DRIVEN: 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 2.7 turbo four cylinder Crew Cab Short Box 4-Wheel Drive LT All Star Edition (48k +/- MSRP)

This is written from the perspective of someone who is not a truck fan, hasn't owned one, loves cars, not crossovers or trucks.  Looking for a daily driver with space and utility.  I won't be commenting on 'truck stuff' here.  I can't tell you if the four wheel drive system is boss. Or anything about trailering.  Or, LOADS.  This is about a truck as a transportation device.

HIGHS:  

-Although many may disagree, I love the new design of the Chevy and GMC trucks.  (I prefer the more butch GMC front end)

-OMG, HUGE INSIDE!  NO.  LIE.  Anyone. Who. Bitches about lack of space inside of this crew cab, just ...go.....now.  The back seat in particular, this is the new limousine standard.  

-Not joking, the dash design feels like a cockpit.  Truck style.  Command center.   All the info, right there in your face, in your crotch.  And the touchscreen location is just fine.  I like the dash design a lot.

-Good storage all over.  This particular truck has the column shifter and middle seat folding down.

-Nice step in, lower than I anticipated.  I don't want to 'step up' into any vehicle, just like I hate bending down to get in.  There's a little step up, but get the seat where you need it and come back and check again.  

-Speaking of seats, well supportive, wide, comfortable.  Seat cloth is cheap, like they like to make it, so you up for the leather.  But lots of truck drivers spend all day in their perch, and this truck is perfect for those that need to.

-So, I'm not used to sitting in trucks, predatory style on the road. But this felt great.  And the thing is there is very good visibility to this truck.  Large windows, large mirrors, SHORT HOOD (this is a good thing).  Not at all intimidating to just get in and drive (over the top of someone ...j/k).  Between the cockpit feel and the good visibility, and good seats, and good dash layout.  Very easy to feel at home.

-THE. BED.  IS.  HUGE.  Again, GM breaks the mold.  Wider, so much space utilized well.  This one did not have a liner.   I would want that.  Bet you can haul lots of ass in this truck.

-POWER TAILGATE RELEASE.  OMG< this is so cool!

-Fairly composed ride and handling as a transportation vehicle.  I found the steering to be surprisingly responsive and just fine.  Trucks when unloaded have a hard time with just riding quietly and not being upset by bad road surfaces; my only real frame of reference is the old trucks we had when i grew up.  Obviously this new truck is much better, but more important is that is not disturbed excessively in ride by daily unloaded driving.  When you try to hustle the truck around the corners like a sports sedan, you get bob and weave and shimmy and shake...and dance.  But you don't typically rail on a truck in such a way (when do you typically want to stand on the throttle for the turbo boost?).

-Pretty quiet inside when settled down and speed.  You can seriously loaf over the highway all day in this thing.  This must be why pickups sell so well.

-Wait for it, because what you really want to know about this, is 'how's the engine'.  I'll get to that.  From my perspective.... completely fine with it, and I actually like it.  I'll break it out separately below.

LOWS:

-A big compliant universally on the Chevy trucks has been 'cheap interior'.  Ok, is it?  Well, yes, but let's dissect this.  I don't think the plastics are any worse than previous GM trucks.  And I actually didn't mind them myself.  I like the pebble texture, surface are a mix of soft and hard.  A lot of this discussion is driven by two things.  Can they be better? Yes.  "The Ram has a better interior".  Well, that I don't know.  I look at pictures and I can't say I am universally sure.  I don't doubt that many may think the Ram interior is nicer.  I need to see it for myself.  I highly doubt this interior is any or much worse than the typical junk in Fords, Nissans and Toyotas.  One thing with GM is the reliance on interiors being all black death.  So here I will concede, there is a lot of black in here, which is probably not helping the opinions here.

-TRUCKS.  ARE.  HUGE.  Now i remember why i end up cursing all the douchbags that can't park straight in a parking space.  Or they peacock their huge truck by backing in.  Well, I remember more why this shit happens.  Its probably easier to back in and drive out without reverse, than it is to swing Betsy's WIDE ASS around and on a dime into a 9 foot wide stall.  These things have a long wheelbase, and you gotta be dialed in and attentive on where you are going.  Folks may laugh and say, well learn how to drive.  But that's exactly it....so many driving trucks these days shouldn't be driving trucks.  So suburban parking lot ventures are not the best place for trucks...... you get a truck and haven't had one, it's just an adjustment curve.  Since the steering is good, a little time and you should learn where all the corners are.  Even with Betsy's ass hanging out.

