Is GM not the best platform for a overland build?

[rruff]

When you start talking pickups and what they can haul you are going CAMPING!

"Overlanding is a form of travel that combines long-distance journeys with camping, often in remote and off-road environments, with the focus on the experience of the journey itself. Camping, on the other hand, is a more general term for spending the night in a temporary shelter outdoors, which can be done at a designated campground or in a more remote location. Overlanding typically involves more self-sufficiency and vehicle-based exploration, while camping can be a simpler activity with less emphasis on the journey"
"Overlanding is a combination of remote travel, off-roading, and camping."

The OP states that he is "building an 8' composite camper", so even if the terminology was wrong, he is obviously going to camp... and he needs a vehicle to put that camper on.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Ah, the vernacular thing. Crew cab, double cab, etc, each manufacture has a different name- yes, the double cab with an 8 ft bed was considered but we needed a full crew cab. Then yup, the payload thing. Pickup trucks, by design, perform at their very best about half loaded.

Towing included, I think. If the truck is rated for 10,000 lbs, towing at 5,000 should be pretty comfortable. Towed my GC WJ with my Sierra quite easily

 

[ThundahBeagle]

For ALL the talk above about the GM being the "Best Platform For An Overland Build" and all the pickup truck discussion the FACT of the matter is that Toyota and Jeep STILL rule the Overlanding World!

When you start talking pickups and what they can haul you are going CAMPING!

Eh. You can overland and camp. You can hike and camp. Just because you have a pickup truck and are overlanding with it doesnt mean you are just camping. If GVW is your indicator of camping, then what are Unimogs and Earthroamers doing? Or vans that are for all intents and purposes 2500 or 3500 series trucks?

 

[Tex68w]

GM as two brands under one manufacturer might have sold more than Ford in total, but neither brand came close on their own. I still find it silly that they offer both brands. It makes zero sense as there's very little difference between the two, and you pay 5% or more for it to say 'GMC', and it might have 10% more pleather leather than the Chevy version. In the HD sales, the GM's don't come close to Ford, nor is it an equivalent product, and that's what this discussion is about, no one cares about the throw-away half-tons lol.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

For ALL the talk above about the GM being the "Best Platform For An Overland Build" and all the pickup truck discussion the FACT of the matter is that Toyota and Jeep STILL rule the Overlanding World!

When you start talking pickups and what they can haul you are going CAMPING!

Toyota makes a pickup. So does Jeep...

 

[ThundahBeagle]

GM as two brands under one manufacturer might have sold more than Ford in total, but neither brand came close on their own. I still find it silly that they offer both brands. It makes zero sense as there's very little difference between the two, and you pay 5% or more for it to say 'GMC', and it might have 10% more pleather leather than the Chevy version. In the HD sales, the GM's don't come close to Ford, nor is it an equivalent product, and that's what this discussion is about, no one cares about the throw-away half-tons lol.

GMC was a brand with a following well before GM bought it. GMC stays in the pickup, van, and SUV realm while Chevy does it all. GMC makes up x percent of truck sales and GM is concerned they would lose that percentage if they scrapped the GMC nameplate.

Not really different than Chevy, Pontiac, Buick cars all sharing the same platform. Or Ford Lincoln (Mercury) offering the same SUV under Ford and Lincoln name plates.

GMC sells 2 trucks fir every 3 Chevy sells, so the numbers and margins are important. And between the two marques, they sold about 300,000 HD units for 2024. About 80% of GMC Sierra buyers purchase a mid-range trim or higher, HD sales or not, so each sale has a higher margin. While something like 80% of Chevy Silverado buyers purchase a mid-range trim or below. And of course, the Denali trim is such a cash cow - again, half ton, 3/4 ton or full ton - there is no reason to discontinue it or GMC. Since the only cost difference to GM is the name plate, headlights, and such. So they get to experiment with things like multi pro tailgater the DDS shocks on one line and roll it out to the other if successful. Win-win.

