2007 Silverado/Sierra Release Live Via Webcast
By Gary White
Vice President GM North America and Full-Size Truck Vehicle Line Executive
Editor’s note: Bloggers and other web sites are invited to link to the live webcast and the video-on-demand replay using this URL. The presentation will be in a small window that does not take users away from your site.
Today promises to be one of the most exciting days in years for Chevrolet, GMC and General Motors. At 10 a.m. EDT, we’ll introduce the 2007 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size pickups to the media.
As GM’s best-selling vehicles, these trucks are two of the most important vehicles that we’ll launch this year. Following on the heels of our successful full-size SUV launch earlier this year, the Silverado and Sierra represent another keystone of success in GM’s turnaround plan, especially in the hypercompetitive North America full-size truck market.
We’ll have a traditional press conference at our Milford Proving Grounds and will present the event via live webcast accessible through this site.
Some of you may have seen photos of the new truck’s exterior. Of course, there’s a lot more to see by way of new exterior styling, but the real news beyond the all-new structure is the extended performance (fuel economy, towing capability, power and payload) along with the new truck’s interior. The bar is set pretty high. So did we raise it? We’d love to get your thoughts after Wednesday.
Hope you can join us.
- Posted in Cars & Trucks
SteveG
I have to say from seeing the pictures that the Silverado’s front end is quite odd looking. I don’t get why the bumpers look so wierd. I think you would have been better off giving it the Avalache’s front end, which looks ten times better.
Otherwise, the GM looks pretty good, but not ground shaking. I think its the interiors and driving experience that will be most improved.
Whoever designed the front end of the Chevy and whoever approved it, should be let go, IMHO.
Rick Lupori
Mr. White: From the preliminary data I have seen from AutoWeek the new GMT900 should be hits.
Really like the power rear windows, 170 degree opening rear doors and the 60/40 split rear seat on the extended cab models, and the fact the short 5′8″ bed model will be offered. The addition of backup sensors, adjustable pedals and navigation system as options help too.
When my 2006 Sierra comes off lease next November I will be looking for a 6.0L model with the 4 wheel disc brakes, 20″ wheels and side curtain air bags.
My only reservations are the GMC could have more “Attitude” in the front styling, but that could change when I see the actual truck.
Hope you add some new colors as options and keep the price close to the current trucks.
The main option that the 1500 trucks and the Suburban/Tahoe need is a Turbo-Diesel.
Please offer one before someone else does - and someone will - and soon since low sulfur diesel fuel is being rolled out. Make sure GM gets there first or at worst can respond immediately (within 1 year).
Beaugrand
I strongly suggest implementing an immediate program to improve fuel economy for GM full-size vehicles; such a program should make use of reprogrammed engine management “chips;” taller (numerically lower) final drive ratios, and transmissions with more gear ratios- 6 and 7 speed manual AND AUTOMATIC transmissions, making use of overdrive and underdrive gear ratios; and refinements in aerodynamics. Obviously, the current (2007 model year) crop of vehicles was designed several years ago when gas was under $1.40/gallon in the US.
Ryan
The wind noise on the web cast is horrible.
senna1
I’m liking the look of these so far. Having the choice of functional or luxurious interiors was a good idea.
However, offering a small diesel in a half ton model would really give you a real opportunity to leapfrog the competition. I’m tired of getting 15 mpg (and less when I tow) with my Titan so whoever can offer a diesel in a half ton will get my business. Maybe I’m not a typical truck buyer as I’m not loyal to any one manufacturer, I just want the best product for my dollar. If it is American then that’s an added bonus.
tearce
Congrats to the entire GM team which pulled off these beauties. I know they will do great.
One comment; please look into offering Bluetooth capability to the interiors. The ‘07 Tundra already tooted its own horn regardig this feature, GM should not lag behind in offering new technology.
JERRY MCSHANE
Mush of the improvement came from the Titan and F-150. NO 6 speed tranny yet is pathethic to say the least. $5 BILLION spent on the 900 paltform series? Gas at $3 and going up. GOOD LUCK GM you’re going to need every ounce of the stuff.
