Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
The idea of torque referring to power at a given RPM is what I have heard many times, while horsepower is the ability to Accellerate. In that case, the ability to sustain the RPMs under load is the key for torque, but it doesn't seem right that horsepower could accellerate but not sustain. Like I've said, I took more than my share of math and physics in college and have heard the explanations many times. I think what is most important to remember, like you guys said, is that they are nearly the same thing and that us truck guys are most concerned with getting things moving at low RPMs, and that the horsepower is more important for fun.
At any rate, my main question was whether engineers could take an existing diesel engine with high torque and low horsepower, and tinker with it to increase the horsepower to make it more palatable to pickup truck owners. I guess what this might entail is somehow extending the effective RPM curve. Sounds like the MB diesel that is most likely to go in the Ram, if indeed DC does go that route, currently has very high torque but low horsepower. I am mainly posing the question of being able to increase the horsepower since the new Isuzu is supposed to have over 500 lbs torque and over 300 HP. Or is it a design issue at the most basic level? Would a very high torque/low horsepower pickup be fun enough to drive for pickup owners.
Roc, you made my point in a way about the diesel pickup market getting stronger. While I am one of the biggest fans of the Cummins, I can't immagine DC putting a diesel in the Ram, especially a MB diesel, that does not equal or better the Cummins. If the MB diesel holds its own with Cummins/Duramax/Powerstroke, or flat out beats them, Ram buyers will not hesitate to buy the german diesel.
And Cdean, my point on the Isuzu was that GM pickup buyers, in my opinion, are far more brand-loyal, and possibly blindly-patriotic, than Dodge buyers. So regardless of how good the Isuzu engine is (and once again, I am fairly familiar with Isuzu and know how good they are from the little turbo they used to put in their compact pickup and Trooper, to the ones you see in the towtrucks and other medium duty commercial applications), if the GM buyers are excited about their beloved All-American Chevy to be powered by a japanese engine, I see no reason for Ram buyers to have a problem buying a MB diesel.
the point i meant to make is, it is not a Japanese engine. Designed, produced and paid for, here in the USA. and profits go to GM, since they own most of Isuzu.
A high torque, low rpm engine would not be very fun to drive. you could pull anything with it, but you would need to shift 15 times to get to cruising speed.
and to answer your question: No, you cannot just tinker with a low rpm engine, and boost it's revs. It is a basic design issue.
The biggest issue with HIGH torque, and low rpm engine is there internal parts (like rods, crank, all of the valve train) are very big, and bulky. they are made to take a lot of stress and force (from the exceptionally high torque). the downside is, because they are SO BIG, and have higher MASS, when the engine is running, there is a lot more stress due to centripetal acceleration of the part.
EX. Just think of a ball on a string. if you were to take a rubber ball and swing around in a circle at 120 rpms, the string could easily hold the ball. For exageration sake, what if you put a bowling ball on a string and swing it in a circle at 120 rpms? of course, the string would break very quickly and the bowling ball would go flying. THE REASON: the force of the bowling ball going in a circle is enormous compared to that of the lighter ball.
Thus is the case in high vs low rpm engines, especially since the entire machine is either rotational motion or VERY fast cycling linear motions (the valves are linear motion, but they start and stop up to 20 times PER second, so they cannot have much inertia). the engine has to be designed for an rpm limit from the very start of the design process.
gwmoore, I still think that if the there isn't much difference in engines, guys will buy the Cummins. The Chevy example isn't a good one to look at since they trail both Ford and Dodge in diesel sales. The diesel lost any good reputation GM had in the 90's and even cdean will attest to that. Essentially, GM has no where to go but up. The Cummins reinvigorated a dying truck brand and kept it on life-support until teh overall re-design of 94. I still think it would be a risk to change motors unless Dodge could guarantee "major" improvements and parts to be as cheap. Where would this sucker be made? Germany? Oooh--parts would be pricey.
There is more to buying a truck than just looking at the engine. I found this out the hard way after purchasing my 96 Dodge Ram 2500 with the Cummins Diesel. After only 50K miles I am now faced with a $3,000 transmission repair bill. What good is an engine that lasts 300K miles if you have to put a new transmission in every 50K? For what it's worth Bellevue....
