Just when you didn't think a Chevy could get uglier....

[Bigjerm]

I think it's just another truck following the trend of all the other truck. Doesn't look bad but doesn't jump off the page saying buy me either.

Crew cab is almost a needed item for some people. 3-4 guys in a truck on the way to a job site all over 6 ft tall, 3 or so hour drive... Yeah crew cab all the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rbertalotto]

I don't understand the USA's obsession with crewcabs.

If you don't have any friends................Not Needed!....:coffeedrink:

But if you have children or grandkids.........It's a must have.

 

[Jeep]

It's just ugly, GM has been getting that way lately, I don't see any Dodge or Ford in there, maybe the UAW has cut back on the time allowed to carve the prototype model out of that big clay block. You could stack another 265 on top of the factory tire and still not reach the upper fender lip but you gotta take the front bumper (can you call it that?) off to put a 285 on (slightly exaggerating...but only slightly!). Great power plants though.

As far as crew cabs, my Dodge Ram that I drive every day is a crew cab, my F-700 camper rig is a crew cab, and my Tahoe is a 4 door. I have a family and a business and wouldn't have it any other way, it's not an obsession, it's a reality.

 

[UHAULER]

.......It's just ugly, GM has been getting that way lately, I don't see any Dodge or Ford in there, maybe the UAW has cut back on the time allowed to carve the prototype model out of that big clay block. You could stack another 265 on top of the factory tire and still not reach the upper fender lip but you gotta take the front bumper (can you call it that?) off to put a 285 on (slightly exaggerating...but only slightly!). Great power plants though.....

I don't understand why GM truck wheelwells are very tall, but narrow front to back, I guess it's to give it that "macho" look with the big bulgy fenders.

 

[Clutch]

Looks fine to me, it is just a truck for haul your stuff.

Dig the crew cab and the new 6.6 bed on the 1500, could squeeze 3 MX bikes and your buds.

Interior looks quite comfy as well.

 

[Mark Harley]

Crew cab? That is too small I'll take a Crew + two.

I love my crew cab, Seating for six.
We tried an extended cab and it did not function well with kids and you MUST remember to close the doors in order.

 

[naptownwhiteboy]

And I thought Porsche designers were lazy. It's a brick with wheels. Almost as if a 3 year old drew it.

 

[hovenator]

Gm ruined a perfectly good truck!

 

[Clutch]

Gm ruined a perfectly good truck!

Really!? Pretty much looks the same with minor tweaks.


Kinda like that grill.

 

[AA1PR]

I guess if its not a Jeep, land rover or toyota on here its junk

 

[Clutch]

I guess if its not a Jeep, land rover or toyota on here its junk

Call me weird, I like the late model GM's....Mazzulla Offroad does 'em right.

 

[o00otii]

If they truly wanted higher MPG, and EPA had any real power, that "ugliness" would be a lot more aerodynamic, the truck would be much lighter and much smaller. Take a look at Japanese and European cars: They almost without exception get better MPG, are more aerodynamic and doesn't look like anything like this where the design department apparently went "We want it tall at the front, huge at the front, and loads of things to catch the air and create vortexes. In fact, if people buying into ****e like this, would stop and actually think about MPG in general, it would be more aerodynamic, lighter, smaller, and get much better milage per gallon.

I'm sorry, but lowering itself the faster it goes, has more to do with handling. I'd hate to try to avoid something with something as tall as that. Closing of the airrvents the faster it goes? Are you freaking kidding me? You think that is EPA dictating something as ridiculous as that? Do you think that really matters much in the MPG quest? It's a freaking barn door and it doesn't matter if the peep hole is closed, or the hinges of it are "inlaid". It's still a freaking barn door.

Thanks for sharing your wildly off base speculations and false assumptions. If you have no direct experience or knowledge regarding the design process of a vehicle, it is probably best you don't say anything. How are you qualifying aerodynamic designs? By your purely visual interpretation of what aerodynamic should look like? Do you have any professional experience as an aerodynamicist? There are many design tricks to make a seemingly high drag design better.

Gross generalization of Japanese and German cars and a bad analogy. Are you comparing them to full size trucks? I hope not. The Tundra is the only applicable comparison I can think of and that sure isn't any more aero, and has all the same design attributes of the American truck designs.