Mike McIntosh
I hope the new trucks are a leap forward in assembly quality and reliability. I have worked for GM dealerships for 25 years and patiently wait for GM to not be a follower in technology and offer features such as 5 or 6 speed automatics, high quality interiors, fit and finish, strong structures (frames) and drivelines. The new truck appears to be improved in fit and finish. The rest will be told over time.
Pat Albrecht
Does anybody else think they look like F150’s? USA Today has an article about them on their web site and has a pic of an F150 in a side bar, almost daring you to compare them.
AndrewG
I really like how GM now has two interiors for the pickups. I missed the webcast, but I saw the pictures online. The LTZ interior, obviously lifted from the SUVs, is a winner. It’s disntinctly American, yet it’s cohesive, attractive, and upscale. It soundly beats any Toyota’s interior (I’ve always thought that Toyota could use some better stylists… the engineers are great, but not the stylists). The other interior is sufficiently truck-like to succeed. And it’s evolutionary enough that the GM faithful will appreciate it. The previous model (now the Classic) had such a revolutionary interior when it came out- never before had a full size pickup incorporated luxury features. Obviously the interior dated itself quickly after other pickups were subsquently redesigned, but it will always remain one of my favorite interior designs.
I’m anxious to hear about finalized standard/optional equipment and to read everything in more detail.
I’m glad, however, to see that GM is making side curtain airbags available, although I wish they were standard. Why anyone would choose not to pay for side airbags is beyond me- they’re a proven safety feature that are thankfully becoming standard on more and more models.
I do agree with some of the statements above about the Silverado’s styling: it’s just plain weird. The Sierra seems to be much simpler and more upscale in appearance. I can’t help but think that the Silverado got a case of 2007 Lincoln… too much grille! I had a few 2007 Navigators in my rearview mirror last night on I-94 in metro Detroit- hideous!
Brian
Why in the world would you make the base engine the same thrashy, underpowered, and outdated V-6 that’s in the current Silverado? At least Ford provides a V-8 standard. Nissan gives you a DOHC state-of-the-art 300+HP derived from Infiniti. What does the brand new Silverado offer standard? The crappy old 4.3 Vortec V-6 at a whopping 190HP. Why not use the 4.2 DOHC I-6 out of the Trailblazer? And here’s an idea; 6-speed automatic transmission.
Nice looking exterior, decent interior, so why short change on the powertrain? When are you guys going to quit messing around and really deliver something that just knocks people off their feet??? I’m still waiting for that to happen……..
Jenny
Chevy Silverado trucks are indeed one of the most trusted makes in the industry. They have proven their worth over the years not just in name but also in real action and application and good thing GM decided to offer a refreshed 2008 edition.
Stan
The Silverado and Sierra are in a word MAGNIFICENT!!!They have that TOUGH truck look to them and the interiors are well above the competition.There gonna go like HOT CAKES!!HOME RUN!!!
mikesright
The 4.3L is fleet-only, and many contractors need the option to save costs. Ford also has a similar engine in its lineup. GM offers the 4.8L as standard in all other models, and it happens to be the most powerful standard engine in its class.
The 6-speed is coming along with a hybrid edition in 2008. Meanwhile the torrent of new sales will follow, because most people don’t care how many speeds the truck has, it just matters that it is smooth and quick-shifting, and it gets excellent fuel economy…tasks which the old 4 speed is legendary at.
These trucks set the standard in the industry, and I can’t wait to see my new Duramax and Allison equipped 2500 HD Silverado! Great work guys, on all of the 900’s!
LA
I like the looks of this truck. Good usage of chrome accents and finally enclosed rear wheel wells. As for the preceding post that referred to the “crappy 4.3 liter V6,” I would like to remind you that this engine is targeted to commercial fleet buyers. Tell me how many commercial fleets use Nissan Titans as compared to GM products. Further, the 4.3 liter V6 is one of the best engines produced, while 190 horsepower may not sound like much take a close look at the torque figures and where they fall in the powerband. Like its parent the 350 the 4.3 has been around this long for a reason. I would like to extend my thanks to GM in producing a fantastic new truck, and I am looking forward to owning one soon.
