Review: 2010 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid is all swing, all miss

[diddiyo]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/15/r...verado-hybrid/

General Motors had the opportunity to do something really impressive with the Silverado Hybrid, but what we got instead is a vehicle that has all of the right bones, but none of the followthrough to be really worth it. While the drivetrain tech is right where it needs to be for this kind of vehicle, the rest of the beast is still a big, heavy, quarter-ton truck. Instead of opting for a much lighter standard cab, GM bolted a hefty crew cab on the frame, complete with two additional doors for extra weight. Where are the composite fenders and bed sides? Where's the aluminum hood? Why is this truck still rolling on thick, 18-inch chrome wheels that weigh more than our first car? Why is the transmission still a four-speed instead of a more efficient six-speed, and why didn't GM go with its 4.8-liter V8 or even a V6 instead of the big 6.0-liter mill?

you may also join our awesome trucks suck! group!

[FenwickHockey65]

I think what happened with this and the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade/Sierra Hybrids was along these lines...

"So we built this hybrid system...but it doesn't fit into cars."

"Well ****."

"Wanna shove it into a Silverado and see what happens?"

"Sure, why not."

[elcamino85]

I think chevy should just try and do a more fuel efficient engine for trucks. I like trucks because of how much you can get out of it. Even though the mpg sucks, I would still buy a truck.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I think what happened with this and the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade/Sierra Hybrids was along these lines...

"So we built this hybrid system...but it doesn't fit into cars."

"Well ****."

"Wanna shove it into a Silverado and see what happens?"

"Sure, why not."

Actually they were making a play at their highest volume lowest mileage entry.

The article is a bit confusing in their criticism. On one hand they are critical of the towing but then they say GM should have used the 4.8L or a V6 which would have been even worse.

It was never intended to be "the highest MPG vehicle" but rather the "highest MPG pickup truck" that you could actually tow and haul with......which you can.

That being said, it's very pricey. And to get a base truck to get equal mileage with equal capapbility would have been very expensive as well. Diesel? Sure, but probably at an even higher cost. Diesel emissions require particulate traps and urea injection. $$$$

But hey, Chrysler paid GM for the technology and so did one other OEM that still hasn't put it into production yet.

[DGthe3]

I don't see what their fuel economy complaint is. Sure, if you compare the absolute numbers, it isn't much. But relatively speaking, its nearly a 40% improvement. Thats huge. The overall purpose, I think, was to make these trucks (and the other 2 modes) a minimum sacrafice vehicle. So you have have a big truck that can tow or haul with. And it gets almost the same combined fuel economy as a V6 Camry. A 6000 lb V8 pickup truck getting the same fuel economy as a midsize sedan. And they complained?

Originally Posted by Number 3

Actually they were making a play at their highest volume lowest mileage entry.

The article is a bit confusing in their criticism. On one hand they are critical of the towing but then they say GM should have used the 4.8L or a V6 which would have been even worse.

It was never intended to be "the highest MPG vehicle" but rather the "highest MPG pickup truck" that you could actually tow and haul with......which you can.

That being said, it's very pricey. And to get a base truck to get equal mileage with equal capapbility would have been very expensive as well. Diesel? Sure, but probably at an even higher cost. Diesel emissions require particulate traps and urea injection. $$$$

But hey, Chrysler paid GM for the technology and so did one other OEM that still hasn't put it into production yet.

Daimler, right?

[305pride]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I don't see what their fuel economy complaint is. Sure, if you compare the absolute numbers, it isn't much. But relatively speaking, its nearly a 40% improvement. Thats huge. The overall purpose, I think, was to make these trucks (and the other 2 modes) a minimum sacrafice vehicle. So you have have a big truck that can tow or haul with. And it gets almost the same combined fuel economy as a V6 Camry. A 6000 lb V8 pickup truck getting the same fuel economy as a midsize sedan. And they complained?


Daimler, right?

kinda what i was thinking

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I don't see what their fuel economy complaint is. Sure, if you compare the absolute numbers, it isn't much. But relatively speaking, its nearly a 40% improvement. Thats huge. The overall purpose, I think, was to make these trucks (and the other 2 modes) a minimum sacrafice vehicle. So you have have a big truck that can tow or haul with. And it gets almost the same combined fuel economy as a V6 Camry. A 6000 lb V8 pickup truck getting the same fuel economy as a midsize sedan. And they complained?


Daimler, right?

Completely agree about the Camry comparison. The Camry weighs in around 3300 lbs, while the nearly double heavier truck with a V8 can get the same combined fuel economy as it.

[Brokinarrow]

My coworker has one of these and he loves it

[Silverado]

I'm not one of these "all out green" people that curse trucks and SUVs for consuming more gas than a subcompact car. In all honesty, those people (myself included...we have an Enclave and a crew cab Silverado that I will soon be trading in on a Suburban) buying trucks and SUVs probably aren't buying them for their MPG rating, rather the other capabilities.

