Bigger and Brawnier 2015 Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD Unveiled
CARSCOOPS, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
2015-MY CHEVROLET SILVERADO HD PICKUP PICS BELOW
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-2399.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-2399.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1851.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1851.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1627.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1627.jpg.html)
2015-MY GMC SIERA HD PICKUP PICS BELOW
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1382.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1382.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1343.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1343.jpg.html)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x246/1Atomic/image-1396.jpg) (http://s185.photobucket.com/user/1Atomic/media/image-1396.jpg.html)
In the same way that Ford's F-Series of trucks includes both the regular full-size F-150 pickup truck range and the bigger Super Duty variants, GM's Chevrolet and GMC brand's offer both standard and larger heavy duty versions of their Silverado and Sierra pickup trucks respectively.
Following on from last year's introduction of the new generation 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks, today, GM revealed the 2015 Heavy Duty (HD) bodies of the two models, appropriately, at the State Fair of Texas.
As is the case with most common models between the Chevrolet and GMC brands, the Sierra HD is the slightly more luxurious and better looking vehicle of the two, though, most parts are shared. In addition to the regular Sierra HD models, GMC also offers a more distinct looking and even better equipped Denali grade with a unique chrome grille, special interior trim, an 8-inch customizable driver display and more.
Both the Silverado HD and Sierra HD will come as standard with a Vortec 6.0-liter gasoline V8 developing 322HP and 380 lb-ft (515Nm) in the 2500 HD models, and 360HP and 380 lb-ft (515Nm) in the 3500HD bodies, linked to a Hydra-Matic six-speed automatic. A bi-fuel version of the 6.0-liter V8 for operation on gas or compressed natural gas will also be available.
Those looking for more power on either model will find a 6.6-liter Duramax V8 turbo-charged diesel rated for 397HP and 765 lb-ft (1,037Nm) of peak torque paired to an Allison 1000 6-speed auto.
Maximum payload for the 2500HD models is 4,306 pounds (1,953 kg) and for the 3500HD, 7,374 lbs (3,508kg), while maximum conventional trailing, 14,500 lbs (6,577 kg) and 19,600 lbs (8,890 kg) respectively.
Sales of all models in the States will begin in the first quarter of 2014.
It is exactly the same as the old one. New bushings for isolation, but it's just a rebody.
All the heavy duty pickups look ridiculous, but the GM twins take the cake with their massive square wheel wells that have enough wheel gap to park another Chevy pickup and the ultra low front bumper that looks like it will catch on a parking stop.
I wish I had an explanation for that ultra low bumper. Either lower the frame or give it good ground clearance.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 27, 2013, 10:10:56 AM
I wish I had an explanation for that ultra low bumper. Either lower the frame or give it good ground clearance.
Spoiler for better aerodynamics?
Quote from: Submariner on September 27, 2013, 06:17:44 PM
Spoiler for better aerodynamics?
Yes. But why not lower the entire truck?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 27, 2013, 10:10:56 AM
I wish I had an explanation for that ultra low bumper. Either lower the frame or give it good ground clearance.
Crash specs. For years, raised trucks have legally required lowered bumpers. I'm guessing newer regs are making them lower still.
Ford and Dodge trucks don't have bumpers that low.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 27, 2013, 09:03:40 PM
Yes. But why not lower the entire truck?
2WD version will be lower....
Quote from: SVT666 on September 28, 2013, 10:57:06 AM
Ford and Dodge trucks don't have bumpers that low.
Perhaps GM is being pre-emptive for future regs? Or maybe they're just being GM again?
Their bumpers have been really low for about two generations now, but this new one is so low it looks ridiculous...especially with the gigantic wheel wells and massive wheel gap.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 27, 2013, 09:03:40 PM
Yes. But why not lower the entire truck?
Just speculation. For example, on the current Yukon/Yukon Hybrid, the hybrid has that same silly looking spoiler while the normal one does not.
Billy Bob is gonna get out the sawzall and cut the front spoiler off so he has enough ground clearance to drive over top of dead cows or whatever it is hillbillies do on a farm.
It's for aero purposes guys...
Quote from: MrH on September 29, 2013, 12:33:05 PM
It's for aero purposes guys...
They don't get that. It's easier for them to crack on GM.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 29, 2013, 01:40:07 PM
They don't get that. It's easier for them to crack on GM.