J.M. Stubblefield
F-350 headlights on discount or something? Did Dodge surplus away some spare tailights for these new GMC trucks or something? If the design teams at GM can’t refrain from ripping off other designs better than this (’06 Impala meets Accord) then its time for some fresh faces. I’m not a huge fan of the 99-06 truck appearance versus the 88-98 design but at least they all had their own look. Disappointing especially since a few bil could have went into rushing the Camaro or God forbid a RWD sedan program into reality if this was all they could deliver. Better hope the returning truck customers are more forgiving than the auto enthusiasts. Lead on design, for goodness sake, don’t follow.
frog
I cany believe after such a long wait we only could see a old-styled front apprearance. Chevy when are you going to stop having a big chrome bar in the middle. It is boring.
But rest of the truck looks very cool.
David
“Mush of the improvement came from the Titan and F-150. NO 6 speed tranny yet is pathethic to say the least. $5 BILLION spent on the 900 paltform series? Gas at $3 and going up. GOOD LUCK GM you’re going to need every ounce of the stuff.”
I guess you missed the part where the GM truck gets at least 3 more MPG on the highway than any of the competitors that you mentioned….
John Duncan
Two fantastic looking trucks. I like the fact that each truck has it’s own sheat metal.I hope you will offer the two mood hybrid tranmission,and a diesel motor for the light duty trucks.
Chris
“Disappointing especially since a few bil could have went into rushing the Camaro or God forbid a RWD sedan program into reality if this was all they could deliver.”
After recent, large losses, GM did the right thing by postponing the RWD sedans (and Camaro). These trucks are high-margin vehicles for GM and building them first (and building them right) ensures that GM will be around to build the RWD sedans (and Camaro) you speak of.
Buick Diesel
The trucks look nice.
As others have posted, why not offer a diesel engine in the light duty trucks?
GM took the lead in the late ’70s & ’80s by even offering diesels in passenger cars. Now, 25 years later, it’s not even offered in some trucks.
Some have bad memories of the Olds diesel. However, this article written by a guy who’s an instructor, consultant and performance shop owner, really puts the Olds diesel into perspective (scroll down to “ONLY THEIR DESIGNERS COULD LOVE THEM”):
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0408phr_worst_automobile_engines/
Also see http://www.olds-diesel.com
The Olds diesel had problems early on, but was eventually a fine engine. One of my daily drivers: A big, heavy ‘83 LeSabre with a 3-speed tranny, and it gets 25 mpg highway at 65 mph.
No gas engine even today will deliver 25 mpg stuffed into that car.
With gas at $3.00 a gallon, there should be a market for diesel engines - even for subcompact cars.
Will
Even with a 4 spd auto my fuel mpg has been very good, especially in comparison to a friend of mine that just bought a new Dodge 1/2 ton with a hemi.
I look forward to the ‘09 model year when I return this one and and change to a 6 spd auto.
The new trucks look amazing. The interiors are top notch and can’t wait to see them in person.
All I can say is if there isn’t diesel option available, i will probably be changing to one of the manufacturers that do have one available…
Will
John C
I would agree….a diesel in the half ton, especially if it can tow 10,500 lbs would be a killer. I believe the GMT900 series SUV’s are selling as well as they are because the people realize $3.00 gas is here to stay and they have budgeted for it. But, I think a diesel in the Tahoe and Suburban would do good. Anybody who owns a GM Duramax knows they are MUCH quieter than their Ford or Dodge counterparts. I get 13 mpg in my ‘04 Chevy dually when I tow my 6800 lb camper, which is about 80% better than my ‘91 GMC, which could only manage 7-8.
motorman
GM will not give you all the goodies in a new model because they have to save something like a 6 speed auto trans so owners will have a reason to trade up in a couple of years and not wait till the truck is paid off. you have to understand marketing to keep selling new ones each and every year.
SteveG
Now how about replacing the Colorado/Canyon? They are constantly criticized, the interiors stink, noone wants a 5 cylinder engine, and they ride poorly.