Thanks for the additional axplanation of the engineering. But I guess you have more faith in the general public than I do. Regardless how much of the Duramax design, development, or profit is domestic, it is still related to Isuzu, a Japanese company. You just have to look at all the back and forth between Chevy and Tundra owners. I thought I would see a lot (not all) of good old boy Chevy buyers associating Isuzu with Pearl Harbor and would have a false feeling that anything related to Isuzu would be cheap and tinny. You and I may know the truth and the quality of Isuzu engines (in fact, after nearly a year of serious truck shopping, I plan to order one of the new Sierra HD with the Duramax/Allison this summer), but I thought there would be more protest from GM buyers. Yes, even though GM has sorrily fallen behind Ford and Dodge in the Diesel department. My point is, that if Chevy buyers can joyfully adopt Japanese influence, then Ram owners can adopt a MB engineering if that's what it comes down to (all other things being equal). At any rate, thanks again for the explanation. It's probably all a mute point for some time if MB does not have an engine ready that could outperform the Cummins.
Roc, Your point about parts and maintenance costs, I agree, could be the biggest problem with offering the MB diesel. However, knowing German engineering, it could be even more dependable than the Cummins. Now they just need to couple it with an adequate tranny, which it sounds as though Dodge will have by the 2002 model year, whether it is a souped up Cummins or MB diesel.
Good point GW. Cummins are not cheap engines to repair, but no one ever has to, so no one cares. Powerstroke, in my experience, has not been as carefree as the Cummins, and I know several PS owners that have had to pay 3-5K dollars in afterwarrantly repair.
all we can do is hope the MB and Duramax flawless.
That is, of course, if we ever see a MB diesel in a Ram. I'm sure hoping the Duramax is what it is billed to be. Like we have been saying, though, the diesel pickup market is pretty darn exciting.
I agree. But you proved my point on the sales of the HD rams. They were heavily influenced by the Cummins engine; had it without it, the Ram would still hover 150,000 sales instead of higher.
Says it all about what? A lawsuit? Gee--Is Ford the only auto company ever sued??? Take a few problems and add a lawyer and you get a lawsuit--real shocker.
copperhead, What's the use? You think Ford is alone?? What? GM never made lemons? Don't tell Nader....or Dateline.... Hondas? Chrysler(A major quality offender over the years)?, etc.....
I am in the process of buying a 2000 or 2001 full size extended cab four wheel drive truck. I am wondering which one of the big three I should get. I will do some towing of motorcycles and maybe an occasional boat. Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Well either brand is good. You can't go wrong with either Ford or Chevy. The only thing with the new Silverados is that some have vibration problems--now if they are cleared up now--I don't know.
I read the Motor Trend article. It reads like a slam dunk for Chevrolet, until they pick Toyota at the end.
Anyway....what's ironic is how much improved ET and speed of 2000 Silverado is compared to '99. Supposedly, it gains only 15 horsepower for 2000, but gains a full second 0-60 over the '99, and gains about 1.3 seconds ET in the 1/4 mile. The 2000 model tested beats Tundra and F150 in all acceleration tests. Something is rotten in Denmark!
I read the article and I agreed with a lot of it but as typical with most magazines there will be some favoritisms. In the hill twist both ford and dodge went up without any clearance problems and both toyota and chevy made contact. They called no advantage to anyone. It would have looked bad for chevy or toyota,the number one and two picks to have points taken away for lack of performance.
I'm a Dodge owner but not a brand loyalist I would not consider another unless they update thier brakes to four wheel antilock disks and improve the engine effeciency. In all of these comparisons I've noticed that no one mentions that one of the reasons for its poorer performance is the fact that it is 500-600 pounds heavier than the competition. They won't compete well until they fix that.
Actually the more that you look at that article the more you find wrong. Its possible that the downhill descent and the acceleration could be affected by the rear end and final drive ratios. They all placed pretty well right along ratio to placement. Rear end was cevy- 4.10, Tundra 3.91, Ford and Dodge 3.55. Final drive ratio Chevy 2.87, Tundra 2.76, Ford 2.52, Dodge 2.45. I wonder how the downhill, traction, acceleration, and braking would have faired if these would have been equal. Both Ford and Dodge offer a 4.10 rear end and that is what should have been used.
