Some hints to timing from a dealer:

Will not be badged “Classic”.

Maintain a five month supply of V6s going into the 2007 CY

– The Silverado Classic with the V6 will build- out mid- Dec ‘06

– The all new 900 V6 Silverado will not begin production until late

April ’07

– Five months of Silverado production without V6s

• Order manual transmissions early

– A limited quantity of manual transmissions are already produced for

the Classic model run

– When they’re gone... they’re gone

• Order Classic Crew Cabs early

– The Classic Crew Cab builds out August ’06

– The all new 900 Crew Cab begins production October ’06

– There are only 3 consensus cycles for the Classic Crew

(April/ May/ June)

That's some good info! Thanks, Walt!

Very interesting about the v6s..

are they using a new V6 in the 900?......based on the 3.9L maybe?

anyone know?

i thought i could get a 3500 crewcab wiht a full size bed with a 1.0L 3 cylinder enigne with a 3 speed auto damn. this options suck I might sell my trade my truck in for one of thes new beasts.

One of the parts I found most interesting of the broadcast was that the manual transmissions that go into these "Classics" are the last manual transmission p/u's that will be available. The new 900's will not have a manual transmission option-maybe already common knowledge-but I wasn't aware of this. They said that the demand for manuals was low and didn't justify the cost to certify them.

are they using a new V6 in the 900?......based on the 3.9L maybe?

anyone know?

The current -800's have used the old 4.3L for a while, but that is going away with the truck.

The new -900's will have the Trailblazer's 4.2L I-6 instead.

Edited April 22, 200619 yr by caddycruiser

Other than a supposed "price advantage" (they're all more expensive than they were just a few years ago), what is the point of a V-6/I-6 large pickup? I don't see one-I mean who wants a slow engine in their giant truck these days? And who ever did in the first place?

Other than a supposed "price advantage" (they're all more expensive than they were just a few years ago), what is the point of a V-6/I-6 large pickup? I don't see one-I mean who wants a slow engine in their giant truck these days? And who ever did in the first place?

fuel economy? but i thought the 4.8 was coming around w/ afm too...? it's prolly a great engine (no personal exp) oh well we'll see how it turns out.

side note... does that mean a ~8.4L V12 would fit in then?

Replacing the 4.3L V6 with the I6 is a bad choice, IMO. I had a 1996 K1500 with a 4.3L V6 and although it was slow, the thing had massive amounts of torque. For the 1996 model year, the 4.3L V6 put out 200HP and 250 LB-FT. of torque. That was one hell of an engine.

Replacing the 4.3L V6 with the I6 is a bad choice, IMO. I had a 1996 K1500 with a 4.3L V6 and although it was slow, the thing had massive amounts of torque. For the 1996 model year, the 4.3L V6 put out 200HP and 250 LB-FT. of torque. That was one hell of an engine.

well the 4.2L destroys that with 291hp and 275lbs-ft. 4.3 is a crude engine that should die.

well the 4.2L destroys that with 291hp and 275lbs-ft. 4.3 is a crude engine that should die.

are you refering to the Inline 6... the Trailblazer engine that is rated one of GM's most fuel consumptive vehicle? granted that thing has a lot of power, but man it gets horrible fuel ecconomy... it says on the window 16-21 or something... but realistically most people say its more like 11-13... for a mid sized suv...

are you refering to the Inline 6...

yup. My buddy had one and he got 17-18mpg in his commute (3.42 4 wheel drive) Great engine.

yup. My buddy had one and he got 17-18mpg in his commute (3.42 4 wheel drive) Great engine.

yea its a good engine... but i've heard a few people complain about its relitively consumptive behavier... and Consumer reports did a report on vehicles that got better and worse fuel ecconomy then the EPA suggested, and that was the only GM vehicle on the list for worse...