-Column shifter, I don't mind having one in a truck...but OMG this one was STIFF.  Maybe it needs to be loosened up over time.  A bit clunky too.  Do i really need to replicate the motions of using a citrus press to shift my truck into gear?  Smooth it up, and it will be fine.

-Hinted above....lots of shimmy and shake in aggressive driving.  (UM IT'S NOT A SPORT SEDAN).  Yes, but as a daily driver, those choosing between a pickup and even some of the more trucky SUV / crossovers, you may want to lean to the SUV's if the way trucks drive isn't what you are used to.

OK< HERE IT IS<

ENGINE AND POWERTRAIN

So the thing here is ultimately a review on this new FOUR CYLINDER Silverado engine.  OH THE HORROR!  Well, hey it's good!  But some disclaimers first..  I typically don't care much for the big v8 rumble of the GM pushrod engines.  I don't care for the sound, sorry.  I do like 'cammy' sounding engines.  And i have no idea what expected behavior for truck engines is these days.  Whether it is the Ford Ecoboost v6, or the GM pushrod v8's.  I have no measuring stick as to how smooth they are, how they feel, and what their power delivery is like.

I wish i had gotten more time at the 70+ mph range, but in every other way I liked the 4 cylinder.  Let me start out with the sound.  I have driven the new 2.0t in the XT4, which is a smooth engine but it's raspy snarl has offput some Cadillac fans.  It's a cammy engine that makes itself heard when you lean on the gas.  And this 2.7t, even if it is uniquely designed for truck use with a long stroke and all that.....has a similar feel.  And sound.  You can tell the engines are related.  What is good here on the 2.7 is the throttle response.  The throttle response is so good.  And no turbo lag.  You lean on the gas HARD, and the tranny works quickly in concert with the boost and a snarl, and it muscles you through in quick fashion.  So it's responsive.  When being softer with the throttle, it may feel less responsive, and there is a lot of gears it is thinking about.  But it's not 'hunting'.  The trans always seemed to settle into the right gear quickly.  With small displacement, the power and torque sometimes merely seem 'good'....good enough for my butt.  I don't know how it compared to the sometimes maligned 5.3, which is what this is supposed to be comparable to.  I do know GM fans diss the 5.3 a lot.  All i know is when i really kicked ass with the throttle foot, the response was right now with boost and torque. Now, how much torque is the question.  But ultimately for my daily driving and i don't tow and haul anything.  For what i do, it's a darn snappy truck.  The response is surprising considering the small displacement and long stroke of the motor.  It revs very happily, smooth and not coarse.  It can just get loud and cammy for those not used to it, and those that don't like that.  And again, it sounds a lot like the cousin 2.0 in the XT4.  You have to decide if that's what you want in a truck or if you prefer the v8.

GM did a smart thing and decided to forego a turbo v6.  Why?  Because Ford is doing it, and has claimed that space.  Using four cylinders is Chevy's opportunity to innovate.  And if we are honest with ourselves.....we'll end up in four cylinder territory eventually anyways.  Out of the gate, if this is reliable, I say this engine is a win.  I think the lesser than expected fuel economy is a problem.  But I haven't done an interstate trip with the cruise set to see the numbers myself.  Really this engine is an engine for the future, now put in some high volume models to beta test it in the real world before they put it in a bunch of other vehicles.  Colorado / Canyon I am talking about you.  This would be a perfect engine for those pickups.  Some of the crossovers and SUV's would benefit from this engine also (Acadia, Traverse, Enclave, XT6, Tahoe).  And could they even retune it and put it in a CT5 or CT6?  Methinks it would do just fine in either of those Cadillac sedans.  Look at how Ford, when they rolled out the Ecoboost v6's, put it in every vehicle they could think of, to test it out and amortize it.  ANd now it's typical and expected in their trucks.

Just think, maybe there will be an inline six derivitive of it.  Or maybe they will make a 5.4 litre v8 version of it with 600 hp and 600 lb ft.

SUMMARY

So for the non truck guy, this was a fun ride.  I think the 4 cylinder for me in this truck is just fine.  I say that without trailering anything with it, or hauling anything.  For me the actual hurdle is can i live with the size and handling and ride of a truck.  And in some ways I could.  In other ways, I love my responsive sedans.  The space, comfort, and utility of this thing cannot be ignored.  In that regard, I am a huge truck fan and love these new GM trucks.  I honor and respect those that have issues with the interiors on these but for me I never expected much out of a truck inside anyways.  The benefits of the room and space far outweigh how erotic a particular dashboard surface may feel here when i touch it.