Like you, I currently own Dodge and like my truck, but am not a brand loyalist and will probably be buying a GM next time around. Along with improving the brakes, Dodge needs an Autotrack-style traction system. Further, they have let GM get an advantage by offering the first heavy duty automatic transmition when the Allison comes out this summer. GM finally got hungry for the heavy duty pickup market with the Duramax and Allison, Dodge got a little complacent with their good share in that market.
First off, I ignore Motortrend's anything of the year, they always pick whatever's newest. As for my preferences, I've driven everything except the Silverado. This is what I have to say. Dodge Ram: Shifted way too roughly, and sometimes the automatic transmission seemed to forget what it was doing and I couldn't get a downshift at all. Also, not as much space in the rear as the F150 without making those in front uncomfortable, or at least it seemed that way to me. Silverado. Silverado: Can't judge it, haven't driven it yet. Tundra: 26000 For a cramped compact truck interior surrounded by a bigger body? I need more interior space, both front and rear. Gotta admit, loved that engine though. The speedo leapt to 60 more quickly than I've seen in any car or truck I've ever driven. If someone had blindfolded me, sat me in the truck, then taken it off and told me to drive without telling me what I was in I would have been thinking sports car. It was also the most maneuverable of all I've driven.But the engine alone wasn't enough to do it for me. F150: Had the space I needed, was comfortable enough in back while not loosing legroom in front, and it felt every bit as smooth as the Tundra(5.4) but not quite as quick. Probably because it's a heavier truck that has to weigh so much because it is stronger and more spacious. I had plenty of room in all categories, hip, leg, and neck. It hung on suprisingly well in the curver(The salesmen hot rodded it a bit to try and impess me.) So Far for me the F150 has it, with the most ballanced engine offering excellent low end torque but still being able to Rev and run, and a spacious, comfy interior. I'll see if my opinions changes when I try a Silverado. By the way I admuit my own bias, I currently own a Ranger.
At the rate Dodge/Cummins is tweaking, it will be another 20 years before the 5.9 will be running out of power for increases. And they wonder why people go to the "aftermarket" for parts, etc.
Looking for a little info from anyone who has reliable info. I'm presently driving an older GMC k2500, and am looking to upgrade to something to pull a 7,000 lb trailer. I'm considering either Chevy or Ford as a replacement, but looking at info supplied by several dealers what I see is this: Ford F250 Supercab, 4X4, 5.4L, 3.73 gears is listed as having a maximum trailer weight of 8,200 lbs. However - - Looking at info supplied by Chevy, they show essentially the same truck, except with a 5.7 engine having a maximum trailer weight of only 6,000 lbs.
I realize the suspension plays a big factor, but I'm curious about the huge difference. How can Ford rate a smaller engine to two 2,200 lbs more? Is is just suspension?? Has anyone had experience in this area?
Obyone - There seems to be a little conflict between your info and mine. Mine shows the Silverado you mentioned having a maximum towing capacity of only 8500 lbs. What I have is a sheet published by Chevrolet listing all trucks with their towing capacity. If my info is bogus that might explain the difference between the Ford 5.4L at 8,200 lbs and Chevy 5.7 at only 6,000. Maybe I need to contact another dealer. My present vehicle is a 1990 GMC 3/4 ton with a 5.7 liter, over 120,000 miles and I still get 19.5 MPG on the interstates at 65 - 70. Towing a 3300 lb boat this drops to about 13 MPG. I'd like to keep this fuel economy if possible and still be able to tow my trailer with whatever truck I buy. Based on having read over 200 posts on the newer GMC's and the problems a lot of people are having it sounds like a change from GMC is my best bet at this point. Heybear
Honestly, 200 posts is about 2-3 days in one topic. You are not getting much truth in that small sample. You'll love the new Vortecs. I have '99 4x4, 5.3L, 24,500 miles...loved every minute. It's been great.
the 2500 series do not share the same problems as the 1500 series. You are looking at a 3/4 ton aren't you? If so, the new 6.0 is hard to beat...the 5.7 is from the old C/K design...
Hey - Hey - Hey Fat Albert ??? Sounds like we a fan of the old Bill Cosby standup routines here. Quadrunner, what, if anything do you tow with your 5.3L?
I went to another dealer yesterday and picked up data which is completely different from what I was given by a Chevy dealer. What I have now comes a lot closer to the info Obyone supplied. Yeh, I am looking for a 3/4 ton, I just wouldn't feel comfortable towing 7k with anything less. Obyone - Do you tow with the 6.0? If so, what weight?
