GM’s new 2019 pickups, by far the most important vehicle in their portfolio, are not off to a roaring start. There is a growing consensus that its interiors are not competitive. And now it’s apparent that its fuel consumption isn’t either. Certain versions of the 2019 Silverado have EPA ratings as much as 3 mpg lower than comparable 2018 versions. The apparent (and rather obvious) reason: worse aerodynamic drag thanks to that oversize blunt front end. Progress.
Here’s one example. Same engine and 6-speed automatic. That’s an 18% drop in combined mpg rating. 4WD versions of the 4.3 L are down 2mpg. 5.3L V8 versions (the most popular) are also down 1 mpg (4WD) and 2 mpg (2WD).
According to an article at autonews.com, A Chevrolet spokesman responded with this:
Monte Doran, a Chevrolet spokesman, attributed the difference in fuel economy to the redesigned trucks being more capable and larger than the outgoing models, which in turn increases aerodynamic drag.
“We increased towing capacity, payload, and it’s a much larger bed and a much larger cab,” he said.
While aerodynamic efficiency increased 7 percent and the automaker cut out hundreds of pounds on the redesigned Silverado, Chevrolet says the frontal area also increased…
And here I thought the whole point of this new generation was to be lighter and therefore more fuel-efficient. Silly me. But yes, the previous generation was obviously too small.
Also, there’s an EPA ratings disappointment with GM’s new turbocharged 2.7L four, as per this AN report a few weeks back. (we covered it here) The new high-tech engine’s EPA numbers (20 mpg combined) are lower than anticipated, and represent only a very small 1 mpg improvement over the existing 4.3 L V6. And it’s no better than the Ram with the Pentastar V6, and a whole 2 mpg worse than an F150 with the 2.7 L Ecoboost V6. And both the Ford and Ram get up to 25-26 mpg on the highway, while the GM four is rated at just 23 mpg. GM’s response: “Don’t look at the sticker”. Seriously. Maybe it should have been “Don’t look at the front end”.
And if you think the 2019 Silverado front end is a bit tall, wide, blunt and…um…not exactly very subtle in its styling, feast your eyes on the 2020 Silverado HD, just announced. Where will this end?
Time to start a GM Deathwatch?
Hmmm, not a good look.
This will be interesting to watch. I don’t believe there is another market segment where good old fashioned brand loyalty is so strong. The diehard Chevy guy will lap them up and there are still enough of them that it will be a significant number. OTOH, all the action will be at the margins. Interior? Fuel mileage? Looks? A turbo 4? It looks like Chevy is piling on with reasons for the undecided buyer to go elsewhere.
Initial quality may become *the* determining factor in whether these succeed or not. A bunch of recalls and quality problems could add to all the above and send sales into a slow dive. Or this could prove to be the best Chevy truck in a generation. But any growth will be slow.
Clearly, GM is pandering to the brodozer crowd and not those interested in subtlety and efficiency with this look.
It seems like large trucks are entering into the modern equivalent of 1959 over-styling excess for cars before (hopefully) a new, more restrained era of styling eventually takes hold. This is the ’59 Eldorado of trucks.
These new trucks are starting to make Griswold Family Truckster look absolutely gorgeous!
Their gargantuan size make my 1986 square body look like a sub-compact truck.
Coming soon for 2023! The limit will be bridge underpass height!
That’s awesome! It is now my tablet wallpaper.
Chevy’s a little late to the game. The Tundra has been doing Ugly + Bad Mileage since 2014 :/
I’m not a big fan of Toyota’s recent styling efforts, but the Tundra is positively handsome next to any of the big three’s offerings.
Agreed. It’s 13/17 MPG ratings for the past 12 model years, the pudgy ugly front end and the silly partially blanked out rear window with mis placed up too high door handle on the smaller 4 door model is just pitiful in 2019. The Tundra’s low sales are justified.
ButtUgly
How many pick up truck buyers really NEED a truck this tall, this wide, this long, this hideous?
A need to tow or haul something that necessitates owning this monstrosity? No. A need to FEEL something they’re missing in their lives? Probably.
In the Bay Area town in have my office in, which is crawling with Teslas, Porsches, and the like these trucks are also all over. They are not used for work or play when you notice how clean and who drives them. They are basic around the town transportation. There is one fellow in town who drives an F-650, tall enough my 9 year old can walk under, and the polished black paint hasn’t seen any dirt.
Need and underlying psychological compensations rarely has much to do with most pickup sales. Trucks are in and cool, and most suburbanites who drive them do so because it’s fashionable to do so. It’s no different than the PLC of the 70’s. How many people needed a car with a 6 foot long hood, massive amounts of wasted space and tiny back seats? Yet, family men bought them, because they were in style. At least with a pickup, they have far more practical uses than some of the previously fashionable car styles.
Around my area, pickups are hugely popular, and it is very common for most households to have a crossover and a pickup. Most of these people are just regular working families, and the pickups have become family vehicles that replaced the minivan in many cases. You can argue the logic of that choice, but the fact is driving a pickup shows your in style compared to the uncool minivan guy (most of whom in this area are now the 50+ crowd).
Pickups do have big advantages over minivans in the snow country. They are far more capable in winter conditions, they are great for snowmobilers and ATVers, lumberyard runs, hauling lawn and garden supplies, fisherman and hunters. And even for cottagers they are great hauling all your junk, boats, canoes, kayaks, bikes, etc to the lake for the weekend. All these activities are common with many regular families that drive these pickup.
While I am sure there are some people that buy pickups for the reasons mentioned by people here, almost everyone I know with a pickup is just an average Joe, who likely would have owned a minivan or midsized SUV 20 years ago.
I can’t fathom how a Canadian working family would sink so much money into a pick up truck. I never had a car costing more than my Golf, which is about half an F-150.
That $25,000 difference sends my son to university for a degree.
You know, priorities.
Many people I know have the finances to buy a truck and send their kids to school. Some don’t and still buy an expensive truck or whatever else and live beyond their means in massive debt. It’s not my place to judge others choices Iife or vehicles.
You’re also making the assumption that everyone buys a fully loaded truck brand new. Their are lots of used trucks at or cheaper than your VW wagon. I am glad you like your car and it suits your needs but not everyone is in the same situation as your are for life needs or finances. FWIW, I actually looked hard at Golf wagon, but ended up with a competitor that better met my requirements.
I would agree with the consensus here that the styling on these new Chevys is not very attractive. That whole front fender is a mess on the 1500s. Although, I think the HD models look nicer, with less busy body lines and a front end that reminds me of the early to mid 1960s Chevy Trucks. That said, it’s really only the front and possibly the rear styling that is the big problem on these trucks. Look at them from a side profile and they really aren’t that much different from a Ford or a Ram. And lets be honest, all these new trucks are overstyled gargantuans.
Ever since the GMT-400s, GM has been very conservative on its truck restyles, too conservative IMO. GM finally went less conservative with the styling on this truck, but the results are questionable. Only time and the market will tell if it is accepted. Regardless, GM can fix this truck, with a facelift but by then the damage might already be done. Regardless of the consensus here that the styling is a miss, I wager that the minority of CCers are full-size truck owners, and even less of them are actually willing to actually fork over any money for a truck. Sure its a miss with CCer’s, but we’ll see how the truck buying public takes to it soon.
And while many of us lament for trucks of the past, modern trucks are generally far more versatile, comfortable and feature laden, while being more fuel efficient, better handling, better braking and better tow vehicles then trucks of the past. While the old trucks generally had bigger beds, the modern trucks have payloads pretty on par, and handle that weight better.
From those who have actually driven and tested these trucks, they seem to be a improvement over the previous generation, with the interior being the only area drawing any negative comments. There are several major improvements. One is the bed on these trucks has increased in volume by 20%. The 5.5 foot box has as much volume as a 6.5 foot box from a competitor. That is a big plus for many who use these vehicles as family vehicles and are more interested in cargo volume than weight carrying ability. The truck has also drastically lost weight, bringing it more in line with fully aluminium Ford. While the performance of the trucks has improved substantially (for the 5.3L V8 anyway), and the V8 supposedly has improved MPGs.
Here are a couple of reviews from people who actually drove the trucks:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-chevrolet-silverado-pickup-truck-lighter-larger-first-drive
http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/22662/2019-chevrolet-silverado-first-drive-review-the-peoples-chevy-picks-up-changes-big-and-small
Ford must have a gaggle of double-agent saboteurs working in the Silver Silos.
Is Mary Barra the right person for the job…considering these truck products, the utter failure of Cadillac and Buick in USA, and the insipid “Real People, Not Actors” Chevy advertising campaign?
The question answers itself: Hell NO!
Only Ford? I thought FCA, Toyota and Nissan have sended a pinch of double-agent saboteurs as well.
What was wrong with old ones? I briefly rented a 2018 GMC regular cab long bed and it seemed like even the basic U-Haul spec had all the necessary comforts and conveniences and everything was easily understandable and usable, Which was a major improvement over some circa 1999 GM cars I rented.
The styling of this new generation looks ugly and angry as if overcompensating. GM should have tried a retro style harking back to the 70s trucks.
I agree it’s ugly. Very ugly. But IMHO that also applies to most new cars from the last 5 or 10 years: too many lines coming or going in all directions. Too many design and “decorative” details. Too Baroque to my taste.
I agree with the 59 tail fins analogy.
Maybe in 10 years car (and truck) designs come back to function over form, or at least a reasonable balance between them.
Pity that FoMoCo and GM cannot spend as much time, effort and dollars in refining and updating the classic rear wheel drive passenger car as they have on their pick up trucks.
Well, had more folks continued to purchase classic rear wheel drive passenger cars, FoMoCo, GM, and Chrysler (and everyone else) would have plied money into their updating and refinement.
Actually, the RWD sedan has pretty well reached its nadir. What can one really do to update it mechanically or refine it? You reach a point where any changes are just subjective, and we reached that point some time back. The ride can be made cushy again, or firmer again, as it has been both at one time or another. The engines are pretty much at peak efficiency. So, other than loading up on needless options, what can be done to a RWD sedan that hasn’t already been done? When a Rolls and a Chrysler 300 are more alike than different, what else is there to change? Engine up front, check, diff in the back, check. All the rest are just different levels of trim and luxury.
The simple fact is that OEMs build what makes them the most money. The days of offering a full line just to make dealers happy is gone. They are not building models to grow the brand unless it is a derivative of an existing model slightly tweaked to meet perceived consumer demand. Trucks sell, sedans not so much.
Poor GM. They catch hell for not adapting to a changing market quickly enough. Then, when they do adapt, they catch hell for that, too.
With that said, that new truck is ugly as hell and I’d be surprised if they sell. Frankly, they’re so ungainly relative to the competition (which, honestly, isn’t so hot, either), they remind me of the 1960-1962 Plymouth and Dodge situation.
But, then, I’ve been wrong before.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=768
I’d love to have the truck described in the sticker! Maybe with the V8 though. But what great looking trucks they were.
Me too. Wouldn’t it be possible to buy a 1985 C10 and restore it to better than new and more reliable than new for much, much less than the purchase price of the 2019 Chevy Peterbuilt, even using NOS parts?
Not a uniquely North American thing either, as this thing plainly shows.
It looks like an SUV version of a ’60 Valiant.
Contrasted with a cleaner, earlier version.
It does look like that. Is it the fenders mainly?
Old GM must have gotten custody of the wind tunnel after the bankruptcy.
Love it!
Good one, Acd!
GM’s former plants will make nice Amazon fulfillment centers.
Or, automobile assembly plants…
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-tesla-interested-buying-idled-gm-plant-60-minutes-interview-2018-12
Just by happenstance a new, spotless, temporary tag in the window Chevy truck was parked next to me at Lowe’s yesterday.
Even though the driver had done a fine job of parking it in the center of the painted parking slot (NOT always the case!); I couldn’t help but notice that it really did fill out the allotted parking place width, with very little space left over on each side. It stuck out in the travel isle noticeably more than the early 2000’s Ford pick up truck next to it.
I wonder how many tries it took for the owner to get it so neatly “centered” in the parking slot?
Just too dayum wide, tall and long for me to even consider purchasing this Macho Monster.
The HD is overblown, but it does make the 1500 look understated. And from what I’ve seen, the ’19 1500 looks better in the metal than in any CGI’d publicity shot.
Despite all the comments on how ugly this truck is I am literally seeing them everywhere including the thruway. And the F-150 with its silly backward C headlights is hardly any better. If anything the Ram is the best looking of the bunch but also the thirstiest in the real world it would seem. TFL did a real world test of a 2019 Ram Rebel, a new body Silverado Trail Boss and the F-150 Raptor. Guess which one came closest to 20 highway MPG in that test. And guess which one came over 4 MPG under it’s comical EPA rating of 22 MPG. If you answered Silverado for the first and Ram for the second you would be right!
And just for the record it is the old carry over 5.3 AFM that lost one MPG compared to last year and that engine is only offered in the cheaper trim levels. The LT on up to the High Country has a newer designed 5.3 with DFM or Dynamic fuel management and the MPG numbers on that setup stayed the same on the 4X4 models at 16/22 and up one on the RWD models at 17/23. Real world mileage test results will be interesting. The 4.3’s 2-3 MPG loss is head scratching unless they drastically changed the rear end ratio which would account for maybe 1 MPG.
Two owners of 2015-2017 Silverado double cab trucks at work have 4.3 engines tied to the 6 speed automatic and say they are easily beating the 22 MPG highway number with 23-24 often reported so again some real world numbers are definitely in order.