Yes the EPA isn't solely responsible for the looks of vehicles. Much of the design has to coincide with increasing safety standards which dictate many physical aspects and increase mass. I'm sure the EPA would love to reduce weight but not at the cost of safety. That being said, the mandated EPA standards do factor into design far more than you think. Every part that sees or influences airflow is designed with efficiency in mind. Lowering a vehicle does increase mpg and reduces drag. That's why bumpers and air dams are reaching further to the ground. It seems highly unlikely that they are looking for significant handling improvements from lowering in a full size truck. There are far better ways to do that. Closing air vents does the same. The Focus, and Cruze have it as do many others. Ever watched a NASCAR race and seen how much of a difference tape on the grill has on aerodynamics? Every little bit helps.

 

[Lowdown]

Thanks for sharing your wildly off base speculations and false assumptions. If you have no direct experience or knowledge regarding the design process of a vehicle, it is probably best you don't say anything. How are you qualifying aerodynamic designs? By your purely visual interpretation of what aerodynamic should look like? Do you have any professional experience as an aerodynamicist? There are many design tricks to make a seemingly high drag design better.

I have studied fluid dynamics for a while. There are only so much one can do to make a barn door go through the water or air with little drag.
You're acting as if this is some kind of magic, which it definately isn't.

Gross generalization of Japanese and German cars and a bad analogy. Are you comparing them to full size trucks? I hope not. The Tundra is the only applicable comparison I can think of and that sure isn't any more aero, and has all the same design attributes of the American truck designs.

I like how you purposely ignored the fact that I mentioned that if the EPA was really controlling things, it would have been smaller as well. Way to go with the dishonesty.

Yes the EPA isn't solely responsible for the looks of vehicles. Much of the design has to coincide with increasing safety standards which dictate many physical aspects and increase mass.

You're still talking bollocks. You're in effect claiming that this type of vehicle is designed to be the best cross between safety and aerodynamics. I won't even argue against that, as it's as ludicrous as can be. Perhaps you should reread the post you quoted, instead of ignoring the bits you don't like.

I'm sure the EPA would love to reduce weight but not at the cost of safety.

See above.

That being said, the mandated EPA standards do factor into design far more than you think. Every part that sees or influences airflow is designed with efficiency in mind. Lowering a vehicle does increase mpg and reduces drag.

Yes it does. But in the case of the truck in question, designing it as less of an upright barn door would in fact do much more than lowering it an inch when going fast. How can you miss so much of my post? Oh, I get it: It's much easier to strawman my position when you ignore most of what I have said.

That's why bumpers and air dams are reaching further to the ground.

Yes, and as I mentioned, there's only so much you can do when trying to push a barn door through the air.

It seems highly unlikely that they are looking for significant handling improvements from lowering in a full size truck. There are far better ways to do that. Closing air vents does the same.

LOL, so now "handling" is improved by closing air vents! Excellent, that makes up for being prone to rolling! Sweet. I'm amazed at how much magic aerodynamics entail.

The Focus, and Cruze have it as do many others. Ever watched a NASCAR race and seen how much of a difference tape on the grill has on aerodynamics? Every little bit helps.

And yet, that tape is only there to help it go faster at the top end. And no NASCAR car is a barndoor. They're all relatively low slung.

 

[tsbrewers]

about the only thing I don't like is the square wheel openings. Everything else looks good to me. I do prefer the more rounded look like my 2k's style, but I would drive it.

Brew

 

[78Bronco]

If they truly wanted higher MPG, and EPA had any real power, that "ugliness" would be a lot more aerodynamic, the truck would be much lighter and much smaller. Take a look at Japanese and European cars: They almost without exception get better MPG, are more aerodynamic and doesn't look like anything like this where the design department apparently went "We want it tall at the front, huge at the front, and loads of things to catch the air and create vortexes. In fact, if people buying into ****e like this, would stop and actually think about MPG in general, it would be more aerodynamic, lighter, smaller, and get much better milage per gallon.

I'm sorry, but lowering itself the faster it goes, has more to do with handling. I'd hate to try to avoid something with something as tall as that. Closing of the airrvents the faster it goes? Are you freaking kidding me? You think that is EPA dictating something as ridiculous as that? Do you think that really matters much in the MPG quest? It's a freaking barn door and it doesn't matter if the peep hole is closed, or the hinges of it are "inlaid". It's still a freaking barn door.

Actually a barn door is quite aerodynamic

http://youtu.be/VRCPJbyMv2k