Looks like my best course of action is to sit down and compare things like torq, HP, RPM, etc., and then maybe I can come a little closer to an intelligent decision.
HEY CHEVY HAD TO COPY THE DODGE TO BUILD A NEW TRUCK I WISH CHEVY HAD DESIGNED THERE ON TRUCK IF CHEVY SEE SOMETHING THEY LIKE THEY WILL ALWAYS COPY IT
a ford guy using a Dodge to put down Chevy. I can see that this topic is going down the tubes real fast!! I don't think even would copy Dodges design...they have enough problems without adding anymore.
How long did it take Chevy to stiffen their frame/body design so they could add the 4th door. Not offering that in the initial release of the redesigned silverado was a major FUBAR.
they couldn't keep the Silverados on the lot even with only three doors... I guess cause when you compare the extended cabs, there is no comparison between Chevy, dodge, and ford. More so when some of them don't even have head rests in the back.
I have a couple of trailers, one for motorcycles, weighs about 1500 lbs maxed out.
I have an enclosed utility trailer, 10x8x7, weighs about 4000 maxed out, on the scales.
Don't need the portly 3/4 to tow these light loads. Personally, I doubt that 6.0L is going to do a very good job towing a 7000 lb travel trailer either, judging from my buddies who do, and most who opt for diesels. The problem is not the weight. The problem is the frontal area causing highway drag, causing you to be in third gear at 55-65 mph. Diesel is the way to go for this. If you were just pulling a lo-boy trailer with 7000 lbs of bricks, you would have NO trouble with 1/2 ton truck. Boats are pretty aerodynamic compared to travel trailers. Don't confuse the handling.
Hi everybody. Just starting here and thought I'd throw out some information. If you look at www.trucktrend.com there's a performance test under the latest features column. Chevy boast's more HP/Torque,according to the dyno chevy's got the least!
I hope it works. I will say I was surprised myself to read the article I am not a chevy fan personally I would not buy one but I always thought chevy engines were stronger than anyone elses but the ford beat it by 20hp and 60 lb-ft of torque....wow!http://www.trucktrend.com/feb99/4x4/power.html
however I own a Y2K Silverado and the engine is a little different for 2000. I can definately tell the difference from the 99 (my father-in-law has one) and my 00. 15 more HP and 10 more torque, but it "feels" substantial. The axle ratio's were also different, I don't know if that makes a difference? And there was some obvious mis-information in the technical specs. All I know is my 2000 is quicker, more powerful than a 99. Maybe those number are acurate, but you know I've heard different and seen different with a buddies Ford. I would like to see more of these tests, maybe someone else can be a little more accurate this time...
Polls showed that general consumer opinion of GM is very high. jumped from #3 to # 2 behind only Sony in Best Brand public Opinion. No product evaluation at all, just a public image. I would say, Silverado, GM's most visible product, probably directly part of this.
An interesting note was that Ford dropped from #1 last year to #4 this year.
Comments
At any rate, my main question was whether engineers could take an existing diesel engine with high torque and low horsepower, and tinker with it to increase the horsepower to make it more palatable to pickup truck owners. I guess what this might entail is somehow extending the effective RPM curve. Sounds like the MB diesel that is most likely to go in the Ram, if indeed DC does go that route, currently has very high torque but low horsepower. I am mainly posing the question of being able to increase the horsepower since the new Isuzu is supposed to have over 500 lbs torque and over 300 HP. Or is it a design issue at the most basic level? Would a very high torque/low horsepower pickup be fun enough to drive for pickup owners.
Roc, you made my point in a way about the diesel pickup market getting stronger. While I am one of the biggest fans of the Cummins, I can't immagine DC putting a diesel in the Ram, especially a MB diesel, that does not equal or better the Cummins. If the MB diesel holds its own with Cummins/Duramax/Powerstroke, or flat out beats them, Ram buyers will not hesitate to buy the german diesel.
And Cdean, my point on the Isuzu was that GM pickup buyers, in my opinion, are far more brand-loyal, and possibly blindly-patriotic, than Dodge buyers. So regardless of how good the Isuzu engine is (and once again, I am fairly familiar with Isuzu and know how good they are from the little turbo they used to put in their compact pickup and Trooper, to the ones you see in the towtrucks and other medium duty commercial applications), if the GM buyers are excited about their beloved All-American Chevy to be powered by a japanese engine, I see no reason for Ram buyers to have a problem buying a MB diesel.