With all the 6 cylinder engines GM has, you really thought it would be a good idea to build a 5 cylinder engine even though they have historically been frowned upon by buyers?
GM really needs new blood and new talent, you guys just dont get it.
And the front end of the Silverado is a dissapointment. What is with that bumper?
auto
I hope the 07 has improved gas mileage. The 06 is the best truck I have ever owned.
shane
I look forward to the new introduction and can;t wait to take it for a test drive.
Beaugrand
“I guess you missed the part where the GM truck gets at least 3 more MPG on the highway than any of the competitors that you mentioned….”
The price of gasloine has doubled in the past five years, and all indications are it may double again in the next five. Will $6/gallon gas convince us to economize?
Clearly, fuel economy has to improve drastically, across the board, and continue to improve, continually, not just for the next decade, if the large American car companies (Ford and GM) are going to survive. Most of the needed technologies (6+ speed transmissions, variable displacement, variable valve timing, electronic fuel management, hybrid drive systems, small-displacement turbodiesels, wind-tunnel-derived aerodynamics) are already available, it’s just a matter of putting most or all together in an attractive, saleable package (with a 10-year, 100,000 mile, bumper-to-bumper, fully transferable warranty).
GonzoJ
The active fuel management (4cyl mode) is just a marketing gimmick. I test drove a Tahoe with it, and it refused to stay in AFM/4cyl mode unless you were below a steady 45MPH. That’s certainly not highway speed. And the thing would leave 4cyl mode at the lightest touch of the accelerator. That’s certainly not real-world useful. So what good is it? I guess the AFM’s greatest feature is to turn on the check-engine light, so GM earns money on repairs.
Malibu
“I strongly suggest implementing an immediate program to improve fuel economy for GM full-size vehicles; such a program should make use of reprogrammed engine management chips”
Gosh. Why didn’t GM think of that? All they needed was a computer chip and their trucks would get 500 miles per gallon. And all this time we just needed to find a good programmer.
J. M. Stubblefield
“The Olds diesel had problems early on, but was eventually a fine engine. One of my daily drivers: A big, heavy ‘83 LeSabre with a 3-speed tranny, and it gets 25 mpg highway at 65 mph.
No gas engine even today will deliver 25 mpg stuffed into that car.”
My family over the years & myself have owned at least a dozen gasoline powered B-bodies (same platform as that LeSabre) that have gotten well over 25 MPG HWY, welcome to 1989 & throttle body injected L03 305 V8 Caprice. The 1994-96 L99 4.3 V8 got nearly 30 HWY MPG. Real world usage, from a decade ago. That’s right, gasoline powered.
“After recent, large losses, GM did the right thing by postponing the RWD sedans (and Camaro). These trucks are high-margin vehicles for GM and building them first (and building them right) ensures that GM will be around to build the RWD sedans (and Camaro) you speak of.”
That’s the problem. They don’t LOOK like they are built right. They look F-350 and Ram inspired, not new and bold. Especially considering the price tag. Hiding in “high margin” truck land has been the problem, you shouldn’t have all your eggs in one basket, especially for the last ten years, while the car lineup has suffered. Instead of a worthwhile fullsize RWD B-body replacement, we got a rebadged Lumina. The F-body Camaro/Trans Am withered away while the Ford’s Mustang got a redesign. Daimler Chrysler’s hit with the LX platform offerings filling the gap where Ford and GM wouldn’t. Flash forward to $3 gas & declining truck & SUV sales & cars sales on the rise. GM has such potential & shouldn’t have to play catch up, they should be ahead of the game.
Buick Diesel
J. M. Stubblefield: You’re not comparing apples to apples. I’m referring to an ‘83 LeSabre (heavier than the cars a decade later that you refer to). It also has a 3-speed tranny, and gets 25 mpg at 65 mph.
The Olds diesel was said to get 30+ mpg in cars with 4-speed trannies.
Stuff the Olds diesel into the cars you’re referring to, and your mpg will increase.
