.
cars

Jump to content

allpar, the Chrysler - Dodge - Jeep car and truck site


Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were an active member (more than two posts) or subscriber, you would not see this ad!

Register for a free account or Sign in (see top right of page for Facebook/Open ID login icons).


Photo

2014 GM pickups


67 replies to this topic

#1 FreeLantz

FreeLantz

    Tried & True Mopar Fan

  • Active Member
  • 2,108 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:23 am

http://www.autonews....10&Profile=1258

 

What are everyone's thoughts on the new GM pickups?

 

I think for several reasons they have missed the mark but will reserve final judgement til I drive one.  I'm trying to understand how it cost almost $4 billion to develop a truck that looks just like the previous generation and still lags the industry in fuel economy.  Not to mention these things will debut as GM struggles to move a pile of unsold 2012's off dealership lots with heavy incentives. 

 

 



#2 Moparian

Moparian
  • Active Member
  • 1,643 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 12:09 pm

All new?  LOL more like a refresh, the interior is terrible....why is the steering wheel offset from the center of the drivers seat?  The dash space to the left of the wheel is hideous... outside it looks like the same truck they have been selling for the last 10 years?  Ford and Ram have nothing to worry about here.  



#3 AutoTechnician

AutoTechnician
  • Active Member
  • 654 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm

I do quite like the proportions on the 3/4 rear shot. The bed height seems quite low, and there seems to be a decent window-to-sheet-metal ratio which makes the truck seem "slim" compared to modern bloated looking vehicles. Reminds me a lot of the older first generation Super Duty - or just older trucks in general.


Edited by AutoTechnician, December 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm.


#4 true_rt

true_rt
  • Active Member
  • 234 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm

The GMC doesn't look that bad but obviously not revolutionary. The Chevy looks like they had left over grills from the hds to use up. Ram seems to have done same amount of exterior changes in the 2013 refresh. The interior looks just plain ugly and far from practical. Almost like they didn't have enough material to finish the radio and vent areas.
Now I think we are going to see a emergency facelift similar to Hondas civic fiasco.

Edited by true_rt, December 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm.


#5 Joe_K

Joe_K
  • Active Member
  • 183 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 01:04 pm

I think they're nice looking, but I definitely prefer the Ram.  The 4.3 liter V6 that switches between 6 and 4 cylinder mode is interesting.



#6 69DartGTS

69DartGTS
  • Active Member
  • 874 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 01:15 pm

I really dont see the need for Chevy to sell a Pickup...its like if Dodge still had a 1500 Ram and "RAM" selling the same thing. other than the Dealership thing.i dont see the purpose..The 4.3 is nice.. Huge V6 though, it ought to have more torque than the 3.6 Ram and 3.7 Ford with that big of a displacement...

#7 Joe_K

Joe_K
  • Active Member
  • 183 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 01:20 pm

I really dont see the need for Chevy to sell a Pickup...its like if Dodge still had a 1500 Ram and "RAM" selling the same thing. other than the Dealership thing.i dont see the purpose..The 4.3 is nice.. Huge V6 though, it ought to have more torque than the 3.6 Ram and 3.7 Ford with that big of a displacement...

 

The 4-cylinder mode is what separates it from the Ram and Ford though.  The large displacement might make it more attractive to people who are against 6 cylinders in a truck.  I wonder if the Pentastar will get MDS in the future?



#8 digitalrailroader

digitalrailroader
  • Active Member
  • 1,105 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted December 13, 2012 at 01:38 pm

I do quite like the proportions on the 3/4 rear shot. The bed height seems quite low, and there seems to be a decent window-to-sheet-metal ratio which makes the truck seem "slim" compared to modern bloated looking vehicles. Reminds me a lot of the older first generation Super Duty - or just older trucks in general.

 

that was GM's Intention, sort of a Homage to the 88-98 GM Trucks. of course, they Dropped the Vortec name from the Engines in favor of the name EcoTec3. (that was a BAD MOVE, Now you Can't tell the Car Engines from the Truck Engines!) speaking on engines, there's only THREE to Choose from: the 4.3 V6, the 5.3L V8, and the 6.2L V8. (ANOTHER BAD MOVE, now there's no Small V8 for those who Don't want the V6, but Don't Need the Power and Crap Fuel Economy of the Big V8s.) but one thing i DO like is the Steps in the Rear Bumper (I Climb in and out of our 2009 Silverado's bed A LOT, and one slip can cause me to fall and crack the back of my skull open) from the posts i've seen on GM-Trucks.com, the Engine bay is going to be VERY TIGHT, and NOT very DIYer OR Mechanic Friendly. the Dash Does not Flow very well, and the Instrument Cluster is almost a DIRECT COPY of the Cluster in the Ford F-150. and IMHO, the Sierra looks MUCH BETTER than the Silverado.