A high torque, low rpm engine would not be very fun to drive. you could pull anything with it, but you would need to shift 15 times to get to cruising speed.
and to answer your question: No, you cannot just tinker with a low rpm engine, and boost it's revs. It is a basic design issue.
The biggest issue with HIGH torque, and low rpm engine is there internal parts (like rods, crank, all of the valve train) are very big, and bulky. they are made to take a lot of stress and force (from the exceptionally high torque). the downside is, because they are SO BIG, and have higher MASS, when the engine is running, there is a lot more stress due to centripetal acceleration of the part.
EX. Just think of a ball on a string. if you were to take a rubber ball and swing around in a circle at 120 rpms, the string could easily hold the ball. For exageration sake, what if you put a bowling ball on a string and swing it in a circle at 120 rpms? of course, the string would break very quickly and the bowling ball would go flying. THE REASON: the force of the bowling ball going in a circle is enormous compared to that of the lighter ball.
Thus is the case in high vs low rpm engines, especially since the entire machine is either rotational motion or VERY fast cycling linear motions (the valves are linear motion, but they start and stop up to 20 times PER second, so they cannot have much inertia). the engine has to be designed for an rpm limit from the very start of the design process.
I still think that if the there isn't much difference in engines, guys will buy the Cummins. The Chevy example isn't a good one to look at since they trail both Ford and Dodge in diesel sales.
The diesel lost any good reputation GM had in the 90's and even cdean will attest to that. Essentially, GM has no where to go but up.
The Cummins reinvigorated a dying truck brand and kept it on life-support until teh overall re-design of 94. I still think it would be a risk to change motors unless Dodge could guarantee "major" improvements and parts to be as cheap. Where would this sucker be made? Germany? Oooh--parts would be pricey.
For what it's worth
Bellevue....
Thanks for the additional axplanation of the engineering. But I guess you have more faith in the general public than I do. Regardless how much of the Duramax design, development, or profit is domestic, it is still related to Isuzu, a Japanese company. You just have to look at all the back and forth between Chevy and Tundra owners. I thought I would see a lot (not all) of good old boy Chevy buyers associating Isuzu with Pearl Harbor and would have a false feeling that anything related to Isuzu would be cheap and tinny. You and I may know the truth and the quality of Isuzu engines (in fact, after nearly a year of serious truck shopping, I plan to order one of the new Sierra HD with the Duramax/Allison this summer), but I thought there would be more protest from GM buyers. Yes, even though GM has sorrily fallen behind Ford and Dodge in the Diesel department. My point is, that if Chevy buyers can joyfully adopt Japanese influence, then Ram owners can adopt a MB engineering if that's what it comes down to (all other things being equal). At any rate, thanks again for the explanation. It's probably all a mute point for some time if MB does not have an engine ready that could outperform the Cummins.
Roc,
Your point about parts and maintenance costs, I agree, could be the biggest problem with offering the MB diesel. However, knowing German engineering, it could be even more dependable than the Cummins. Now they just need to couple it with an adequate tranny, which it sounds as though Dodge will have by the 2002 model year, whether it is a souped up Cummins or MB diesel.
all we can do is hope the MB and Duramax flawless.
I agree. But you proved my point on the sales of the HD rams. They were heavily influenced by the Cummins engine; had it without it, the Ram would still hover 150,000 sales instead of higher.
Just see that link it says it all.
Take a few problems and add a lawyer and you get a lawsuit--real shocker.
Please read ALL the links,need more www.blueovalnews.com
Just read,and keep reading about the junk that FOMOCO sells.
kcram
Co-Host - Smart Shopper & FWI Conferences
edmunds.com Town Hall
What's the use? You think Ford is alone?? What? GM never made lemons? Don't tell Nader....or Dateline.... Hondas? Chrysler(A major quality offender over the years)?, etc.....
By the way, I don't drive a Taurus-
Well either brand is good. You can't go wrong with either Ford or Chevy. The only thing with the new Silverados is that some have vibration problems--now if they are cleared up now--I don't know.