Love these new trucks, and I should drive a Ram for a real comparison.  But if forced to have a truck I could surely enjoy this, and I WOULD be fine to get one with the 4 cylinder if you asked me with a gun to my head (and would need to also be thinking about price and resale).  Partially because I like the SNARL and a  well dialed in powertrain.

Edited April 21, 20196 yr by regfootball

8 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Already?  It's brand new!

ok, i gotta get this typed up

 

 

Edited April 21, 20196 yr by regfootball

It looks a few inches too low needing bigger rims and tires in that side profile pic.. for 48 grand.

 

That’s sort of why they knock thousands off it I guess lol

I saw a WT with vinyl interior today at a local dealer.  The vinyl seats look very well tailored.  I don't think they look cheap at all.  If I take the plunge and order a WT regular cab 4X4, I would get the vinyl seats, but with the carpeted floor.  I grew up with rubber floor trucks on the farm, and once dirty, they stay dirty, you can never get them clean looking.  I would be fine with the 4.3 too, after seeing Motor Trend's speed and mileage report on it in a crew cab WT.

 

Nice write-up, reg!

Thanks. Dem trucks are big. 

5 minutes ago, regfootball said:

Thanks. Dem trucks are big. 

Repub trucks are bigger.  And stronger.  You're welcome.

6 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Repub trucks are bigger.  And stronger.  You're welcome.

i tried looking for the Silverado's meat curtains and i don't think i found them.

er, i mean, air curtains

6 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Repub trucks are bigger.  And stronger.  You're welcome.

with as small as that lil' turbo looks under the hood there, you'd swear when showing your friends that maybe there's un alectic mootor under the hood of that thing.  You could tell your friends you got the first electric pickup truck, they wouldn't be the wiser, and you could stun all your friends.

Edited April 22, 20196 yr by regfootball

Oh but wait, it would not be the first.  Get a load of this sad little experiment...

On 4/20/2019 at 7:44 PM, regfootball said:

Colorado / Canyon I am talking about you.  This would be a perfect engine for those pickups.  Some of the crossovers and SUV's would benefit from this engine also (Acadia, Traverse, Enclave, XT6, Tahoe).  And could they even retune it and put it in a CT5 or CT6?

This engine needs to be spread out ASAP. I think it would do great in everything you listed. 

14 hours ago, ocnblu said:

I would be fine with the 4.3 too, after seeing Motor Trend's speed and mileage report on it in a crew cab WT.

What review was that?  Do you have a link? i have a buddy who might be looking at a new Trail Boss crew cab but it has the 4.3(seems like an odd combo) but he's a little hesitant because of how poorly rated the 4.3 is. I think on the dealer's website they stated like 14/18.. I thought it was better than that but I didn't look into it at the time. 

It seems like a great price as long as you're okay with the 4.3.

https://www.elcochevrolet.com/VehicleDetails/new-2019-Chevrolet-Silverado_1500-Crew_Cab_Short_Box_4_Wheel_Drive_Custom_Trail_Boss-Ballwin-MO/3383594903

Edited April 22, 20196 yr by ccap41

Great write-up. I was in the back seat of the last gen F150 and couldn't believe how large the back seats were then. I assume the current gen of all of them is even larger, which is nuts. 

I think this engine is getting a little sh!t just because of its size just like the original 3.5EB did. I think it will be just fine and specs-wise, it's positioned well above where V8 truck engines were not all that long ago.. 15 years? 2004 6.0 made 300hp/360tq. That was the top engine. This is supposedly a replacement for the BASE engine. 

Other than the chrome bumper, that pictured truck looks pretty good. The Silverado styling has grown on me. While I don't think it looks as good as a '19 Ram or F150, it no longer looks quite like the dumpster fire that it originally did to me. 

This MSRP'd for 48k, what were they actually selling it for? I have to believe it was 40k, give or take. 

Yeah, 

27 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

 This MSRP'd for 48k, what were they actually selling it for? I have to believe it was 40k, give or take. 

The link to the actual dealer listing (seems to be gone now) said it was $36k or there abouts....The MSRP is a fake price, then they put in the discounts to make it look better...

Edited April 22, 20196 yr by Robert Hall

2 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Yeah, 

The link to the actual dealer listing (seems to be gone now) said it was $36k or there abouts....The MSRP is a fake price, then they put in the discounts to make it look better...