+1 pretty much sums up.
Quote from: MrH on September 29, 2013, 12:33:05 PM
It's for aero purposes guys...
Nobody is debating that. The question is why is the rest of the truck so high?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 29, 2013, 05:56:52 PM
Nobody is debating that. The question is why is the rest of the truck so high?
Wat. It's a truck. And the lip can be removed easily by taking off a few clips/screws.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 29, 2013, 05:56:52 PM
Nobody is debating that. The question is why is the rest of the truck so high?
You can't really carry much payload if your suspension has all of 2" of travel...
I don't care what it's for, it looks stupid. It's 4" lower than the rest of the truck.
....like the Ford and Dodge ones aren't?
Quote from: MrH on September 29, 2013, 06:41:55 PM
You can't really carry much payload if your suspension has all of 2" of travel...
Hey, forktrucks don't have any suspension travel at all.
Ride kind of rough though...
Quote from: MrH on September 29, 2013, 06:41:55 PM
You can't really carry much payload if your suspension has all of 2" of travel...
Uh, I'm thinking it's still pretty high at full compression.
Quote from: 2o6 on September 29, 2013, 07:21:43 PM
....like the Ford and Dodge ones aren't?
They aren't.
Quote from: MrH on September 29, 2013, 12:33:05 PM
It's for aero purposes guys...
Are aerodynamics a big concern for full size pickup trucks that are otherwise designed with a ruler?
Quote from: Raza on September 30, 2013, 05:15:52 AM
Are aerodynamics a big concern for full size pickup trucks that are otherwise designed with a ruler?
Grille size is proportional to manliness. Aerodynamics is secondary to maximizing the size of the grille.
Look how stupid that bumper looks.
(http://stblogs.automotive.com/files/2012/12/2014-Chevrolet-Silverado-side-2-1024x640.jpg)
Quote from: Raza on September 30, 2013, 05:15:52 AM
Are aerodynamics a big concern for full size pickup trucks that are otherwise designed with a ruler?
Can't tell if you're joking or not
Quote from: SVT666 on September 30, 2013, 10:48:24 AM
Look how stupid that bumper looks.
(http://stblogs.automotive.com/files/2012/12/2014-Chevrolet-Silverado-side-2-1024x640.jpg)
Its just the air damn, calm down.
Quote from: MrH on September 30, 2013, 09:33:15 PM
Can't tell if you're joking or not
Look at the trucks again and tell me if you still think it's a joke.
Giant, blocky, presumably work trucks. No one is running these at the Ring. What's the aerodynamic benefit in real terms?
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
Look at the trucks again and tell me if you still think it's a joke.
Giant, blocky, presumably work trucks. No one is running these at the Ring. What's the aerodynamic benefit in real terms?
:rolleyes:
Blocky does not always equal un-aerodynamic. Better aerodynamics = lower fuel consumption, better performance, pretty much everything.
Well, like I said, styling comes first. They could probably achieve significantly lower drag numbers if they lost the macho styling.
It's a compromise, of course.
You have drag numbers for the Silverado?
Quote from: 2o6 on October 01, 2013, 10:20:53 PM
You have drag numbers for the Silverado?
Yup I do because I fucking care that much about winning on the Internet. :lol:
All car designs are aerodynamic compromises, but that doesn't mean they don't care.
Quote from: Catman on October 01, 2013, 05:37:27 PM
Its just the air damn, calm down.
The chrome bumper hangs down lower than the body alone, and then they add the air dam below that. It looks stupid.
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
Look at the trucks again and tell me if you still think it's a joke.
Giant, blocky, presumably work trucks. No one is running these at the Ring. What's the aerodynamic benefit in real terms?
Mileage.
Forget the air dam thing. Why do all of the manufacturers feel the need to style their HD trucks like over grown Tonka toys? And why have they gotten so tall? The latest HD Fords are at least half s foot taller than they were in the 90s.
Quote from: MX793 on October 02, 2013, 05:10:32 AM
Forget the air dam thing. Why do all of the manufacturers feel the need to style their HD trucks like over grown Tonka toys? And why have they gotten so tall? The latest HD Fords are at least half s foot taller than they were in the 90s.