Records for Ford do not differentiate 150 vs 250 or 350 sales. You might have a source?

And, for the most part, even HD vehicles being used at construction sites, are generally on-road except when they get to the site, most of which are not rocky and technical terrain. I see why GM went IFS but I dont always agree with it. Taking the new Tahoes and Suburbans, for example, they are now independent rear suspension and I think that is a worse mistake that IFS.

 

[MOAK]

For ALL the talk above about the GM being the "Best Platform For An Overland Build" and all the pickup truck discussion the FACT of the matter is that Toyota and Jeep STILL rule the Overlanding World!

When you start talking pickups and what they can haul you are going CAMPING!

so, let me get this straight. If I have an F350 with a 4WC pop up on it, outfitted for full time living as we explore the very remotest regions in North America, with a five year plan bent on immersing ourselves into the different cultures of these regions, staying off the interstates and traversing primarily on each region's back country discovery routes, (I won't bother to outline all of them or the fact we will be going back up above the Arctic Circle for extended periods or finding ourselves on washboard roads for hundreds of miles ) ) then we are just camping? Did I get that right? After traveling in Jeeps and then a Landcruiser for over 25 years, (before that an F250), I'd venture to say that what we are doing now is the truest form that fits the modern definition of Overlanding. Before this, we were just going car camping in vehicles that could get us into and out of some rather remote places for a month or two.

 

[MOAK]

GMC was a brand with a following well before GM bought it. GMC stays in the pickup, van, and SUV realm while Chevy does it all. GMC makes up x percent of truck sales and GM is concerned they would lose that percentage if they scrapped the GMC nameplate.

Not really different than Chevy, Pontiac, Buick cars all sharing the same platform. Or Ford Lincoln (Mercury) offering the same SUV under Ford and Lincoln name plates.

GMC sells 2 trucks fir every 3 Chevy sells, so the numbers and margins are important. And between the two marques, they sold about 300,000 HD units for 2024. About 80% of GMC Sierra buyers purchase a mid-range trim or higher, HD sales or not, so each sale has a higher margin. While something like 80% of Chevy Silverado buyers purchase a mid-range trim or below. And of course, the Denali trim is such a cash cow - again, half ton, 3/4 ton or full ton - there is no reason to discontinue it or GMC. Since the only cost difference to GM is the name plate, headlights, and such. So they get to experiment with things like multi pro tailgater the DDS shocks on one line and roll it out to the other if successful. Win-win.

Records for Ford do not differentiate 150 vs 250 or 350 sales. You might have a source?

And, for the most part, even HD vehicles being used at construction sites, are generally on-road except when they get to the site, most of which are not rocky and technical terrain. I see why GM went IFS but I dont always agree with it. Taking the new Tahoes and Suburbans, for example, they are now independent rear suspension and I think that is a worse mistake that IFS.

agreed, back when we were buying farm pickup trucks in the 60s and 70s we bought Fords because we thought Chevys were cheap and could not afford a GMC, knowing full well the GMCs were as good a work truck as an International. Power Wagons were high on the cool scale, but very rare. Then the mid 70s came along and the watering down process began. IH quit building pickups, The Power Wagon disappeared, and GMC started a campaign to appeal to a broader customer base, a lot less toughness and a lot more comfort, sold more trucks to the ever increasing suburbanite consumer that did not need a heavy duty pick up truck, but instead, enjoyed a brand name that represented toughness. That left the Ford F250 Highboy the last man standing for many years as the K20s did not fare so well in the rural midwest. For one reason or another I remember Chevys had a well deserved reputation as being rust buckets and would literally rust away in a few short years. That's no longer the case, but still, 50 years later, it is a mar on their reputation.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

When i was a kid in the 80's/90's in my area of the rural Midwest Chevy was king with ford a close second. Cancer got most of both over the years.

Of course back then Chevy was solid front axle and Fords were IFS...

If you wanna talk rust... Toyota wins that game. Especially back then.

