MY15 Chevrolet & GMC HD Pickup Trucks Pics Released

[280Z Turbo]

Of course not, because they're designed to do one thing: go fast.

Whereas a pickup truck, to satisfy the sensibilities of the modern consumer, needs to be as fuel efficient and quiet as possible. And "looking like a warehouse" helps to accomplish that.

Looking like a warehouse sells trucks. If it was about aerodynamics, trucks would look more like minivans with beds.

[Soup DeVille]

Looking like a warehouse sells trucks. If it was about aerodynamics, trucks would look more like minivans with beds.

Ford tried for years to make a truck that looked like this:



Nobody wanted it.

[Raza]

Looking like a warehouse sells trucks. If it was about aerodynamics, trucks would look more like minivans with beds.

Exactly my point.  If aerodynamics were such a concern with these trucks, they wouldn't look the way they look in the first place. 

[TurboDan]

I don't understand the appeal of these to people who don't use their truck capabilities.

They are the types who believe you're not a real man if you don't drive a huge pickup truck, work in a steel mill, scream like an idiot at your TV whenever football is on and guzzle cheap domestic beer by the gallon.

In other words: 

And I don't count people who actually use trucks as trucks in this category, nor do I count people who own reasonably-sized pickups in this category (though, admittedly, they're getting harder to find).

[SVT666]

Come on Dan.  A lot of people just like to sit really high.  A lot of people just like the look of trucks, and some people (like my brother-in-law) are far more comfortable in a big truck because he's 6'-6" and 300 lbs.

[MrH]

Exactly my point.  If aerodynamics were such a concern with these trucks, they wouldn't look the way they look in the first place. 

You don't understand how aerodynamics work.  The size and functionality requirements of the truck dictate the size, but it can still be relatively slippery for it's given size.  Things like that air dam at the bottom help tremendously.

[S204STi]

You don't understand how aerodynamics work.  The size and functionality requirements of the truck dictate the size, but it can still be relatively slippery for it's given size.  Things like that air dam at the bottom help tremendously.

It's like people are saying that since a truck is huge you might as well just throw in the towel on any sort of aerodynamic aids and just have a brick wall rolling down the road...

[Raza]

You don't understand how aerodynamics work.  The size and functionality requirements of the truck dictate the size, but it can still be relatively slippery for it's given size.  Things like that air dam at the bottom help tremendously.

Um, I know I didn't go to car interior decorator school like you did, but I have an idea of how aerodynamics work.  The basic idea here is that more air resistance is bad, right?  So yes, the size is dictated by "need" (I'll leave that alone for now), but the shape is not dictated by size.  Like Sean said, there are different shapes that can be used to make them more aerodynamic, were they not going for a specific look, which is the warehouse look. 

It's not about size.  Look at even 18 wheelers; they've become more and more aerodynamic (as I recall, thanks to some pushing done by Walmart), because that costs money.  And those are vehicles only used for work.  Styling is not important, they need to do their jobs.  Simple as that.  If aerodynamics were a main concern, then these trucks wouldn't look like this, period. 

So here's an aerodynamic tweak that can actually hamper the intended performance of the car by decreasing ground clearance at the front, and you're defending it like it's your mom's cooking.  You have to stop being so concerned with being right all the time because you worked in the industry for six months.  I mean, seriously, you're so unnecessarily combative these days, it's like you're on your period all the time.

[Raza]

It's like people are saying that since a truck is huge you might as well just throw in the towel on any sort of aerodynamic aids and just have a brick wall rolling down the road...

You and Mike are getting it seriously twisted. 

Basically, what we're saying is that you're eating broccoli for dessert, so you're adding sugar to make it a little sweeter.  The question really is "Why are you eating broccoli for dessert in the first place?"

[MrH]

Um, I know I didn't go to car interior decorator school like you did, but I have an idea of how aerodynamics work.  The basic idea here is that more air resistance is bad, right?  So yes, the size is dictated by "need" (I'll leave that alone for now), but the shape is not dictated by size.  Like Sean said, there are different shapes that can be used to make them more aerodynamic, were they not going for a specific look, which is the warehouse look. 

It's not about size.  Look at even 18 wheelers; they've become more and more aerodynamic (as I recall, thanks to some pushing done by Walmart), because that costs money.  And those are vehicles only used for work.  Styling is not important, they need to do their jobs.  Simple as that.  If aerodynamics were a main concern, then these trucks wouldn't look like this, period. 

So here's an aerodynamic tweak that can actually hamper the intended performance of the car by decreasing ground clearance at the front, and you're defending it like it's your mom's cooking.  You have to stop being so concerned with being right all the time because you worked in the industry for six months.  I mean, seriously, you're so unnecessarily combative these days, it's like you're on your period all the time.

No, I didn't go to school for car interiors either. But you didn't take courses in fluid mechanics or computational fluid dynamics.  I'm not being unnecessarily combative, just trying to help the discussion along.

Big, boxy shapes can be "slippery" than you think.  There are a ton of little tricks done to accomplish this.  Adding an extension to the front dam is one of them. 

It's funny you bring up the big rig market.  You'd think, since it's all about transporting things, cost would be the number one concern and buyers would flock to the most aerodynamic truck.  That's almost completely untrue.  A large portion of semi-truck buyers are owner/operators (ie, the driver buys the truck than works on delivery contracts for employers).  And they largely buy unaerodynamic trucks because they like the way they look.  We're talking about a 10% savings in fuel, and that's still not enough to sway a large portion of the owner/operators.