Anyway....what's ironic is how much improved ET and speed of 2000 Silverado is compared to '99. Supposedly, it gains only 15 horsepower for 2000, but gains a full second 0-60 over the '99, and gains about 1.3 seconds ET in the 1/4 mile. The 2000 model tested beats Tundra and F150 in all acceleration tests. Something is rotten in Denmark!
I'm a Dodge owner but not a brand loyalist I would not consider another unless they update thier brakes to four wheel antilock disks and improve the engine effeciency. In all of these comparisons I've noticed that no one mentions that one of the reasons for its poorer performance is the fact that it is 500-600 pounds heavier than the competition. They won't compete well until they fix that.
The new champ CHEVY SILVERADO!
As for my preferences, I've driven everything except the Silverado. This is what I have to say.
Dodge Ram: Shifted way too roughly, and sometimes the automatic transmission seemed to forget what it was doing and I couldn't get a downshift at all. Also, not as much space in the rear as the F150 without making those in front uncomfortable, or at least it seemed that way to me.
Silverado.
Silverado: Can't judge it, haven't driven it yet.
Tundra: 26000 For a cramped compact truck interior surrounded by a bigger body? I need more interior space, both front and rear. Gotta admit, loved that engine though. The speedo leapt to 60 more quickly than I've seen in any car or truck I've ever driven. If someone had blindfolded me, sat me in the truck, then taken it off and told me to drive without telling me what I was in I would have been thinking sports car. It was also the most maneuverable of all I've driven.But the engine alone wasn't enough to do it for me.
F150: Had the space I needed, was comfortable enough in back while not loosing legroom in front, and it felt every bit as smooth as the Tundra(5.4) but not quite as quick. Probably because it's a heavier truck that has to weigh so much because it is stronger and more spacious. I had plenty of room in all categories, hip, leg, and neck. It hung on suprisingly well in the curver(The salesmen hot rodded it a bit to try and impess me.)
So Far for me the F150 has it, with the most ballanced engine offering excellent low end torque but still being able to Rev and run, and a spacious, comfy interior. I'll see if my opinions changes when I try a Silverado.
By the way I admuit my own bias, I currently own a Ranger.
Wildman
Ford F250 Supercab, 4X4, 5.4L, 3.73 gears is listed as having a maximum trailer weight of 8,200 lbs.
However - - Looking at info supplied by Chevy, they show essentially the same truck, except with a 5.7 engine having a maximum trailer weight of only 6,000 lbs.
I realize the suspension plays a big factor, but I'm curious about the huge difference. How can Ford rate a smaller engine to two 2,200 lbs more?
Is is just suspension??
Has anyone had experience in this area?
Heybear
Honestly, 200 posts is about 2-3 days in one topic. You are not getting much truth in that small sample. You'll love the new Vortecs. I have '99 4x4, 5.3L, 24,500 miles...loved every minute. It's been great.
Quadrunner, what, if anything do you tow with your 5.3L?
I went to another dealer yesterday and picked up data which is completely different from what I was given by a Chevy dealer. What I have now comes a lot closer to the info Obyone supplied.
Yeh, I am looking for a 3/4 ton, I just wouldn't feel comfortable towing 7k with anything less.
Obyone - Do you tow with the 6.0? If so, what weight?
Looks like my best course of action is to sit down and compare things like torq, HP, RPM, etc., and then maybe I can come a little closer to an intelligent decision.
Thanks for the help.
Heybear
I have an enclosed utility trailer, 10x8x7, weighs about 4000 maxed out, on the scales.
Don't need the portly 3/4 to tow these light loads. Personally, I doubt that 6.0L is going to do a very good job towing a 7000 lb travel trailer either, judging from my buddies who do, and most who opt for diesels. The problem is not the weight. The problem is the frontal area causing highway drag, causing you to be in third gear at 55-65 mph. Diesel is the way to go for this. If you were just pulling a lo-boy trailer with 7000 lbs of bricks, you would have NO trouble with 1/2 ton truck. Boats are pretty aerodynamic compared to travel trailers. Don't confuse the handling.
Polls showed that general consumer opinion of GM is very high. jumped from #3 to # 2 behind only Sony in Best Brand public Opinion. No product evaluation at all, just a public image. I would say, Silverado, GM's most visible product, probably directly part of this.
An interesting note was that Ford dropped from #1 last year to #4 this year.