 

[Tex68w]

GMC was a brand with a following well before GM bought it. GMC stays in the pickup, van, and SUV realm while Chevy does it all. GMC makes up x percent of truck sales and GM is concerned they would lose that percentage if they scrapped the GMC nameplate.

Not really different than Chevy, Pontiac, Buick cars all sharing the same platform. Or Ford Lincoln (Mercury) offering the same SUV under Ford and Lincoln name plates.

GMC sells 2 trucks fir every 3 Chevy sells, so the numbers and margins are important. And between the two marques, they sold about 300,000 HD units for 2024. About 80% of GMC Sierra buyers purchase a mid-range trim or higher, HD sales or not, so each sale has a higher margin. While something like 80% of Chevy Silverado buyers purchase a mid-range trim or below. And of course, the Denali trim is such a cash cow - again, half ton, 3/4 ton or full ton - there is no reason to discontinue it or GMC. Since the only cost difference to GM is the name plate, headlights, and such. So they get to experiment with things like multi pro tailgater the DDS shocks on one line and roll it out to the other if successful. Win-win.

Records for Ford do not differentiate 150 vs 250 or 350 sales. You might have a source?

And, for the most part, even HD vehicles being used at construction sites, are generally on-road except when they get to the site, most of which are not rocky and technical terrain. I see why GM went IFS but I dont always agree with it. Taking the new Tahoes and Suburbans, for example, they are now independent rear suspension and I think that is a worse mistake that IFS.

I get it, you're a GM fan boy, no big deal. But you aren't going to convince many here that it's the better truck. IMHO, GM has been trash for the last 25 years.

 

[MOAK]

When i was a kid in the 80's/90's in my area of the rural Midwest Chevy was king with ford a close second. Cancer got most of both over the years.

Of course back then Chevy was solid front axle and Fords were IFS...

If you wanna talk rust... Toyota wins that game. Especially back then.

Only the ford F 150s were twin I beam, 250 were solids.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

I get it, you're a GM fan boy, no big deal. But you aren't going to convince many here that it's the better truck. IMHO, GM has been trash for the last 25 years.

I've admitted to being a fan of the Silverado and Sierra going back to the days when Silverado was just the top trim of the K20 or 1500's. By the way, as a kid, my dad drove a 1978 Ford 4x2 truck with an 8 ft bed. Deep forest metallic green. We did 24 cord of wood a year out of that thing for about 6 years and it was definitely not a 250. I'm not hating on Ford, here.

I've brought some facts to the discussion but I haven't seen much in the way of factual responses from you, is all. You said Fors sells more HD than Chevy and I'm here telling you Ford does not publicly differentiate the 250 or 350 sales from the 150's, so how do you know? If you do have a source for those separated numbers, I would be interested in seeing, as I'm also curious.

Yes the design of the solid axle is more simple than the IFS. Yes the solid axle may hold up better offroad as it is based on a simpler, older design. Are you going to tell me next that they should all be using drum brakes? I'm pretty sure you would not.

 

[p nut]

I agree Ford’s figures are a bit misleading. They just throw everything under the ”F-series” sales. I’d imagine F150’s make up a large portion of the overall sales.

I have no loyalty to a brand. But I do have fond memories of GMC vehicles growing up.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Only the ford F 150s were twin I beam, 250 were solids.

Nope. 80-85 150-350 were ttb. 86 the 350 went solid (only year for the bullnose), I am pretty sure the 250 didnt until 99. Dad's 1980 F-350 had the D50 TTB.

I like my beams in my Ranger (IFS built like a solid axle) but leaf sprung TTB wast a great idea.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

I agree Ford’s figures are a bit misleading. They just throw everything under the ”F-series” sales. I’d imagine F150’s make up a large portion of the overall sales.

I have no loyalty to a brand. But I do have fond memories of GMC vehicles growing up.

View attachment 877649
View attachment 877650
View attachment 877651

What's the top one, the Suburban, from?