Chris
Need that 8.1 option please w/VVT! DuraMax is quiet, just not quiet enough. Won’t trade current 8.1 until you do (will you?). Will also buy a big RWD-big V8 sedan when you make it, unless it takes too long and I’ll have to get a 300 (cry, cry, cry!).
motorman
i think you will see a drop in the sales of loaded pickups with leather seats and all the bells and whistles. this type was bought by people to take the place of a car and these people will go back to cars for better mileage. people who need pickups for work will be buying basic trucks.
J. M. Stubblefield
How is a 4K pound 1983 B-BODY LeSabre NOT comparable to a 4K pound 1989 B-BODY Caprice. You, yourself said: “No gas engine even TODAY will deliver 25 mpg stuffed into that car.”
Pay attention because here is a lesson, the 77-85 LeSabre, Delta 88/98, Parisienne, Caprice/Impala all shared the B-body platform! The Caprice remained on it until 1996. And all remained within a few hundred pounds of each other of the years.
Regardless of 3-speed or 4 speed, the point is not only will a gas engine stuffed into that SAME platform bring an excess of 25+ MPG , it already did, in the 1980’s!
GM makes the best trucks on the road, I have enjoyed my 1989 L03 Cheyenne extended cab immensely. I have an uncle with a 1989 L05 Silverado with in excess of 400K miles on it, we don’t know how many because the odometer finally gave up and it just won’t die. I will say the interiors look nicely done on these new pickups. I hope the seats are better than the 99-06 models, I’m looking forward to seeing if these new pickups are more than skin deep.
PacerX
“The active fuel management (4cyl mode) is just a marketing gimmick. I test drove a Tahoe with it, and it refused to stay in AFM/4cyl mode unless you were below a steady 45MPH. That’s certainly not highway speed. And the thing would leave 4cyl mode at the lightest touch of the accelerator. That’s certainly not real-world useful. So what good is it? I guess the AFM’s greatest feature is to turn on the check-engine light, so GM earns money on repairs.”
Absolutely, totally, completely wrong and combined with a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory to boot.
AGAIN, did you miss the part where GM is beating EVERYONE in full-size truck fuel economy??? DOD is an integral part of that, along with state-of-the-art, lightweight, clean burning and exceptionally powerful OVERHEAD VALVE engine techonology.
Buick Diesel
J. M. Stubblefield: Let’s use my car in this example, an ‘83 Buick LeSabre with a 3-speed tranny with a 5.7 Olds diesel engine. It gets 25 mpg at 65 to 70 mph.
There’s no gas engine that will match that fuel economy (i.e. 25 mpg at 65 to 70 mph while stuffed in the car listed above).
A 3-speed tranny generally has a lower gear ratio than a 4-speed during highway travel.
The only point I’m making is that no gas engine can match the fuel economy of an Olds diesel.
J. M. Stubblefield
Unbelieveable. Once more, what I am debating:
“There’s no gas engine that will match that fuel economy (i.e. 25 mpg at 65 to 70 mph while stuffed in the car listed above). ”
Yes, there is. A 1980’s era B-BODY LeSabre is for all intents & purposes the SAME CAR as a 1980’s era B-BODY Caprice. The 1989 TBI 5.0 V8 in said B-BODY Caprice will not only match the aforementioned diesel ‘83 LeSabre, it exceeds it.
I’d love to start pulling out EPA estimates to put the icing on this, but I’m not going to clutter the Blog up with this anymore. If you want to really LEARN about the finest passenger cars GM has & will ever make, the D & B-bodies, feel free to join me at http://www.9C1.net.
Buick Diesel
Yes, truly unbelievable.
Let’s not clutter this blog by making a simple discussion so difficult. The Caprice will only exceed the LeSabre’s Olds diesel mpg when comparing apples to apples (ie same platform, weight & gear ratio).
That’s the only point I intended to make right from the start.
Buick Diesel
By the way, here are some EPA ratings. However, they both have a 4-speed tranny, so the gear ratios are probably similar. Anyway, the LeSabre diesel is rated at 28 mpg highway. The Caprice is rated at 25 mpg highway. Kapeesh?
