2007 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra details emerge
Though Brenda Priddy revealed the shape of the 2007 Chevy Silverado back in early June, details about the new GMT900 pickups from General Motors have been sparse. The September issue of Motor Trend contains all the deets you'd ever want to know about the General's big pickups, which Cheers and Gears has been nice enough to digitize and upload. However, we rounded up all of the details revealed in the article and assembled them below. Follow this link to view all three body styles of the Silverado and its interior, as well as our first look at the GMC Sierra. 2007 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra
- All-new frame
- New coil-over front end and recalibrated rear leaf springs
- Class-leading 10,500-lb. towing limit
- Class leading 2,070-lb. payload limit
- Every interior dimension larger than predecessor
- Extended cab rear doors feature 180-degree articulation
- Chevy and GMC versions feature unique front end, hoods and fenders
- 4.3-liter V6 (195 horsepower/260 ft-lbs.)
- 4.8-liter V8 (285 horsepower/295 ft-lbs.)
- 5.3-liter V8 with Active Fuel Management (310 horsepower/335 ft-lbs.)
- 5.3-liter flex-fuel V8 with Active Fuel Management
- 6.0-liter V8 with Active Fuel Management (345 horsepower/380 ft-lbs.)
Four-speed automatic (beefed up for 6.0-liter V8), except for GMC Sierra Denali, which will receive the Escalade's six-speed automatic and a detuned version of its 6.2-liter V8.
[Source: Sept. 2006 issue of Motor Trend, Chears and Gears]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Chris 12:49AM (7/23/2006)
I am not that impressed since all how all the GM guys have been saying how this truck will blow the F-150 into the weeds! Thats what the idiot at the Detroit auto show said about the interior. Nothing really that impressive because the interior could only go up in style. Good luck GM, these trucks in my opinon are not groundbreaking like the F-150 was in '04 and how the Tundra will be in '07.
Reply
Pixel 1:08AM (7/23/2006)
Well done GM, in an effort to create new and innovative styling, you've managed to create the '73 GMC pickup all over again.
http://www.tocmp.com/brochures/GMTrucks/1973/images/1973%20GMC%20Pickups%20&%20Suburbans-03_jpg.jpg
Also now that gas prices are continuing to rise, making the truck even more flat-fronted and less aerodynamic is a brilliant choice. Way to be on the cutting edge there as well.
Reply
Peter Shletzinger 1:17AM (7/23/2006)
I've always wondered why doesn’t GM market products produced for the overseas market in the United States. Many GM products produced or marketed overseas are (to my opinion) far more attractive than their domestic counterparts, a great example of this is the Chinese Buick Lacrosse; I've always been a fan of luxury cars and I recently was able to visit a Chinese Buick store and to my amazement the products sold in China marked under the Buick nameplate (specially the beautifully designed Buick Royaum) are far more attractive and upscale than those sold in the US. Also, something as simple as feature availability makes overseas GM products far more appealing outside the US (great example is Buick and Holden). If I can have a navigation radio and automatic climate control on an Opel Astra why can't I have on a Chevy Impala or a Buick Lacrosse?? That is the question that many GM owners (like myself) are wondering, or is it that GM saves its best products for overseas while its North American divisions are being overtaken by import brands who actually listen to what the consumer wants and offers it in their vehicles. See, GM can revive its North American divisions and be profitable on the US market, if only they applied their some of their designs used overseas and offered more features and revised styling cues to now existing models which in the long run should help GM as this would reduce costs by incorporating their technologies used overseas and in the US to create a "Global Vehicle Design and Construction Platform", that is the key to the success of many foreign brands such as Toyota and Nissan and it would only be right if GM moved in that direction. In the meantime I will continue as a loyal GM owner, but I only wonder if other GM owners will be as loyal as I (and many other people are); the question lies on the 2005 and 2006 new automobiles sales reports in which import brands continue to gain ground in US car sales while GM’s market share is only decreasing. GM North America executives, the answer is not in producing more new products, but radically improving existing ones.
Reply
Blake 1:19AM (7/23/2006)
The GMC looks alright. The Chevy looks less than alright. This is a huge letdown.
Reply
theo 1:53AM (7/23/2006)
What am improvement in the interior... there's still ACRES of boring black plastic. The GMC looks like a tuxedo-clad sixteen year-old with a mouthful o'braces. Too much silver chromed "bling" for my tastes.
Eh, Titan, F150, Ram... anything but this.
Reply
ruggels 2:05AM (7/23/2006)
oooh how about 'class leading fuel economy' that would be great... or maybe a v6 that put out more power then a turbo 4, that would be grat too...
Reply
guido 2:16AM (7/23/2006)
It's not so bad after all....
The line that struck me most of all is the Tundra's one. Yes, for the european roads is too large and long but in USA there are not problems...
