By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
You hit the nail on the head: No 4th door!
Any GM planner who approved that 3-door idea should be canned. Of all the full-size '99 truck companies (Ford, Dodge and Toyota), only GM will be without a 4th door on their "new" extended cabs. Talk about dumb!
Bob
I couldn't post this on the C/D board because of who told me, but I'll do it here.
One of C/D's editors and I were emailing back and forth about the 99 Silv/Sierra test in the July issue. I had mentioned why none of the major magazine reports had faulted GM for lack of a fourth door, and he told me that a GM staffer said offthereord, they guessed wrong. They thought the Dodge would fail, and all they had to do was match Ford in making the third door standard. The "official" reason for the 99s being a 3 door is to "allow additional testing time for the structural difference of the four door body".
hahahaha
And you wonder why GM has problems?
Makes you also wonder about those reports. I've had the same feeling about the articles I've read. If they mention the lack of a 4th door at all, it's only mentioned in passing - as if were no big deal. None of the articles that I've read has taken GM to task on this missing feature.
Bob
i read a short review in popular mechanics that summed up what a lot of people have said around here. the overall package is better in everyway than the truck it replaces, but the styling wasn't dramatic enough to impress them. it was too much the same. one writers opinion.
The new GM pickups do have impressive HP/torque numbers. However, all that HP/torque is quoted at high rpms. I'd like to see a graph showing how that power is distributed. I suspect the power at low rpm has suffered somewhat at the expense of high rpm power. If that is the case, then gas mileage will suffer because you will have to rev the engines to get the power needed.
Bob
If you don't want a 4th door, then 3 doors is no big deal. I think most people, once they see the advantage of a 4th door - will want it. Remember what happened to the 3-door Ford Windstar sales when Chrysler introduced their new mini-van with 4 doors? They disappeared!
>>Is it AFU or what?<< What does that mean?
If you're talking about the '99 1500 and 2500LD, then you're not talking about a Vortec 5700? The replacement for that engine is the Vortec 5300.
Bob
$28,600 seems like it might be MSRP. You may not be able to do much better since supply is probably low because of the strike. $28,600 was what I was going to pay for a 99 Superduty 1 ton 4x4 V-10 loaded with leather. That is quite a bit more truck for the money. I changed my order to a dually and tossed in the camper package and trailer mirrors, so my new price is a tad over $30,000. Under normal circumstance, I'd say you should be able to get a better price. But these are far from normal times for GM.
If you have ordered one of the new 99s, sit back, pop a cold one, and relax - and don't sell your current wheels any time soon - you'll probably go through another oil change before you see the new 99s at this rate.
If both sides are as dug in as they appear to be, it may be several oil changes before we see the new GM pickup. As a matter of fact, maybe they should just hold off till the spring ...call the new trucks 2000 models, and pop that 4th door on the extended cab that they've promised for 2000! ...Then you won't have to put up with any more with my [non-permissible content removed]'n about that lack of a 4th door!
Bob
except for gas mileage. the 350 owners i know are getting 2-3 mpg better than the 360 owners i know, though most don't complain. but i don't think dodge's current 5.9 will ever get close to the 15/20 mpg the 5.3 is expected to get.
my question is, what if you thrown in chevy's 6.0?
Bob
You must be talking about the 99 "Classic" Chevy. This is the same truck as the current generation and will be sold along-side the "99 Silverado" for all of next year. These are two TOTALLY different trucks. (although some might argue that they look too much alike.) If you're interested in the older body style I would look for a 98 or even a 97 to get the best deal possible. (It is the same truck after all.)
alchavez
Of course, all bets will be off when the Chrysler OHC 5.5 debuts for 2000... Chrysler has every intention of putting out the grunt in this engine to keep the former 360 owners happy.
The 6.0 is available only in the 2500, so that would go against the F250LD, with no comparable Dodge (the Ram 2500LD was dropped several years ago).
if you want mpg, that's what the Cummins is for.
I don't think the $3,000+ engine premium and 20 cents per gallon deisel premium can be made up for by increased gas mileage of the Cummins.
alchavez
Depends on your location as to whether any diesel is worth the price. Here in north NJ, I can get diesel for less than regular unleaded. I'll have the purchase price of the engine made up before the loan is paid off.
I have read many of the responses and have to add my major concern in buying a new chevy
k-1500. I like all the improvements that chevy has made to the new truck,escpecially in the towing areas such as stronger rear gears and higher pump pressure in the trans.I,ll be towing a
trailer weighing between 5-6 k lbs.
My concern is that the new truck is built by GM. Being an x-GM worker I have seen a lot of
poor quality control slide through the cracks.I,m
wondering how long it will take to get all this nice new technology working right in the real world.Intoducing a new truck in the middle of a serious labor strike only makes matters worse.