LeSabre
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/540.shtml
Caprice
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5800.shtml
Robert Wilson
Active Fuel Management is great. If you think you know what it will do by taking a test drive, you’ve got to be kidding us all! I drove a fully loaded 2007 Suburban about 400 miles a couple weekend ago and watched as it constantly changed from 4 to 8 cylinders. I had 4 people in the car the whole time with a boatload of gear and we got about 16 miles per gallon overall. Without AFM we would have likely gotten around 12 MPG. There is a difference, if we are going to conserve then every little bit counts. Take those savings over the life of that vehicle for say, 80,000, miles and you’re talking about a signficant savings in gas without giving up the utility of having the big truck that I need. I could live the life I want to live if I had to drive an Aveo or another small vehicle. I gotta have some room for my family and our stuff.
Craig
Is anyone at GM listning? This truck needs a 6 speed automatic bad. A diesel for the 1500 would be a big hit also. I’ll be in the market for a 2008 model. If they don’t have a 6 speed automatic by then I’ll look elseware.
Billy Trimble
I love my 2002 Chevy Truck, 96000 plus mile on her. I am waiting for the 1st company to come out with a diesel in a half/ton to by my next truck, I sure hope it is a GM vehicle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe
I have one word for GM and the Suburban
“DIESEL”
Where the h#ll is it ??
(Maybe two words, add in Alison)
Beaugrand
Malibu wrote:
“Gosh. Why didn’t GM think of that? All they needed was a computer
chip and their trucks would get 500 miles per gallon. And all this time
we just needed to find a good programmer.”
A pity you stopped reading after that sentence. My remarks:
“…such a program should make use of reprogrammed engine management
‘chips;’ taller (numerically lower) final drive ratios, and transmissions
with more gear ratios- 6 and 7 speed manual AND AUTOMATIC
transmissions, making use of overdrive and underdrive gear ratios;
and refinements in aerodynamics.”
At no time did I suggest that dramatic fuel efficiency is attainable by
electronic means only; in fact, the use of “taller” final drive ratios,
6 or 7 speed transmissions, and improved aerodynamics, would probably
yield better results, as would building smaller,lighter vehicles- as
Ford/GM/Chrysler discovered 30 years ago (and, apparently, promptly forgot).
mike ornellas
Hey guys and gals at GM. I’m a loyal fan of the General. I was wondering why the corporation is being so skimpy on the details of the new hybrid (gas/electric)pickups? I guess you have looked into a diesel/electric drivetrain for your HD trucks by now. How feasible would a smaller version be in a 1/2 ton? The growing crisis in the oil markest both foreign and domestic have made me more cognisent of fuel economy. I know money is tight at GM lately but mabey high end technology will enable GM to take the lead in auto sales and there by increasing revenues. Again good job on the new generation 1/2 tons. I cant wait to see whats next.
Lee
What will happen to the horsepower and torque with the 2007 duramax engines when the low sulfur diesel fuel is required?? I’ve heard the torque will drop from 650 ft-lbs (LBZ) and 360 Hp to 400 ft-lbs and 250 hp. I hope this does not happen as I plan on purchasing one in a few years and I will be much less tempted if the hp and torque drop from where they currently are rated.
Also, I would like to see an adjustable headrest on the rear seat in the crew cab trucks that is like the two outboard rear seat headrests - that is adjustable with posts. The person sitting in the center seat in the rear of a crew cab truck only has the glass as a headrest.
Lee
When is GM going to offer a diesel in the 3/4 Suburban. I suggest the duramax perferably with the allison transmission. I know “it does not fit”. But does GM realize the market for such a vehicle. The RV market is still huge and people need a capable tow vehicle that has good power, gets reasonable mileage and that holds more than 5 or 6 people. Would I buy one? “in a heart beat”, as I am sure many many others would do also. Come on GM, isn’t there a way to make this work?
Tony
I think the new GM looks good and I would love to buy another GM in a year when I replace my current GM, but I am just afraid that when I actually get out there and do the comparison, the new Toyo Tundra is going to be the better vehicle. Everybody always yells “BUY AMERICAN”, but what happens when someone like me wants to, but the product just is not near the quality of the imports? GM should do some serious evaluation.