My dad had a '92 F-250 and the step in height was pretty damn high. Running boards were pretty mandatory for getting in even for me at 6'1" tall.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 02, 2013, 07:52:16 AM
My dad had a '92 F-250 and the step in height was pretty damn high. Running boards were pretty mandatory for getting in even for me at 6'1" tall.
I know a guy with a pristine '96 F250 diesel and his truck doesn't look nearly as big as the latest crop. Not saying the old ones weren't tall, but I looked up the specs for the 2012 F250 vs the '96, and the 2012 is 6" taller.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder if it isn't more in the height of the actual body, as opposed to the ride height. I feel like the ride height of recent trucks actually looks lower, probably because of the mass of the body.
Quote from: TBR on October 02, 2013, 04:11:02 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder if it isn't more in the height of the actual body, as opposed to the ride height. I feel like the ride height of recent trucks actually looks lower, probably because of the mass of the body.
If that's the case, then the new trucks must have insane amounts of headroom since, depending on trim, they are 6-8 inches taller than the mid-90s models (which weren't exactly short on headroom).
Quote from: Raza on October 01, 2013, 09:39:31 PM
Look at the trucks again and tell me if you still think it's a joke.
Giant, blocky, presumably work trucks. No one is running these at the Ring. What's the aerodynamic benefit in real terms?
Gas mileage. Wind noise. Stability at highway speeds.
Meh. I say let 'em gussy up the phony-man-mobiles this year with low-riding accoutrements. It'll be that much more of a pleasure pulling them out of holes on the beach this fall with my lowly LR2. :devil:
Mad homage to Jeep drivers. They usually know what they're doing out there. Pickup drivers... ouch...
Quote from: 2o6 on October 01, 2013, 09:55:18 PM
:rolleyes:
Blocky does not always equal un-aerodynamic. Better aerodynamics = lower fuel consumption, better performance, pretty much everything.
Blocky is aerodynamic? Yeah, that's why all those Formula 1 cars all have giant facades perpendicular to the ground. For aerodynamics. Oh wait, they don't, because that's stupid.
Yes, I agree that better aerodynamics better a lot of aspects, but I question the importance of those aspects in giant fucking pickup trucks.
Quote from: SVT666 on October 02, 2013, 07:52:16 AM
My dad had a '92 F-250 and the step in height was pretty damn high. Running boards were pretty mandatory for getting in even for me at 6'1" tall.
I don't remember what kind of truck it was, but I got a ride from the car dealer where I bought my car to the credit union where I got the loan, and we went in some enormous truck. I had to put one foot on the running board, then use the grab handle to swing myself in, and then parachute out when leaving. I don't understand the appeal of these to people who don't use their truck capabilities.
Quote from: MrH on October 02, 2013, 09:11:15 PM
Gas mileage. Wind noise. Stability at highway speeds.
You just listed stuff that's true of any car. Skipped over the "real terms" part. These benefits are all great, but they seem like they'd pretty marginal based on what I'm seeing of the truck.
Quote from: MX793 on October 02, 2013, 03:34:09 PM
I know a guy with a pristine '96 F250 diesel and his truck doesn't look nearly as big as the latest crop. Not saying the old ones weren't tall, but I looked up the specs for the 2012 F250 vs the '96, and the 2012 is 6" taller.
That' s exactly it. My parents had that '92 F-250 and I had a Ram 1500. Parked next to each other the roof lines were pretty much at the same height, but the Ram' s body started much lower.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:11:04 AM
You just listed stuff that's true of any car. Skipped over the "real terms" part. These benefits are all great, but they seem like they'd pretty marginal based on what I'm seeing of the truck.
Have you ever actually sat in a truck before?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 03, 2013, 08:22:59 AM
Have you ever actually sat in a truck before?
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:09:13 AM
I don't remember what kind of truck it was, but I got a ride from the car dealer where I bought my car to the credit union where I got the loan, and we went in some enormous truck. I had to put one foot on the running board, then use the grab handle to swing myself in, and then parachute out when leaving. I don't understand the appeal of these to people who don't use their truck capabilities.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:25:18 AM
And that's the entirety of your trucking experience?
Ok.
Go find an older truck and drive it around for a while. Even ten years ago, they were much noisier; and at speed, a lot of that was wind noise.
Can it all be aerodynamics? Probably not, but it all adds up.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 03, 2013, 08:29:04 AM
And that's the entirety of your trucking experience?