I hope that GM can straighten out its labor problems,and that the people who are on the assembly line can focus on building a quality
product.If all comes together, GM will have a
strong force to compete with Ford and Dodge.
I currently own 2 chevys and I hope my 3rd
will be a new silverado, one that will last for many years.
You're absolutely right. If the UAW feels they've gotten the short end of the agreement (whenever that occurs), they won't be happy campers. The last thing I would want to own is a new truck or car put together by pissed-off workers.
Bob
These are DISCUSSION conferences, not fan clubs. If all you want to see is happy, positive comments, go to Chevy's website. If there are things wrong with the execution of a new vehicle, we should certainly point them out. Rather than chastise us, why not talk to a dealer or manufacturer representative and ask, "Why DOES the Chevy only have three doors? Why DOES the Chevy has the weakest diesel? Why DO the gas engines rev so high?" If you pay close attention, these are things that would actually make the rest of us consider _buying_ one!
Positive Points of the new Chevy/GMC:
1. Standard 4-wheel anti-lock brakes
2. First pickup with full-time 4WD capability
3. Huge extended cab
4. Well laid out interior and dash
Negative points of the new Chevy/GMC:
1. Everything KC listed
2. Huge extended cab is too close to a crew cab in size
3. Bland styling
4. GMC's attempt to make it an "up market" vehicle from the Chevy failed
Bob
Do you work for the Kleenex company? Boy, there is alot of crying going on! I OWN six Chevy's alonf with other Fords and Dodges for our firm. I was a Chevy fan a few years back, until I discovered the quality of Ford's trucks. I won't buy any product simply for its name anymore.
Chevy has some work to do if it wants to keep repeat buyers like myself. I have crews and I want Four doors! Crew cabs are nice but lend themselves to high in the sticker game. I have two but these are getting old.
I started a topic at 204 to get a lively discussion on the big three because of guys like Drew.
Bob,
Who cares about 0-60? These are trucks---not corvettes! Am I the only guy at this site that actually uses my trucks for their intention? I find myself listening to lots of whining about horsepower ratings and speed checks!
Hey! I throw bundles of shingles and a compressor in every truck. Ladders on top and guys in the cab. Staples are evrywhere unless it's the black-topper. All debris goes in these bad-boys since we only have one Mack-dump.
Am I alone in ACTUAL use of these vehichles? I hear alot about towing but this must be a smoke screen. I see SOME guys towing boats( which are light) but most have empty beds driving to desk-jobs.
In all honesty, if my buisness wasn't roofing, I wouldn't own a big truck. Don't get me wrong, any truck is better than a SUV but I wish I saw more guys actually using them.
0-60 time, in my opinion, is actually a useful # even though it isn't a 'vette. can you think of any other way that equally tests the full range of power of a truck through the entire RPM range, through every single one of the gears in its tranny. there isn't. unless there was some standard sled that weight 5000 lbs that they hooked up every single truck ever produced up to and did a tractor pull. i don't think so. since most trucks that are compared with that number are about the same weight, 0-60 gives you an overall view of how one powertrain performs next to another. what if a Z71 with a 5.3 can do 0-60 in 8.2 secs, and a ford 4x4 does it in 9.5 secs. (not picking on ford in particular) these two trucks weigh close to the 5000 lb range when empty. the z71 setup, which was much faster, pulled the same load as the ford did, and did at a higher rate of speed with the throttle down. that means the engine and powertrain set did the same amount of worker easier than the ford could do it. that means when it comes to everyday work, like putting 6 guys in the cab, 1000 lbs in the back, even though you're not smoking tires to get where you are going, you are not putting you foot into it as much to get everything going as the you do with the ford. your truck has a higher threshold of load it can dish out, or in another view, do the same amount of work with less fuel. did you know 0-60 times are actually a better measure of torque than they are horsepower. the relative amount of time you spend in the lower rpm range is much greater than the time you spend in the upper rpms, where horsepower is defined at.
kcram, had to ask, what makes you say chevy's engines rev so high. the engines that have been out for the past 3 years have been able to rev up to 5200, and the throttle body motors since 1987 have all revved up to 4800 if you keep your foot on it. i've never heard chevy having anykind of engine failure prob. you never really see those rpms unless you are trying to merge on a freeway uphill. hell, when passing someone pulling a boat, my truck will upshift into overdrive and keep on going. i urge everyone to not look at the hp @ whatever rpm, and look more at the torque curve, i think i've said this enough. does ford and dodge's motors not go over 4500? remember, diesels like yours are entirely different monsters and play by different rules, and rpm range should not be compared back and forth.
Drew,
I for one can't wait for the new Silverado's to come ( I own a hot-rodded 71 chevy stepside that gets a compliment EVERY time I take it out of the garage) but it sure is nice to have some place to voice my gripes and listen to those of others.