The trucks with the great aerodynamics are largely bought by companies who then hire people to drive them.  They're concerned about cost only, not style.  Basically, in an industry you think would be super competitive at driving down fuel costs, styling still reigns supreme with individual buyers.

You think they're decreasing ground clearance, but I doubt it hangs much, if at all, lower than many other components anyways.  The front air dam sure as hell isn't what's limiting suspension travel either.  They're not reducing the functionality at all.

You and Mike are getting it seriously twisted. 

Basically, what we're saying is that you're eating broccoli for dessert, so you're adding sugar to make it a little sweeter.  The question really is "Why are you eating broccoli for dessert in the first place?"

No, you got this broccoli analogy all wrong.  It's like saying you hate broccoli, but if you put a little salt on it, you can eat it.  You're reacting by saying, "well fuck it, you might as well eat ice cream for dinner then."

[Soup DeVille]

No, I didn't go to school for car interiors either. But you didn't take courses in fluid mechanics or computational fluid dynamics.  I'm not being unnecessarily combative, just trying to help the discussion along.

Big, boxy shapes can be "slippery" than you think.  There are a ton of little tricks done to accomplish this.  Adding an extension to the front dam is one of them. 

It's funny you bring up the big rig market.  You'd think, since it's all about transporting things, cost would be the number one concern and buyers would flock to the most aerodynamic truck.  That's almost completely untrue.  A large portion of semi-truck buyers are owner/operators (ie, the driver buys the truck than works on delivery contracts for employers).  And they largely buy unaerodynamic trucks because they like the way they look.  We're talking about a 10% savings in fuel, and that's still not enough to sway a large portion of the owner/operators.

The trucks with the great aerodynamics are largely bought by companies who then hire people to drive them.  They're concerned about cost only, not style.  Basically, in an industry you think would be super competitive at driving down fuel costs, styling still reigns supreme with individual buyers.

You think they're decreasing ground clearance, but I doubt it hangs much, if at all, lower than many other components anyways.  The front air dam sure as hell isn't what's limiting suspension travel either.  They're not reducing the functionality at all.

No, you got this broccoli analogy all wrong.  It's like saying you hate broccoli, but if you put a little salt on it, you can eat it.  You're reacting by saying, "well fuck it, you might as well eat ice cream for dinner then."

Yes, but a lot of owner/operators are idiots. Guys that buy Pete 359s with the big motor and then turn up the injectors to haul cabbage and cheesy poofs then complain how the fuel prices are killing them...

[MrH]

Yes, but a lot of owner/operators are idiots. Guys that buy Pete 359s with the big motor and then turn up the injectors to haul cabbage and cheesy poofs then complain how the fuel prices are killing them...

  I won't deny that.  But even in a market where you'd think aerodynamics at any cost would reign supreme, idiots still buy based on styling.  There's no reason the truck either has to be shaped like a rain drop or a box with a parachute off the back.  It's all about compromises.

[93JC]

Um, I know I didn't go to car interior decorator school like you did, but I have an idea of how aerodynamics work.  The basic idea here is that more air resistance is bad, right?  So yes, the size is dictated by "need" (I'll leave that alone for now), but the shape is not dictated by size.  Like Sean said, there are different shapes that can be used to make them more aerodynamic, were they not going for a specific look, which is the warehouse look.

The point I, and I think Mike too, was trying to make is that you presume the traditional shape of a pickup truck is aerodynamically poor. It's not, or at least it's not as bad as it seems you think it is. The bed is the biggest problem, and there's really no way of getting around it without taking away the pickup truck functionality. A Tahoe is much more aerodynamic than a Silverado.

The idea that Sean tossed out, to make a pickup more efficient a better idea would be to make the cab look more like a minivan, wouldn't necessarily be a better idea because that's not really making the most 'unaerodynamic' part of the truck better.

This:



is atrocious, aerodynamically-speaking.

You probably won't believe it but this:



has a lower coefficient of drag (0.369) than this:



(0.41, although it can be lowered to 0.36 if the suspension is set up for a max-speed run)

[Raza]

I believe that.  The Veyron does 250mph, it needs downforce to not take off. 

[2o6]

I believe that.  The Veyron does 250mph, it needs downforce to not take off.

Quit while you're ahead.






I said this about three pages back, boxy does not equal un aerodynamic.

[93JC]

Not necessarily, anyway.

[280Z Turbo]

What about the frontal area of a Veyron vs a Tahoe?

[Catman]

Everyone be quiet

[Secret Chimp]

No

[93JC]

MR. T: "SHUT UP FOO!"

[Secret Chimp]

All stupid blithering aside, these are the ugliest front ends I've ever seen. And GM has now surpassed mid 90s HD Rams with their wheel gap.

[Soup DeVille]

All stupid blithering aside, these are the ugliest front ends I've ever seen. And GM has now surpassed mid 90s HD Rams with their wheel gap.

Wheel gap, on trucks, is a good thing.

[Secret Chimp]

Wheel gap, on trucks, is a good thing.

They need a good foot of it in the rear?

[280Z Turbo]

Wheel gap, on trucks, is a good thing.

If the wheel still has 12" of gap after the suspension hits the bump stops, what's the point?

[Soup DeVille]

If the wheel still has 12" of gap after the suspension hits the bump stops, what's the point?

Does it though?

[MX793]

Does it though?

Yes

[S204STi]

I had the chance to put a few miles in the new Sierra today. Very nice, and. a significant upgrade over the previous gen. 5.3 doesn't feel too down on power compared to the 6.0, and cylinder deactivation is seemless, and it drives better than some buicks.

[hounddog]

Yes

Not usually. 

The gap is about both style and payload, actually. 

Or so they say.