#9 CherokeeVision

CherokeeVision
  • Active Member
  • 3,896 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 03:03 pm

The one thing I do like about the interior is there appears to be enough room on both the interior packages, (with and without center console) for the head units of ham radios to be installed.

The large storage bin in the center console will come in handy for many people that add electronic devices to their trucks.

 

I have said for years that someone needs to step up and think about the installation of radios in vehicles. Someone at GM listened.

 

Ford and Ram designed their center consoles where there is little room.

 

I'm not in the full size truck market but I know lots of hams that drive full size pickups and they will notice the room for radios.



#10 FreeLantz

FreeLantz

    Tried & True Mopar Fan

  • Active Member
  • 2,108 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 05:09 pm

My thoughts...

 

If the V6 is rated at 15 mpg city,  that is abysmal by today's standards. For a small business (or a large one) buying a cheap regular cab truck to run errands around town, Ford and Dodge...er, Ram...both beat that and either would be a better choice.

 

Styling... we can laugh about how it looks like the previous generation (it does), but they took no chances and the GM loyal will warm right up to it.  The rectangular wheel wells are ugly and hated by many.  Not sure why they kept them.  Probably because it was just too costly to change.

 

Interior... very bland, very plain... again, it takes no chances.  But with Ford's beautiful Limited and Harley edition interiors, and the Ram Laramie Limited and Long Horn, clearly GM remains at the bottom of the list for "style".  Well, that is unless you count the Nissan Titan...but honestly, who does anymore?

 

This overall blandness and lack of any significant advancement combined with the glut of remaining 2012's threatens to make this launch a real debacle for GM, and a costly one at that.


Edited by FreeLantz, December 13, 2012 at 05:56 pm.


#11 Joe_K

Joe_K
  • Active Member
  • 183 posts

Posted December 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm

My thoughts...

 

If the V6 is rated at 15 mpg city,  that is abysmal by today's standards. For a small business (or a large one) buying a cheap regular cab truck to run errands around town, Ford and Dodge...er, Ram...both beat that and either would be a better choice.

 

Styling... we can laugh about how it looks like the previous generation (it does), but they took no chances and the GM loyal will warm right up to it.  The rectangular wheel wells are ugly and hated by many.  Not sure why they kept them.  Probably because it was just too costly to change.

 

Interior... very bland, very plain... again, it takes no chances.  But with Ford's beautiful Limited and Harley edition interiors, and the Ram Laramie Limited and Long Horn, clearly GM remains at the bottom of the list for "style".  Well, that is unless you count the Nissan Titan...but honestly, who does anymore?

 

This overall blandness and lack of any significant advancement combined with the glut of remaining 2012's threatens to make this launch a real debacle for GM, and a costly one at that.

 

 

Where did you see any info on gas mileage?  The next gen 4.3 has nothing to do with the current one, I would expect the gas mileage to rival the Pentastar, maybe even better because of the MDS.  Keep in mind 8 speeds are in the future as well, plus the current GM 6 speed is geared a lot better than the 6 speed in my '12 Ram.

 

The only thing that sticks out to me is the aerodynamics.  They say they improved it but it's shaped like a brick.  Check out the side profile of these trucks versus a side profile of the Ram.  The Ram looks like it will cut through the air a lot better than these new GM twins.

 

All in all, despite my Mopar bias, I do like them.  Very tough looking, very bold.  Reminds me of the late 70's to late 80's GM trucks which is a good thing in my opinion.  I also like the interior based on the pictures, it's simple and clean, the gauge cluster is very nice looking.  Good competition benefits us all with a better end product.  I can't wait to see what Chrysler does with the next gen Hemi.  DI or Multiair?  Should be exciting!



#12 ptschett

ptschett
  • Active Member
  • 622 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted December 14, 2012 at 12:05 am

It's amusing to me that their extended-cab gets front-hinged rear doors on the new model, following the Dodge/Ram's lead and only 12 model-years behind.   They were 15 years behind when they finally brought out an extended cab to counter the Ford SuperCab and Dodge Club Cab in 1988, so I guess that's progress.

 

I'll have to see it in person, but from the photos alone I strongly dislike the new front fascias on both models.  They both look overwrought to me.  It might just be the angles but I most strongly dislike the red Chevy... the headlights just don't work for me.  I don't like the GMC much either.  I could maybe tolerate the blue Chevy w/ more conventional lights. 


Edited by ptschett, December 14, 2012 at 12:13 am.