Heck, I very much value the opinions of kcram, brutus, rocles, and cdean. They make me think about my brand loyalty and even make me open my mind to other possibilities. This, I think, will make me a much better shopper when it comes to ploping my hard earned $30 Grand!
You made my point without realizing it. There's no need to have an engine with a hp peak at 5000, because 99% of the time, you'll never get there. Why not have the power and torque where you will use it? Even with a gasoline engine, there's no reason to have a toque peak at 4000 rpm. Tell me that I will get max torque in the 1500-3000 rpm range where my driving will be. I have seen the torque curves of the new 5.3, and they are relatively flat, but the're still no reason for them to go as high as they do. Despite your comment about ignoring hp@rpm, the improved horsepower figure _is_ all the way at 5200 - and only 315 lb-ft in what is replacing the 350? That's a little light for the "larger" V8, in my opinion. These engine seem to be designed to entice the driver moving from a car who is used to keeping it in gear to a higher rpm, not the hard-core truckers who will only see redline in granny-gear.
I'll admit it, my diesel crewcab is empty (cab and bed) most of the time. I use it as a commuter vehicle to a desk job. I love the way it rides, but I wouldn't drive it if I didn't also tow and haul long distances (occasionally) and locally (more often, but still rarely enough).
The main source of my truck experience (I'm still drooling, dreaming, and choosing my first pick-em-up truck) has been large rental moving vans for moving gymnastic equipment to temporary meet sites two or three times a year.
The Point: Those diesel rigs are very much "submit it in writing and I will get back to you" when I exercise the throttle peddle. It takes getting used to.
I am very interested in all the related practical experiences of others who have compared the real world traffic experiences. The power to pull a trailer or load over Donner Summit without dropping below 50mph is different from the power to get started and through the intersection before the light changes back to red.
So... Is it apples, oranges, or fruit salad? GM, Ford, or Dodge; the measurements should apply.
i see you and i are focusing on different things. potato, potahto, here is my point.
the max horsepower is not put at that rpm just to make it rev at that rpm. it is put there so that you have more power over the entire engine range. you can make an engine max at any rpm you want to. i don't understand what you mean when you say, no reason for them to go as high as they do. they don't redline any different than a ford or dodge. the fact that the max rpm is where it is is basically statistical to me.
the best way i can exemplify my point is this. the engine that the 5.3 replaces, the 350, latest version peaked at 2800 rpm. make you happy? well thats fine, but this engine would rev up to 5200 if you held it down, no different than the 5.3. ITS NOT THE MAX HP @ RPM, ITS THE OVERALL CURVE THAT THE ENGINEERS DESIGNED FOR. the overall curve is fatter and flatter than before, giving it more power and efficiency. the fact that the hp peak ended up at that rpm, is a result of that accomplishment(making a fatter torque curve). (remember my post a while back about how hp can be deceiveing because of the rpm dependence?)
the end result--
when you're in high demand instance, passing someone, maybe while pulling, and you downshift, and the engine revs up about 3000+, --YOU STILL HAVE 270 HP, ALL THE WAY UP THE GAGE. meanwhile, your ford and dodge gas motors, including your cummins and powerstrokes, are running out of breath at the upper end, because their hps are falling fast.
i think you also contradicted yourself when you said that the engine was a little light for the larger v8. wasn't it you that said a while back that maybe GM was on to something by putting a smaller bore engine in the light duty, and a standard larger bore engine in the heavy dutys (unlike the 5.4 base in the ford). if you didn't say that, i'm sorry, i thought it was you.
i argue that the 5.3 is just right for a 1/2 ton. i would say that my 350 is too much motor most of the time, except when i'm pulling a rig. a v-6 would get me down the road a lot cheaper. the 350 is lot of motor for a half ton, just like the 360 is lot of motor for the dodge half tons. power in excess, look at their accelerations.
yet, compared to the 350, the 5.3
- is only short 15 ftlb
- is in excess of 20 hp
- should get about 3 mpg better.
the fact that the torque is no less, and in a broader band, says this engine will pull better than the 350, and get better economy.
and if you're really going to work this thing on a daily basis, go and get the badboy 6.0.
looks to me, as if chevy has put something out there for the average truck buyer who pulls only occaisionally, the and the person who needs a truck to put out strong everyday it runs. all yall are convinced this is a car. (doesn't the ford ride the most like a car, look the most like a car and have the least power?)
i hope you can see the angle i coming from kcram. i think you and i are focusing on different angles of the story. for example i can stress all kinds, of reasons not to buy dodge, if i look at it the right way (worst ergonomics, worst efficiency of gas motors, roughest ride and handling, etc.) not a put down, just an example
:-)
cdean
Yes, I did say that about the difference between the 5.3 and the 6.0, but that was in relation to the heavier trucks (25s and 35s). The 5.3 (and the Ford 5.4) have no business in 3/4 and 1 ton trucks.