Also, whomever made the comment about the new Impala looking like a Honda, I totally agree, I originally said it looked like the prevoius Acura 3.2 TL/CL that were sold in 2002, which is Honda. Who the heck over at GM thought that the new Impala or Monte Carlo’s for that matter were even remotely “new” or attractive. GM is going to go bankrupt, which is to bad because I would have bought the new camaro.
Paul
I would have bought a truck for the last 3 years running but I can’t even get what my 2000 z71 had. I want a cloth interior and ALL !!! the options including lumbar support. I am presently trading in my suburban with leather to “downgrade” to cloth. Get out of Detroit and realize that here in South Texas you feel like wet goat in leather. What’s so hard about cloth? I would pay the same or even an option premium.
Please help, I don’t want to downgrade to another brand!
Johnjohn
Paul,
Don’t you use the AC in “South Texas”? Either that, or you have serious sweat problems. A cheaper and simpler fix is to buy cloth seat covers. That way, you could wash them after they get sweat-soaked (unlike regular cloth seats that get black and nasty-looking in short order and are hard to clean).
Cloth IS a downgrade. Leather has it all. It’s more luxurious and is way easier to clean.
Rich
Dean
I have a 2006 Sierra Denali AWD. From the day I drove the truck off the lot I noticed a vibration starting 70 MPH the faster I go the worse it gets. The dealer has told me that all the Sierra Denali trucks have this. Any one else have this vibration. If GMC new that the truck has a vibration @ 70 they should have disclosed this to me the buyer, stating THIS TRUCK WILL STARTE VIBRATING @ 70 MPH AND GET WORSE THE FASTER YOU GO.
john
why do you people think a 6 or 7 speed transmission is going to give you increased fuel economy. As they are right now gm gives you the best mpg, with a 4 speed, while other are offering 5 speeds. The only reason manufacturers switch to transmissions with more speeds in because of the whiners who do not like the feel of the shifts,by offering more speeds the rpm drop is much less ,the gears are closer together giving you that cadillac shift quality. the 4l60e 4th gear ratio is 0.72 dodge 5 spped 5th gear ratio is 0.82 the gm with equivelant gears, tire size is going to cruise at highway speed at a lower rpm than its dodge counterpart
Bill
When will the NEW 2007 Sierra Denali be released?
othercoast
Veering ever further off the topic, will GM provide any Diesel engines as crate replacements to drop into old B-bodies?
There were rumors (or even announcements?) of smaller (4/5/6-cyl) Diesels to be available in the smaller SUVs for 2007 - will those ever be available for retrofit?
As far as new cars go, GM would have done themselves a great favor if they’d spent the last few months implementing Benz’s EPA-approved Bluetec emissions system, or designing a knockoff, such that with ULSD available now, they’d have Diesels available in cars. For GM model that has an Ecotec engine option, dropping in an Opel Diesel should be easy…
Nyyfan
Gary,
I was at the ‘03 Detroit auto show where I saw the Cheyenne concept truck. I had my new ‘02 Duramax 2500 at the time and was prepared to trade it in for that Cheyenne or a close derivative thereof.
What I find to be disappointing is the manner in which GM parades a vehicle only to guage public reaction at best or at the least, to take up space and keep interest in the company’s potential. That truck had everything GM needed to take control of its segment and this was 3 years ago. Aluminum frame, light weight, rear wheel steering, cab forward styling, 35″ wheels, clamshell hood, independent rear etc. It was almost ready to go. After seeing the ‘07 Chevy, I felt that GM was putting on a horse and pony show in Detroit because the ‘07 is nothing like the concept and that is a shame.
I cannot ignore that fact that buyers are drawn to product that has emotional depth. The ‘07 seems to lack this appeal. Without the Cheyenne’s many innovative features, the ‘07 appears to have been an evolution of my ‘02 and GM missed a rare opportunity to take a big lead.