#13 CherokeeVision

CherokeeVision
  • Active Member
  • 3,896 posts

Posted December 14, 2012 at 09:15 am

 

 

The only thing that sticks out to me is the aerodynamics.  They say they improved it but it's shaped like a brick.  Check out the side profile of these trucks versus a side profile of the Ram.  The Ram looks like it will cut through the air a lot better than these new GM twins.

 

 

 

As we learned on the 300 you can't always tell by looking. Yes the Ram was improved. But without seeing the data you can't look at the GM pickups and know.



#14 moparmodelfan

moparmodelfan
  • Active Member
  • 100 posts

Posted December 14, 2012 at 06:53 pm

All new?  LOL more like a refresh, the interior is terrible....why is the steering wheel offset from the center of the drivers seat?  The dash space to the left of the wheel is hideous... outside it looks like the same truck they have been selling for the last 10 years?  Ford and Ram have nothing to worry about here.  

Having the steering wheel offset like that would not seem to be very ergonomic. The dash does not seem to be very well laid out, including the instrument cluster. It looks just busy and cheap.



#15 vipergg

vipergg
  • Active Member
  • 1,741 posts

Posted December 14, 2012 at 09:47 pm

I do quite like the proportions on the 3/4 rear shot. The bed height seems quite low, and there seems to be a decent window-to-sheet-metal ratio which makes the truck seem "slim" compared to modern bloated looking vehicles. Reminds me a lot of the older first generation Super Duty - or just older trucks in general.

  Dont think it is offset from the center, think it's just angle the picture was taken.  Maybe they were copying the Liberty ..



#16 suzq044

suzq044

    Resident Photoshop Nerd

  • Supporters III
  • 4,293 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted December 15, 2012 at 03:14 am

The inside shot, at least on my nexus, looks like an incomplete rendering. The size of the left-most vent is seemingly huge compared to the rest. The steering wheel looks off-center by like 4-6". The dash reminds me of those ruggedized radio-toolboxes from home depot.. Idk.

 

The front of the GMC looks like they let West-Coast-Customs design it. Way too many LEDs; the best way I can describe the GMC headlight design, is awkward and maybe trying too hard to look upscale. 

 

The design of the Chevy's front clip can best be described as busy. Way too much going on up there, in terms of textures and shapes. 

 

I am not expecting a huge sales jump here, if not a fall.



#17 Doug D

Doug D

    Virginia Gentleman

  • Active Member
  • 9,054 posts

Posted December 15, 2012 at 07:57 am

Anyone notice it has taken GM almost 8 years to implement a MDS type system - not sure which engine:

 

 

 

Cylinder deactivation, which shuts down four of the eight cylinders under light loads, will come standard on all models. Today, it's only offered on higher trim levels. GM engineers say the new engines will allow the vehicle to operate for longer periods in four-cylinder mode, which should wring out further fuel savings.

 

 



#18 Mick M

Mick M
  • Active Member
  • 1,656 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted December 15, 2012 at 09:24 am

The suburban has had it for a while now.

#19 digitalrailroader

digitalrailroader
  • Active Member
  • 1,105 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted December 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

Anyone notice it has taken GM almost 8 years to implement a MDS type system - not sure which engine:

Active Fuel Management (that is what GM calls their system) was available in 2005 on the 5.3L V8 although I'm not sure when the Oil Consumption Problems started. (its gotten bad enough to where on GM-Trucks.com, one of the VERY FIRST Mods is to Deactivate the AFM to prolong the life of the Lifters, which is the Main Problem)



#20 Joe_K

Joe_K
  • Active Member
  • 183 posts

Posted December 15, 2012 at 07:12 pm

Active Fuel Management (that is what GM calls their system) was available in 2005 on the 5.3L V8 although I'm not sure when the Oil Consumption Problems started. (its gotten bad enough to where on GM-Trucks.com, one of the VERY FIRST Mods is to Deactivate the AFM to prolong the life of the Lifters, which is the Main Problem)

 

You are correct.  It's my understanding the new Hemi's were designed to allow MDS from the beginning, and they do it well.  The GM LS motors had to be retrofitted for it so GM could play catch up, and it's an unreliable oil eating failure.




.
Allpar

Home · Cars · Engines · Repairs · People
Tool and Car Reviews · News

Please read the terms of use and privacy policy. We are not affiliated with Chrysler Group, makers of cars, minivans, trucks, and Mopar (TM) parts. We make no guarantees regarding validity or applicability of information, opinions, or advice. Posts may be edited and used in other parts of allpar.com and affiliated Mopar (Dodge, Chrysler, etc) car related sites. We have the right to remove or modify any message, and to ban or suspend any user without notice. Logos and site-specific information copyright © 2001-2013 Allpar LLC; Chrysler PR materials remain property of Chrysler Group.