As for the torque curves - I'm no stranger to them, and above you illustrated my point. You said in a situation where you are downshifting to pass or climb, your engine will get to about 3000 or so. Most gasoline truck engines have their hp peak in the high 3s to low 4s - so when I make that downshift, I'm likely going to have more power at 3000 with an engine that maxes at say 3800rpm than an engine that is climbing to reach a power peak of 5200. The torque curve may be flat, but the horsepower is the slope of the torque curve and thus the power is way lower than you might expect.
The diesel produces power on a continuous basis, and shouldn't be compared. I can run my Cummins at redline in overdrive all day long and it will be happy as a clam doing it. Name one gasoline truck engine that can REACH redline in overdrive.
My point is this. If you know that the 85th percentile of truck owners will almost never go past 3500 rpm, why not make the engine powerful and efficient where it will be used? The 5.3 may have 20 more horses than the 350, but who will be driving at 5200 rpm to get those extra ponies? The 350 also clearly did better at _low_end_ torque, down in the rpms where you will use them. I would safely guess that on a comparative basis, the hp and torque of these two engines are probably identical through 3500 rpm. We'll also see how the mpgs fare once real-world numbers are available - the Ford 4.6 was supposed to do so much better than the 302 it replaced, but in most cases, it did as bad or worse in fuel consumption.
It's my pair of pennies that a truck engine (gas or diesel) should have its power down low. Proper gearing will do the rest.
We agree to disagree
i see your angle on putting the power in the useable range. the only thing i can say is---its there! the 5200 rpm hp is a function of the rpms and the fact that the torque is still so high at high rpms. no other motors can maintain torque at those numbers, thus their hps, fall at some happy medium between high rpms and the lower torque numbers. statistics
oh, and i think my 350 would redline in OD if the speed limiter didn't kick it out at 3200. those rpms in overdrive, are NASCAR speed, not truck speed. it would be easy if my engine only redlined at 3000!
You missed my point: I actually use these trucks for their intention. I can NOT purchase ANY truck for only it's impressive HP ratings. I told my partner this about looks when the new Rams arrived in 94. He didn't listen--and I didn't stop him from buying two. They are now the dogs of the fleet in reference to repair bills.
Not everything is 0-60 at the drag strip. I need a truck that can handle a work day many years to come. Ford enlightened me a few years back. Yeah, my three 95 Chevys roar like lions with a load---they also break down more often.
For me, I don't want speed. I want work-horses. Those Tritons aren't exactly four-bangers like the old 88 S-10 we had! I haven't seen any reason to buy other than Ford at the moment. I'm waiting for Dodge and Chevy to give me real news-breakers.
Alchevez, I appreciate the nod--thanks. You enlighten us as well.
The Ford cabs were always intended to have the additional doors, so they are structurally sound. The 97 F150/250 had three doors on the drawing board, so the structural improvements were always there; adding the 4th door was nothing. The 99 F250SD/350SD were designed as four door trucks. The Dodge went from 2 to 4, so they designed a balanced cab when they created the Quad. GM, on the other hand, took a 1988 truck, cut a hole in it, and boasted they were first. Hopefully they have learned their lesson.
============
Throughout the world, GM sells about 8 million
vehicles a year, but the full-size pickup is by far the most profitable. The 700,000 C/Ks that sold last year in North America represented less than 10 percent of the company's global production volume, but accounted for about $2 billion of GM's $6.7 billion in worldwide profits last year. GM was anticipating even higher C/K profit margins as the 1999 version began to reach dealers.
============
Analysts are now saying GM is way up that thick brown creek if they can't get these trucks out for the normal fall release. Once Oshawa was at speed, the other two plants earmarked for the redesigned truck would then send employees to Oshawa (or have Oshawa employees go there) to train on the new truck's assembly technique.
The UAW has succeeded in hitting their target - GM's income cash-cow.
This is GM's best shot at getting the lines back to work.
I think you got me mixed up with someone else. I made no mention of 0-60 times.
Bob
Since the movie was made about a year ago, the GMC must have been built from scratch as a prototype. Mel drives it in a scene or two and, in another, it just sits in the background glistening in the sun. Not different enough for my tastes (that, and no FOUR DOORS).
Just my two cents after seeing the truck in the movie.
Cheers,
Ryan
GM also plans on continuing production of the current C/K-1500, calling it a "'99 Classic", or something to that effect, and selling it alongside the new restyled '99 Silverado. Much like how Ford did in 1996. (Has something to do with CAFE fuel requirements or something.) My brother-in-law sells GMC Sierras and told me this last January.
Since the new trucks arguably don't differ much from the old ones, there will be some pissed-off customers, abeit uninformed, who purchased a new 1999 old body style truck but wanted a new Silverado or Sierra!
alchavez