Reply
Tad 2:19AM (7/23/2006)
#1 Show me a Toyota truck that is ground breaking...that will happen when donkeys fly. Face it, America owns the truck market and there is no way some underpowered, ugly and boring Toyota will take that away any time soon. Ford sold more trucks in Texas alone then Toyota has in the entire US. Enough Said
#6 class leading fuel economy is right...does better then ford, nissan, toyota and dodge in that department.
Overall this truck may not be what everyone has expected but give it some time and I'm sure all you Nay-sayers will change your mind. Before ya'll go and yap your jaws why dont you go test drive one!
Reply
Rastus 2:29AM (7/23/2006)
That OLD TRASHY 4.3 V6...and OH, the LOVELY 4-speed Automatic!!
Nada, no way. I guess if you are into Retro "CLASSIC" 80's trashmobiles, then I think you've found your calling, there Billy Bob!
You see, GM, when you become serious about selling trucks and making money, then take a look at the specs of the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra.
Until then, keep reading your comic books there GM.
Reply
spider 2:34AM (7/23/2006)
SOOOO rad. GMRULEZ.
That Chevyrado has teh BEST GRILL EVAR.
Reply
dakota 2:44AM (7/23/2006)
Tad,
Come back down to earth. As far as American's owning the truck market, yes the "domestics" do have their fair share of that market, but look what Nissan did on their first try. Now Toyota is coming with a larger Tundra. That cocky "we own this and that" attitude is lazy and worthless, it's what got GM, Ford and Chrysler in trouble the first place, thinking that just because we've got the market cornered no one is going to touch us. WRONG. I'd say keep your head above the sand until all the models are out, and someones tests every one of them in a face off.
Reply
Eric L. 3:07AM (7/23/2006)
I was looking at those pictures and something wasn't right, but I couldn't pin it down. Until I scrolled down and saw the picture of the Tundra, then I figured it out - the bed portion of the new GM trucks have a HUGE gap between the bed and cab, and the lines don't match up (i.e. they are not the same curve).
Reply
narcszm 3:09AM (7/23/2006)
You drop-outs who always complain about 4-speed automatics clearly should have stayed in school a little bit longer. With 295-380 ft-lb of torque, you don't need many gears. Gears are compensation (which is something you're probably familiar with) for a lack of torque. How many gears do electric cars have? One or two? Why? Because they make full torque across the RPM range.
Which full-size SUV gets the best fuel mileage? That would be one with a 4-speed transmission.
Get an education or shut the fuck up.
Reply
Rastus 3:18AM (7/23/2006)
http://experts.about.com/q/GM-GMC-781/1994-4-3-v6.htm
My question is this: Have they corrected the problems (as mentioned above) for this ALL NEW WORLD-CLASS "Savior" of a product???
http://www.promises.acadian-home.org/IMAGES/Jesus-savior.jpg
Is THIS going to be the ONE PRODUCT which leads GM to the Promised Land???
GM, where is the investment you promised us? I mean, come on, this 4.3 is a total POS. If you value this truck the way you say you do, then why not "Give it all you Got"?? Oh, come on now...we still see the "Old GM"...you can't hide from us, you bugger you!
It's kind of like, building (not buying) your custom dream home...only to move in the old naugahyde POS couch you've had from the 60's....the one infested with fleas and which smells of urine.
Reply
Rob 5:07AM (7/23/2006)
bag on the base 4.3 V-6 all you want but this is one of the most solid motors you can have. It will never break down, has gobs of low end torque and I smoked a new Tacoma with a 98 chevy w/t 4.3 5-speed. SOOO as nice as every truck built today is, Chevys V-6 smokes Toyotas as does its payload, the Tundra has always been weak, see T-100 with a V-8 is not competition to chevy, ford, dodge, and nissan cant build an interior that doesnt wear out after 20,000 miles. The new Tundra should be good competition (remember they tried to name the tundra the t-150 but got snagged on copywrite laws from ford (toyota couldnt come up with an original name) and had to re-name) but will need 400 hp to stay with the hemi, hurricane and chevy motors that will be out soon. But who wants a gas guzzling truck with pump prices ready to go to $4 per gallon. The domestics better get some cars that can compete to battle off camrys and accords
Reply
julian 5:12AM (7/23/2006)
it's not bad....but the interior is a bit of a letdown because it looks like it's from the 90's not 2006. shame, because tahoe and sister suvs had quite tidy and modern interiors compared to this. even the f-150's interior is much better.
still, if it sells well, then maybe gm could give the interior a shakeup in a couple of years and give the exterior a menacing appearance
Reply
the friendly grizzly 7:14AM (7/23/2006)
All the talk about the Toyota Tundra compared to the 900 GMs. Some thoughts:
While I see style as secondary to utility when it comes to owning a truck, I will say that the new Tundra looks like an angry air conditioner. The interior SHOUTS plastic. Yes, I know it is elegant silver, and has all sorts of nifty curves and shapes. You know: the same ones you poked fun at when those curves and shapes said "Pontiac". It is not boring old black, but it still looks like something from the Mattel plant. Buck Rogers, call your office.