Pretty much., If it isn't one of the higher trims, there SHOULD be about 8-12k off, easily. 

Very cool writeup, glad you found areas that you were excited by. I agree with lots of what you posted about the truck. Interesting as I hate the look of the Chevy, but love the look of the GMC.

Found two locally that are nice, one has V6 and the other has V8. Surprised at the low price, but then I did just go in as crew cab. Good deals on new 2018 models.

2018 2WD V6 White Crewcab for $25,524

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=487125825&zip=98043&referrer=%2Fcars-for-sale%2Fsearchresults.xhtml%3Fzip%3D98043%26listingTypes%3DNEW%26bodyStyleSubtypeCodes%3DFULLSIZE_CREW%2BCOMPACT_CREW%26sortBy%3DderivedpriceASC%26incremental%3Dall%26firstRecord%3D0%26marketExtension%3Don%26modelCodeList%3D15SIPU4WD%26makeCodeList%3DGMC%26searchRadius%3D50&listingTypes=NEW&numRecords=25&firstRecord=0&modelCodeList=15SIPU4WD&makeCodeList=GMC&searchRadius=50&makeCode1=GMC&modelCode1=15SIPU4WD&clickType=listing

2018 4x4 V8 Dark Slate Metallic for $35,981

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=470160510&zip=98043&referrer=%2Fcars-for-sale%2Fsearchresults.xhtml%3Fzip%3D98043%26listingTypes%3DNEW%26bodyStyleSubtypeCodes%3DFULLSIZE_CREW%2BCOMPACT_CREW%26sortBy%3DderivedpriceASC%26incremental%3Dall%26firstRecord%3D0%26marketExtension%3Don%26modelCodeList%3D15SIPU4WD%26makeCodeList%3DGMC%26searchRadius%3D50&listingTypes=NEW&numRecords=25&firstRecord=0&modelCodeList=15SIPU4WD&makeCodeList=GMC&searchRadius=50&clickType=spotlight

2019 2WD V6 White Crewcab for $33,987

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=504033583&zip=98043&referrer=%2Fcars-for-sale%2Fsearchresults.xhtml%3Fzip%3D98043%26listingTypes%3DNEW%26startYear%3D2019%26bodyStyleSubtypeCodes%3DFULLSIZE_CREW%2BCOMPACT_CREW%26sortBy%3DderivedpriceASC%26incremental%3Dall%26firstRecord%3D0%26marketExtension%3Don%26endYear%3D2019%26modelCodeList%3D15SIPU4WD%26makeCodeList%3DGMC%26searchRadius%3D50&listingTypes=NEW&startYear=2019&numRecords=25&firstRecord=0&endYear=2019&modelCodeList=15SIPU4WD&makeCodeList=GMC&searchRadius=50&makeCode1=GMC&modelCode1=15SIPU4WD&clickType=listing

2019 4x4 V8 Deep Mahogany Metallic $34,995 Has bed liner sprayed in.

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?listingId=500777528&zip=98043&referrer=%2Fcars-for-sale%2Fsearchresults.xhtml%3Fzip%3D98043%26listingTypes%3DNEW%26startYear%3D2019%26bodyStyleSubtypeCodes%3DFULLSIZE_CREW%2BCOMPACT_CREW%26sortBy%3DderivedpriceASC%26incremental%3Dall%26firstRecord%3D0%26marketExtension%3Don%26endYear%3D2019%26modelCodeList%3D15SIPU4WD%26makeCodeList%3DGMC%26searchRadius%3D50&listingTypes=NEW&startYear=2019&numRecords=25&firstRecord=0&endYear=2019&modelCodeList=15SIPU4WD&makeCodeList=GMC&searchRadius=50&makeCode1=GMC&modelCode1=15SIPU4WD&digitalRetail=true&clickType=listing

That Brown Metallic in the 4x4 V8 above is sure pretty.

It seems hard out here in the PNW to find one of those turbo 4 bangers.

9 hours ago, ccap41 said:

What review was that?  Do you have a link?

The Silverado WT needs a respectable 7.2 seconds to get to 60 mph and does a 15.6-second quarter mile at 88.7 mph, quicker than a base model Ford or Ram. It outgrips those trucks, too, pulling 0.77 average lateral g on the skidpad and running a 28.0-second lap of the figure eight at 0.62 average lateral g. Braking is surprisingly longer than the Ford or Ram, stopping from 60 mph in 126 feet. Just goes to show a good brake pedal doesn't always mean more stopping power.