I read that the Tundra is being delayed after Toyota saw the Chevy’s interior. They know it’s all about good design and listening to the public intently. VW and Audi builds the best interiors in the business because they decided to lead. Ford took a big step with the F150 interior, but it is a heavy truck laden with too much curb weight and not enough motor. The Dodge will always have quality control issues and styling that is too polarizing for some. It is also a heavy veh.
The Cheyenne’s alum. frame was a good idea to cut weight as the frame may be the biggest contributor to a veh’s curb weight. Coming out with that 4 spd was a mistake as well. You need the 6 gears to offset the weight and bring the veh. up to speed gradually. I have that 4 spd. in my Trailblazer SS and it is a lazy one. Going to the 6 spd. in the Duramax was a logical thing to do yet, I see no advertising for this feature.
The 2500HD front end is a little strange looking in pics. The Rest of the truck and the GMC seem to have been cautiously done, too conservative (again the Cheyenne comparo).
I have to give credit to GM for getting this truck out early depite the UAW woes and falling revenue. My Silverado was the most comfortable truck out there (a reason I bought it) and w/the new coil front end, I know it will be very smooth and responsive. So I know the ‘07 with its nice interior is going to be a better truck overall.
Build veh’s like the Cheyenne and we will come!
Good luck!
Rick
Eddie Blackwell
I Love the look of the new silverado, reminisent of the 67 - 69 C10 trucks. I test drove the LTZ crew cab. I was very impressed, if you were blinded folded you would have thought you were in a Mercedes. The body is stronger than a than a ML, but rides a lot smoother. It was surprising that with a 133 inch wheelbase it still drove much smaller than that. At first I thought they should have put the new six speed in it, but with the 32 bit computer, and the electronic tranmission, I had no complaints, the engine, and tranny were in complete harmony,and very responsive. I was surprised at how peppy the truck felt. The twenty inch wheels also made it handle well around corners. It is a great truck if you want a sports car buy a Vette, with a six speed manual they are great. I am waiting for the extended cab, I love the 170 degree opening doors, the flip up seats, and the storage underneath. The autotrac that lets you run in rear drive until you need four wheel drive the auto four wheel drive, stabi track.
This my country, and My Truck!
Eddie Blackwell
PS I forgot I also love the regular 6 and half foot box after all this is a truck. When you flip the tail gate you can haul4X11 sheets of drywall or most anything. (Perfect)
Lisa Releford
Dear Gary,
When we traded my Tahoe in for the 07 Silveraldo. I was very comfortable with the durability of this truck . I felt safe , up high where I could see good. Who knew I was going to be in a very fatal accident 2 months after having it. The truck was totalled A HUGE MACK TRUCK hit me in the drivers door and I was hospitalized for almost 1 month but Im still alive. I feel if I was in another vehicle I would not have had a chance. Thank you and Howie Long for the commercials on this vehicle. That is what made us go out and purchase this Truck It definitly is “TRUCK OF THE YEAR” to me. You should see the pictures I have of my Truck to know I survived that. Please contact me. Would love to hear from you
Lester Fowler ----- general contractor
Gary, I appreciate the chance to tell you about my 06 4×4 Duramax, it’s great !— so far. 30k great power, nice ride ,and quiet. I like the front bumper better than the 07 [ doesn't look like a pumpkin with two snaggle teeth]. There are a few things which I feel could be improved quite inexpensively. It’s a 4×4 . They will be driven off road and through water. small problem . No waterproof grease ! Grease mixes with water, water/grease runs out, No more lube. Another small problem, no grease zerk, can’t grease, u-joints go south. My 01 silverado lost the u-joints at 80k , all because of a 25 cent grease zerk . The least GM could do is use waterproof grease, better ,add a zerk. Cheep fix. No access to untension serpentine belt. solution, sawzall . Remove two struts on fan protector [doesn,t do much protecting anyway]. GM cost, modify injection mould and save plastic and weight. Change bug eye mirror on right to true reflection mirror for those of us with depth perception[ "calibrated eyeball"] . It runs great on veggie , only problem is an hour after I drive it I feel like I have to drive it again .