On the utility and practicality front, let me ask you all this. How many Toyota Tundras are in actual commercial service? I am not just talking fleet buyers. I'm talking Paul the Plumber, Ed the Electrician, Carl the Carpenter, or in my case, Bear the Big Ol' Energy Surveyor. Darn few. To us it is torque, a tough frame, easy-to-reach auxiliary power jacks, a dashboard where the controls are easy to reach and logical, ease of maintenance, and a LACK of exotica and whiz-bang that looks good on the spec sheet but which often means a shorter working life or more-frequent maintenance.
All this, at least from my standpoint, has nothing to do with where the truck is made. I looked at the Nissan Titan. Badly assembled, an engine far bigger than my requirements, and more than one "don't do it!" from WORK TRUCK owners I met in the field. (And for the record, I respect Nissan products, generally)
Ask present Tundra owners about things like frequent brake jobs and dodgy automatic transmissions. And dealers who take an attitude of "there's nothing wrong, Mr Smith: it is, after all, a trouble-free Toyota".
As for engines, the 4.3 some of you are ragging on is one very sturdy V6 engine, with plenty of torque, plenty of PRACTICAL power, and simple to maintain. I owned a truck with one of those a lot of years back (a 92 Silverado), and it performed very well indeed. FAR more "grunt" than I expected from a V6. Granted, it is not a mileage engine, but neither are the ones from Dodge or Ford.
One commenter mentioned the idea of bringing in some of the overseas designs. That is not always the answer. Witness the failure of some of the German or British designs here (Caterra, Saturn L series, Contour/Mistique). Trucks are the same way. The Colorado / Canyon series is based, I believe, on a truck for the Southeast Asian (Thailand, Burma, etc) market. Much as I like GM trucks, it is not on my list. Even a dealer my family does a lot of business with warned me off, and a man I know at work HATES his. He wants his S10 back.
Lastly, someone made a comment about the 4.3 vs a turbo 4. Two distinctions here: low-end torque, and engine life. Take the 4.3 and pull trailers with it, pull a full bed of stuff up a hill, that sort of thing. Do it with regular oil changes, and do it for 300K miles with hardly a groan. Try that with your "same power" turbo 4. See how long it lasts. When it comes to truck service, displacement can do a good deal more than whirly-bits and high revs.
A couple of others lamented the continued use of this engine instead of the overhead cam straight 6. I am just as glad they stuck with the V6. The OHC I6 is a very good motor, but returns some really dreadful mileage figures in SUV service. How much worse it would be in a heavier vehicle I do not know, but the 4.3 beats it hands down in that department. The 4.3 is a purpose-built truck motor, the OHC would be out of its element.
I will reserve judgement on the new GM trucks until I can actually look at one, and take one for a drive. I am delighted with my 2001 Silverado, now sitting at 111K trouble-free miles. But the new one is not the same truck, so, let's see what it is like before I praise or condemn it.
Reply
Finished.Law.School 9:26AM (7/23/2006)
The only hope for GM lies in you ignorant fools who falsely believe that GM can do no wrong and think that all of the innovations in large trucks from Nissan and Toyota are lies.
Reply
laserwizard 9:32AM (7/23/2006)
A very lazy effort by General Motors. We have been sold a bill of goods by GM sycophants, bloggists, and the hype from Wagoner and Putz that these trucks were going to be all that and a bag of chips and what do we see?
Tripe.
A worthless, amateur, dull, flagrantly tepid, cowardly, and a no-balls approach to designing trucks.
I'm sure that these trucks will have better fuel economy and will be able to boast that they have more towing capacity and more horsepower than their competitors - this is the typical trick GM uses each time they launch their half-baked, cheap, and uninspiring trucks.
Problem is GM cannot make it with just padding fuel economy or horsepower numbers. These trucks had to be awesome with every regard and the fact that GM was so chickenshit with their styling and proportions leaves me to wonder why did they bother? Like they wasted over a billion dollars on a GMT-900 SUV program that has no reaped nothing in sales, this pickup program will be further waste of billions of dollars.
Fire Lutz and Wagoner. The trucks suck as badly as those two do.
Reply
Dan 9:39AM (7/23/2006)
and you diverted how many man hours and how much funding to come up with this? looks like you took a 97 silverado and tried to "modernize" it. if you were trying to go boxy like the f-150, you f'd up. the ford pulls it off. im a gm guy and i have to say im pretty dissapointed with this design. better get that paper work with nissan ready. your gonna need that extra money soon...
Reply