That performance, though, comes at a cost. At 15/20/17 mpg city/highway/combined, it's enough to make a fleet manager run screaming off the lot. The good news is, it actually gets much better fuel economy, at least when it's not loaded. Our Real MPG team recorded 17.6/25/20.3 mpg city/highway/combined

14 hours ago, ocnblu said:

The Silverado WT needs a respectable 7.2 seconds to get to 60 mph and does a 15.6-second quarter mile at 88.7 mph, quicker than a base model Ford or Ram.

That's a slippery slope right there though. The 2.7T isn't the base engine and if you option the 2.7T from Ford it blows the GM 2.7T out of the water. 

8 hours ago, ccap41 said:

That's a slippery slope right there though. The 2.7T isn't the base engine and if you option the 2.7T from Ford it blows the GM 2.7T out of the water. 

Well that's the Ram with 3.6, F-150 with 3.3 and Chevy with 4.3.  Base engines in base level trims.

That is very odd they make the 4.3 the base engine and the 2.7 an option.  Pay more to get a 4cyl? What a joke...

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

That is very odd they make the 4.3 the base engine and the 2.7 an option.  Pay more to get a 4cyl? What a joke...

But the 4.3 may well be the better TRUCK engine.  The 2.7T is for those who want better fuel economy.  Same with Ford's EcoBoost engines in all of its cars and trucks.  Also, GM can get more $$$$ for those who want better fuel economy, just like Ford does.

One Question: why does GM insist on getting the smallest wheels they can get away with rather than put on some size-appropriate wheels on this truck?

26 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

 

One Question: why does GM insist on getting the smallest wheels they can get away with rather than put on some size-appropriate wheels on this truck?

Cost-cutting?  Smaller wheels and tires are cheaper.    I still can't wrap my head around a 4cyl in large vehicles...4cyl to me is for small cars and CUVs..subcompacts and compacts..I wouldn't want one in a full size truck, or a luxury car for that matter (though Volvo seems to pull it off).   But that's just me..I've never bought into 4 cyls in midsize or larger vehicles. 

Edited April 24, 20196 yr by Robert Hall

35 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

That is very odd they make the 4.3 the base engine and the 2.7 an option.  Pay more to get a 4cyl? What a joke...

The 4.3 is the base engine in the WT and Custom trims.  2.7t is the base engine in the LT trim.

The smallest wheel on this new Silverado is 17".  It wasn't that long ago that 15" wheels were the norm for fullsize half tons, and 16"-16.5" on 3/4 and one-tons.  Oh how our perceptions have changed.  How many sets of tires will these trucks wear in their lifetimes? 

 

If you look at these trucks from the 3/4 perspective, the track is very wide v. overall width.  The upgraded 265/70-17 tire looks fine. 

6 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

The 4.3 is the base engine in the WT and Custom trims.  2.7t is the base engine in the LT trim.

The smallest wheel on this new Silverado is 17".  It wasn't that long ago that 15" wheels were the norm for fullsize half tons, and 16"-16.5" on 3/4 and one-tons.  Oh how our perceptions have changed.  How many sets of tires will these trucks wear in their lifetimes? 

 

Yeah, like my old Jeep came standard with 16" wheels, back in 2000.  The current ones come with 17s base, but I'm used to the 20s on mine, wouldn't want smaller now.    In the truck's lifetime--who knows...I think I had 4-5 sets of tires in 17 years on my old Jeep. 

On 4/22/2019 at 6:40 PM, ocnblu said:

The Silverado WT needs a respectable 7.2 seconds to get to 60 mph and does a 15.6-second quarter mile at 88.7 mph, quicker than a base model Ford or Ram. It outgrips those trucks, too, pulling 0.77 average lateral g on the skidpad and running a 28.0-second lap of the figure eight at 0.62 average lateral g. Braking is surprisingly longer than the Ford or Ram, stopping from 60 mph in 126 feet. Just goes to show a good brake pedal doesn't always mean more stopping power.

That performance, though, comes at a cost. At 15/20/17 mpg city/highway/combined, it's enough to make a fleet manager run screaming off the lot. The good news is, it actually gets much better fuel economy, at least when it's not loaded. Our Real MPG team recorded 17.6/25/20.3 mpg city/highway/combined

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25177218/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-four-cylinder-drive/

Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.2 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 107 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 177 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g

epa 20/19/22

My seat of the pants guess when driving it was that it was a 7 second 0-60 vehicle 

Finally saw today a couple of these new trucks on the road, one black and the other red and know in watching them go down the highway and come up from behind, the front and rear are BUTT UGLY!, GMC has the win on style, these trucks have replaced the original love hate that Ram had when it came out with their big rig look.

