-150. Period. So I'm just saying I think they would be wise to continue improving what they have. Two "new trucks" are only going to reduce sales on the flagship pickups, making them fall even farther behind the F-150.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

Take it easy now... that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps if you put all the GM pickup sales combined (Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, I think that covers it) they would outsell the F-150, and bully for them - I'm all for it. But no single badge (Silverado, Sierra, and whatever that ugly Cadillac is called) is going to even come close to overtaking the F-150. Period. So I'm just saying I think they would be wise to continue improving what they have. Two "new trucks" are only going to reduce sales on the flagship pickups, making them fall even farther behind the F-150.

GM already currently has two truck models for sale, the GMT-900s and the GMT-355s. They're doing exactly what you want, improving what they already have. The Colorado/Canyon twins sold fairly well for the first few model years right alongside the GMT-800s and later the GMT-900s, then sales tapered off rapidly as GM refused to make any major updates.

Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck. I don't see why GM should cede the entire midsize truck market to Toyota just because they have the top selling midsize truck.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by mickss

I suspect that your conclusions are based more on political opinion regarding Insurance and Repair ("Aluminum is not only more expensive than steel, but harder for car manufacturers to mold into auto body parts, and difficult to repair which may lead to higher insurance premiums." http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/...e3-e1bb536b817) then they are based on real world realities.

Actually, I based my conclusions on reading the original article and seeing the aluminum was going to add $1600 to the cost of the F-150 and wondering why it costs so much more since I remembered from school that Al was more abundant in the crust of the Earth then Fe, so I did some research into the mining and refining of each, and looked into various body shop references regarding the repai costs, and then made my own conclusions.

However, if you ONLY want to deal in "real world realities" then try this really simple one on for size:

If Aluminum was as cheap and easy to use as steel then why aren't cars made from more aluminum already? Why weren't cars ALWAYS made from aluminum?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Scalded Dog

From the Dallas Glazette, December 20, 2018:

Dallas, TX- Police are looking for a band of GM truck- driving drug addicts, after another F-150 was found today in a suburban driveway, with nothing but leather seat covers and a steering wheel remaining. The aluminum panels comprising the body, the aluminum frame, and the wheels were taken, and the copper wiring and tubing were taken by roving recyclers, who find the recyclable materials too tempting to pass up. Glass recyclers apparently struck immediately after the strip had been performed. Even the newspapers used to upholster the seats had been taken by recyclers.

It is estimated that since mid- 2015, the average recycle value for an F-150 has risen to nearly $200. Most thieves who recycle aluminum Fords drive around in heavy- duty, more- handsome, and less recyclable Chevrolet Silverados.

Ford has discontinued plans for the gold framed luxury edition.

AWESOME. Have not laughed like this in a while.

[MistyBlu10]

no avalanche from ford

[FenwickHockey65]

Avalanche is dead after this model year.

[mickss]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

However, if you ONLY want to deal in "real world realities" then try this really simple one on for size:

If Aluminum was as cheap and easy to use as steel then why aren't cars made from more aluminum already? Why weren't cars ALWAYS made from aluminum?

It`s a simple enough question to answer. Until recently the use of steel was necessary for making cars meet safety concerns for passenger safe crush zones in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety`s test for head on and offset crash testing. But with the advancement in hydroforming technology for future automobile production those requirements can be met or exceeded as the technology has advanced. Before the use of hydroforming it was difficult to shape aluminum into complex shapes for automotive designers, that problem is no longer an issue. Hydroforming using Aluminum will be the process used for making future automotive parts as opposed to the traditional stamped die process currently being used. You can keep contending that aluminum is cost prohibitive but the fact that it can be recycled more cheaply and easily will make that argument a mute point of contention as the availability of aluminum rises by mining and recycling the price will decrease. Simple enough?

[PalmerGA]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

GM already currently has two truck models for sale, the GMT-900s and the GMT-355s. They're doing exactly what you want, improving what they already have. The Colorado/Canyon twins sold fairly well for the first few model years right alongside the GMT-800s and later the GMT-900s, then sales tapered off rapidly as GM refused to make any major updates.

Not everyone wants or needs a full size truck. I don't see why GM should cede the entire midsize truck market to Toyota just because they have the top selling midsize truck.

If you go to the General Mototrs site and look up available pickups for 2012, you will find 9 different base models offered by Chevy and GMC (apparently the Cadillac fiasco was discontinued - smart move).


If you go to the Ford Motor Company site and look up available pickups for 2012, you will find 3 different base models.

Offering more choices and doing many things pretty well is nice, but sometimes it's better to just do a few things very very well. I understand your points above but you obviously don't (or won't) try to understad mine as anything other than an attack on GM... so let's just agree to disagree.

[Scrappy Doo]

Ford makes a better half-ton, plain and simple.

I would guess that the new full size chevy/gmc will be better than the f150, and then in a year or 2 the f150 will be better etc....

hard to speculate on all the what-ifs until the new chevy/gmc comes out. Then you can really see for yourself the pros and cons.

[Christiancoach]

If GM is going to try and sell a mid/small size truck, they better make it a winner! IMHO GM needs to quit watering down everything they sell. Grow a pair! Do something different! Do something unexpected! Every couple of years they do an amazing concept car, but by the time is reaches the consumer, plain jane!

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by Bob Cosby

If you say so.



For 2012...

The 5.3 is rated at 15/21/17.
The 6.2 is rated at 13/18/14.

Pretty significant difference in ratings for your 6.2 to do better than your 5.3....assuming they were about the same year truck. However, if you had say a 2005 5.3, that one is rated at 14/19/16....very similar to a 2012 6.2. Then again, kinda silly to compare a 2005 5.3 to a 2012 6.2, but I digress.

Source: www.fueleconomy.gov

my 5.3 i was comparing it to was an 09. 5.3 6 speed. if you think you can go by claimed mpg that's pretty funny. in canada my 5.3 was rated for 29 mpg highway. you think it got that? no. it got 20-21 most times. my 6.2 is rated for 26 mpg but it has been consistantly getting at least 22 mpg on the highway. very pleased with it. and WAY more power. have even got over 23.5 mpg a couple times.

i still have a 2010 5.3 but it's just hard on fuel. i have bigger than stock tires on it though so i can't blame the truck too much.