Even though I don't make vehicle purchases based on MPG, I think the Hybrid Silverado/Tahoe/Escalade was a great idea. I can't stand the Prius, but they were a great idea too. The whole EV/Hybrid concept is worth pursing and continually improving. For one thing, we can't get entirely off of oil, and we certainly can't do it tomorrow, so the EV/Hybrid idea is a great step in the right direction.

I think the Hybrid Silverado/Tahoe/Escalade were the "next step" past the Prius. These are vehicles people actually want to drive that happen to be hybrids, rather than the ugly-ass Prius/Insight/Leaf that people don't want to be seen in, but they want a hybrid. See, improvement.

I think GM should keep making them. And, they should continue to improve them. Give them low rolling resistance tires, lighter wheels, lighter panels, longer battery life, whatever they can do. As always, automotive technological advances trickle down through the rest of the lineup and that makes all kinds of things better.

I don't see anything wrong with these hybrids. Most SUVs and trucks are not used for real heavy duty uses, so why not make them more fuel efficient, but still with the utility/versatility/capability that most buyers want/need?

When journalists write about vehicles, they can never seem to just report the facts. You end up with an anti-truck guy writing about trucks, and then the article is all about the negatives of the truck. Or an anti-GM/pro Japanese maker writer produces and article saying how bad the vehicle is because it's a GM. Too much bias. Just report the facts and let people make their own decision. If they would do that, then the general consumer could be more informed and make a decision best for them.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Silverado

I'm not one of these "all out green" people that curse trucks and SUVs for consuming more gas than a subcompact car. In all honesty, those people (myself included...we have an Enclave and a crew cab Silverado that I will soon be trading in on a Suburban) buying trucks and SUVs probably aren't buying them for their MPG rating, rather the other capabilities.

Even though I don't make vehicle purchases based on MPG, I think the Hybrid Silverado/Tahoe/Escalade was a great idea. I can't stand the Prius, but they were a great idea too. The whole EV/Hybrid concept is worth pursing and continually improving. For one thing, we can't get entirely off of oil, and we certainly can't do it tomorrow, so the EV/Hybrid idea is a great step in the right direction.

I think the Hybrid Silverado/Tahoe/Escalade were the "next step" past the Prius. These are vehicles people actually want to drive that happen to be hybrids, rather than the ugly-ass Prius/Insight/Leaf that people don't want to be seen in, but they want a hybrid. See, improvement.

I think GM should keep making them. And, they should continue to improve them. Give them low rolling resistance tires, lighter wheels, lighter panels, longer battery life, whatever they can do. As always, automotive technological advances trickle down through the rest of the lineup and that makes all kinds of things better.

I don't see anything wrong with these hybrids. Most SUVs and trucks are not used for real heavy duty uses, so why not make them more fuel efficient, but still with the utility/versatility/capability that most buyers want/need?

When journalists write about vehicles, they can never seem to just report the facts. You end up with an anti-truck guy writing about trucks, and then the article is all about the negatives of the truck. Or an anti-GM/pro Japanese maker writer produces and article saying how bad the vehicle is because it's a GM. Too much bias. Just report the facts and let people make their own decision. If they would do that, then the general consumer could be more informed and make a decision best for them.

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

[Silverado]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"

LOL...unfortunately, I believe that's what all of our news shows, editorial shows, papers, and magazines use as their "golden rule".

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Silverado

LOL...unfortunately, I believe that's what all of our news shows, editorial shows, papers, and magazines use as their "golden rule".

no kidding.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I don't see what their fuel economy complaint is. Sure, if you compare the absolute numbers, it isn't much. But relatively speaking, its nearly a 40% improvement. Thats huge. The overall purpose, I think, was to make these trucks (and the other 2 modes) a minimum sacrafice vehicle. So you have have a big truck that can tow or haul with. And it gets almost the same combined fuel economy as a V6 Camry. A 6000 lb V8 pickup truck getting the same fuel economy as a midsize sedan. And they complained?


Daimler, right?

Pretty sure it was BMW. The technology was a joint Venture, and I want to say BMW was the third partner...wish I could find the article to confirm...

But on the article -- Agreed...all in the name of a good story. If they were hoping for a bagillion mpg super pickup...they'll be waiting awhile....

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Pretty sure it was BMW. The technology was a joint Venture, and I want to say BMW was the third partner...wish I could find the article to confirm...

But on the article -- Agreed...all in the name of a good story. If they were hoping for a bagillion mpg super pickup...they'll be waiting awhile....

Hmm ... thinking back it was GM, BMW, and Daimler-Chrysler-Mercedes-Benz that partnered. After Chrysler split, they continued on with it and did put it in a few vehices. I don't think I've heard anything from BMW or Daimler.