Ok.
Go find an older truck and drive it around for a while. Even ten years ago, they were much noisier; and at speed, a lot of that was wind noise.
Can it all be aerodynamics? Probably not, but it all adds up.
I've been in an older truck too. But it was a small one.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:37:38 AM
I've been in an older truck too. But it was a small one.
Go drive a same year Kenworth T2000 and a Pete 359 back to back, then get back to me.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 03, 2013, 08:41:02 AM
Go drive a same year Kenworth T2000 and a Pete 359 back to back, then get back to me.
You're telling me that the stupid looking low bumper is what is responsible for all refinement advances made in pickup trucks?
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:44:12 AM
You're telling me that the stupid looking low bumper is what is responsible for all refinement advances made in pickup trucks?
No, this is where I ask you to read what I wrote once again.
:lol:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 03, 2013, 08:52:17 AM
No, this is where I ask you to read what I wrote once again.
I'm beginning to lose interest in an argument about vehicles that belong to a segment I will never own, so this is where I decline to read what you wrote again.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:06:54 AM
Blocky is aerodynamic? Yeah, that's why all those Formula 1 cars all have giant facades perpendicular to the ground. For aerodynamics. Oh wait, they don't, because that's stupid.
Formula 1 cars actually have relatively high drag coefficients. ;)
Quote from: 93JC on October 03, 2013, 12:29:20 PM
Formula 1 cars actually have relatively high drag coefficients. ;)
Well yeah, due to spoilers and such, since they used downforce to create grip and all. They still don't look like they're styled after warehouses.
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.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 01:04:08 PM
Well yeah, due to spoilers and such, since they used downforce to create grip and all. They still don't look like they're styled after warehouses.
Actually a good chunk of the drag is created by the tires.
Quote from: 93JC on October 03, 2013, 01:49:44 PM
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.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 03, 2013, 08:03:32 PM
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:
(http://m5.paperblog.com/i/40/402497/the-1965-dodge-deora-concept-car-L-i99iNP.jpeg)
Nobody wanted it.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 03, 2013, 08:03:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Raza on October 03, 2013, 08:09:13 AM
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: :rolleyes:
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).
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.
Quote from: Raza on October 07, 2013, 07:54:54 AM
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.
Quote from: MrH on October 07, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
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...
Quote from: MrH on October 07, 2013, 09:10:31 PM
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.
Quote from: S204STi on October 08, 2013, 07:45:16 AM
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?"
Quote from: Raza on October 08, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on October 08, 2013, 09:30:25 AM
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."
Quote from: MrH on October 08, 2013, 12:11:36 PM
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...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 08, 2013, 12:51:34 PM
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...
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Raza on October 08, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
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:
(http://strumors.automobilemag.com/files/2013/04/2014-Mercedes-Benz-Sprinter-chassis-cab-front-three-quarters-view-1024x640.jpg)
is atrocious, aerodynamically-speaking.
You probably won't believe it but this:
(http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/SUVs%20and%20Crossovers/2013%20Tahoe%20Hybrid/Model%20Overview/01_images/2013-tahoe-hybrid-model-overview-exterior-cnt-well-1-648x316-01.jpg)
has a lower coefficient of drag (0.369) than this:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NFSavc40Uxg/TfhwNiooBWI/AAAAAAAABmE/ldc7ZMlqJL8/s400/.gif)
(0.41, although it can be lowered to 0.36 if the suspension is set up for a max-speed run)
I believe that. The Veyron does 250mph, it needs downforce to not take off.
Quote from: Raza on October 08, 2013, 03:26:44 PM
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.
Not necessarily, anyway.
What about the frontal area of a Veyron vs a Tahoe?
Everyone be quiet
No
MR. T: "SHUT UP FOO!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dISKvZetkQI#noexternalembed)
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.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on October 10, 2013, 06:54:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 10, 2013, 08:11:41 PM
Wheel gap, on trucks, is a good thing.
They need a good foot of it in the rear?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 10, 2013, 08:11:41 PM
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?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 10, 2013, 09:03:18 PM
If the wheel still has 12" of gap after the suspension hits the bump stops, what's the point?
Does it though?
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.
Quote from: MX793 on October 11, 2013, 06:04:12 AM
Yes
Not usually.
The gap is about both style and payload, actually.
Or so they say. :lol: