[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I fail to see how mounting the mirrors on a small angled stalk is some horrible abomination while mounting an otherwise identical mirror straight out is beauty incarnate. Everyone has their preferences, but you are possibly the first person that I've heard form a strong opinion (one way or the other) about the manner in which a side mirror gets mounted to the door.

Originally Posted by snizzle

I mean, I kinda agree with NW-99SS.

It does look tacked on. Like late in the development process they said "just move them down, now, cheap." Double sided automotive tape should handle that.

It's combination of mirror placement, the leftover black plastic where the mirror is normally mounted, the Nissan fender badges, and the fender curve below the mirror.

I've owned over a dozen GM trucks, from a 1959 Apache, to my current 2017. Don't care for the new styling trend, which is ok as I didn't plan to trade in my 17 for quite some time anyway.

[Royal Tiger]

The best looking new full size is the Ram, which is a shame as our last brand new Dodge vehicle has been a piece of crap.

I’d get a 2018 with the throw back Big-10 paint that I posted. Now that’s a nice truck.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

The best looking new full size is the Ram, which is a shame as our last brand new Dodge vehicle has been a piece of crap.

I’d get a 2018 with the throw back Big-10 paint that I posted. Now that’s a nice truck.

I like that old school square body throw back too. Can't imagine a way to incorporate on my Denali but I do like the look.

New Ram is definitely the best looking of them all, which is interesting as they aren't selling very well...likely their reputation for issues is the key concern.

[Snoman]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

The best looking new full size is the Ram, which is a shame as our last brand new Dodge vehicle has been a piece of crap.

I’d get a 2018 with the throw back Big-10 paint that I posted. Now that’s a nice truck.

Agree


Toying with purchasing a truck myself, it will be a RAM or Toyota as the last proven GM truck frame I liked is from 10 years ago.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I like that old school square body throw back too. Can't imagine a way to incorporate on my Denali but I do like the look.

New Ram is definitely the best looking of them all, which is interesting as they aren't selling very well...likely their reputation for issues is the key concern.

I read RAM outsold Silverado last month. I'd assume that's a good thing for RAM.

[KMPrenger]

New Silverado/Sierra 2.7 I4 to get up to 20mpg city and 23 mpg highway.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/10/10/...-fuel-economy/

So, that city number looks pretty good, but that highway number looks horrid. Can that be correct? Heck, the 2.7 V6 in the F150 is rated at 26 hwy and has considerably more power. Yeah, I know the 2.7 in the GM trucks is the competitor to the other brand's base V6 (non-turbo) models, and in terms of power, it wins, but isn't really as impressive as I think it could have been with highway mpg.

I guess it just has to be in boost too much to move that big truck down the road.

Now I'm starting to wonder if they were to use the 2.7 in the midsize trucks like I kind of thought they might, can it do any better on mpg than the current V6 with its cylinder deactivation? Maybe not. If not, they won't use it.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

New Silverado/Sierra 2.7 I4 to get up to 20mpg city and 23 mpg highway.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/10/10/...-fuel-economy/

So, that city number looks pretty good, but that highway number looks horrid. Can that be correct? Heck, the 2.7 V6 in the F150 is rated at 26 hwy and has considerably more power. Yeah, I know the 2.7 in the GM trucks is the competitor to the other brand's base V6 (non-turbo) models, and in terms of power, it wins, but isn't really as impressive as I think it could have been with highway mpg.

I guess it just has to be in boost too much to move that big truck down the road.

Now I'm starting to wonder if they were to use the 2.7 in the midsize trucks like I kind of thought they might, can it do any better on mpg than the current V6 with its cylinder deactivation? Maybe not. If not, they won't use it.

Another disappointment. They may actually be in danger of losing 2nd place. I'm having Becky send me a Colorado while they sort out this truck

[FenwickHockey65]

It can replace the 3.6L in the midsize trucks, but the FE definitely is disappointing in the T1s.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

New Silverado/Sierra 2.7 I4 to get up to 20mpg city and 23 mpg highway.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/10/10/...-fuel-economy/

So, that city number looks pretty good, but that highway number looks horrid. Can that be correct? Heck, the 2.7 V6 in the F150 is rated at 26 hwy and has considerably more power. Yeah, I know the 2.7 in the GM trucks is the competitor to the other brand's base V6 (non-turbo) models, and in terms of power, it wins, but isn't really as impressive as I think it could have been with highway mpg.

I guess it just has to be in boost too much to move that big truck down the road.

Now I'm starting to wonder if they were to use the 2.7 in the midsize trucks like I kind of thought they might, can it do any better on mpg than the current V6 with its cylinder deactivation? Maybe not. If not, they won't use it.

I'm not sure whats going on. If it was just because they cranked the boost up, the Ford would be just as bad, or worse -not better.

Its weird because the city mileage is about as good as you'd expect. Maybe the highway numbers take a dive because the Chevy isn't as aerodynamic as the Ford is? Or possibly in the throttle/transmission tuning where Ford optimized for the EPA testing while GM tuned things more for the real world? I know Ford has aggressively chased big numbers with EcoBoast before, but its not like GM hasn't tuned their trucks for better theoretical mileage at the expense of driveability before either.

[FenwickHockey65]

I'm hoping it'll be a reverse of the EcoBoost situation and owners will report far better real world numbers than the EPA ratings.

[NW-99SS]

Real life, hand calculated - my 6.2 in both my 2014 and current 2017 Denali's have gotten better fuel econ than my friend's 3.5L Ecoboost, 5.0L, and my work truck 4.3 V6 Silverado (All trucks were crewcab 4x4 shortbeds).

I don't drive my truck expecting great fuel economy, but I am not disappointed with the 6.2s at all...great mileage and power.

[JerTM]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

New Silverado/Sierra 2.7 I4 to get up to 20mpg city and 23 mpg highway.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/10/10/...-fuel-economy/

So, that city number looks pretty good, but that highway number looks horrid. Can that be correct? Heck, the 2.7 V6 in the F150 is rated at 26 hwy and has considerably more power. Yeah, I know the 2.7 in the GM trucks is the competitor to the other brand's base V6 (non-turbo) models, and in terms of power, it wins, but isn't really as impressive as I think it could have been with highway mpg.

I guess it just has to be in boost too much to move that big truck down the road.

Now I'm starting to wonder if they were to use the 2.7 in the midsize trucks like I kind of thought they might, can it do any better on mpg than the current V6 with its cylinder deactivation? Maybe not. If not, they won't use it.

HMM, My 15 1500 with the 5.3L averaged 21-22 highway even here in the mountains. Sounds like they I-4T may be a bit under stress to move the truck along.

[FenwickHockey65]

When everyone hates on the production 2019 Camaro:





SEMA concept.

[Royal Tiger]

Look, the bowtie is in the grill.