Chevy is ugly and I am firmly in the HATE camp. Take a GMC version every day over this truck! Chevy =

3 hours ago, riviera74 said:

One Question: why does GM insist on getting the smallest wheels they can get away with rather than put on some size-appropriate wheels on this truck?

Silverado offers (2) 17" wheels, (2) 18", (5) 20" and (1) 22".
It's not an issue of 'too small' rims; it's the wheel well size & how high the trucks sit. 

I wouldn't want any but a 20", this from stomping around on a GMC lot and comparing this aspect specifically. 

6 hours ago, regfootball said:

Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 18.2 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 107 mph

Those are darn good numbers for the 4 cylinder, amazing actually, but the trusty 4.3 figures I posted from Motor Trend's article are only incrementally slower while having a perceived advantage in aural quality, simplicity and longevity on an engine that has been continually (but slowly) improved since what... 1987?

^ Since 2016, no?

14 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Well that's the Ram with 3.6, F-150 with 3.3 and Chevy with 4.3.  Base engines in base level trims.

My mistake, the 4.3 is quicker than I thought. 

12 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That is very odd they make the 4.3 the base engine and the 2.7 an option.  Pay more to get a 4cyl? What a joke...

Well, it makes more power, torque, and gets better fuel economy and it's matched to a 10spd transmission instead of the old 6 spd. 

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

it's the wheel well size & how high the trucks sit. 

There it is. Somebody else gets it. The trucks have grown and to keep proportions looking right they have massive wheel wells which make the 17" wheels look smaller than they really are. 

Wasn't the old story about GM products and big wheel wells is they did it that way for clearance for tire chains? 

14 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Cost-cutting?  Smaller wheels and tires are cheaper.    I still can't wrap my head around a 4cyl in large vehicles...4cyl to me is for small cars and CUVs..subcompacts and compacts..I wouldn't want one in a full size truck, or a luxury car for that matter (though Volvo seems to pull it off).   But that's just me..I've never bought into 4 cyls in midsize or larger vehicles. 

Volvo does it because they turbo and supercharge them on the upper models. 

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Those are darn good numbers for the 4 cylinder, amazing actually, but the trusty 4.3 figures I posted from Motor Trend's article are only incrementally slower while having a perceived advantage in aural quality, simplicity and longevity on an engine that has been continually (but slowly) improved since what... 1987?

 

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ Since 2016, no?

@balthazar is right on this one.  The current 4.3 has no relation to the old 4.3 from '87.

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Wasn't the old story about GM products and big wheel wells is they did it that way for clearance for tire chains? 

That was on the cars. 

4 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

Wasn't the old story about GM products and big wheel wells is they did it that way for clearance for tire chains? 

Chains haven't been semi-common since when- the '60s? 

On old cars, this would perhaps make sense INSIDE the fenders (except it doesn't), but the size of the fender opening has zero bearing on whether you could get a less than 1 inch tall chain set around the tire. I think that's an unfounded myth.

On trucks, I believe the over-large wheel wells are primarily there to allow much large tire upgrades by owners (tho that also seems to be falling off in popularity to some degree). 

^^ It's there for Denali owners with 22s

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Chains haven't been semi-common since when- the '60s?  

 I know they are still a thing in parts of Colorado in the winter..

A more probable myth for today is GM vehicles need lots of wheel well space for rebound when driven on the cratered roads of Michigan.. 

Well 99% of ppl say the Chevy smallblock has been produced since 1955 with continual improvements.  That's where I get my 4.3 timeline from.

^ Since 1958.

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ Since 1958.

Dammit you got me on that... there was no reference (SBC/BBC) until the 348 came out.  DRAT

You don’t have to get it in white

disclaimer, the satin steel one in this picture may be a v8. Satin steel is a sharp color on these trucks

This Sierra is a 4 popper also. 

Edited August 7, 20195 yr by regfootball

Me likey the Satin Steel.
Coming up on a year since the unveiling, and I still like both the Silverado & the Sierra about equally. 

Wife today said next year I'm getting a new truck, after we parked next to a brand new extra-cost-dark-red F-150.
Maybe some decent deals on '19s will be available- I wouldn't buy brand new again.