What happened to GM?

[tripleblack]

It is not only General Motors that has suffered from rising gas prices but Ford has suffered as well, but who cares about Fords anyway. The sad thing is that nowadays things have changed; GM trucks are becomming weaker, engines becoming smaller with fuel saving displacements, and what happened to stlye? I mean everyone on this board will agree with me when i say there is not a better body style than the 67-72 edition. But it just makes me wonder if the classical american truck is slowly becoming a legend...? At least we all on this board have an appreciation for classics and i am glad to be the owner of at least one but hopefully several more. I guess the only positive side of all this is that our trucks will be worth more and more as we see "real" trucks dissapear altogether.

[gonebad2]

I have an '04 2500HD Silverado Crewcab 4x4. Lifted with 35's with the 8.1 and Allison tranny....It moves pretty good. The only thing I don't like is that it cuts out at about 100 mph....That's a bummer. We have alot of open road in the middle of nowhere out here. I love driving it to Vegas on HWY 95 and keeping it close to 100 the whole trip. I like my '67 for different reasons. I drove it to Vegas and it was'nt as good on gas and nowhere near as comfortable. But, it's a kick in the azz to drive and it grabs alot of attention. Overall, I really like my new truck ( I like it even more since I paid it off six months ago). Plus, nobody pays it any attention..It's like driving an invisible truck. Which is just what I want sometimes.

[pebbleboy]

I'm with you on the styling. There going I am hoping to get hired in the next few months to a job where I make almost double what I do now. If I do my 70 is going in for a complete rebuild. Since it's my daily driver I'd have to get something else. I'd like another fullsize reg cab but there ever the burbans are The only thing I kinda like the styling is the Colorado. Don't even get me started on the Minivans. I saw one and almost crashed due to the horrific styling on those

Maby I'll just get another 67 -72 to drive while I rebuild the 70. Hmmmm....That should be fun to explain to the wife.

[muddpile]

The biggest problem I have with new trucks is the fact that they are going away from what they were built to do: Work. How many of you have lowered the tailgate on a newer pickup, or better yet, taken one off. They weigh NOTHING, and they have cheap plastic handles on them, which fail at the slightest problem. The front panel of the box often gets hammered into the cab if something slides forward in the box, and it doesn't have to hit it that hard. Then we go inside, most of these things are like cars inside! They have all the options, plush carpet, all these fancy intricate controls etc. You couldn't use it as a work truck if you tried. Heck, even if you wanted to work with it, they cost far too much to risk damaging them (parts prices are outrageous as well. I think I'll stick to my 72.

[68Stepbed]

My dad and I have had many discussions about this. My biggest complaint about the newer Chevys is the front clip. Being that about everything we own is a , we've tried to find reasons to like the new styling, but we just can't. I finally told my dad, the grill doesn't look that bad, it just doesn't match the rest of the truck.

I'll prove my point. Look at the 99-02 model's grill. Everything is rounded and smooth and flows with the rest of the styling throughout the truck.

Look at the 03-present models. The grill and front fenders are blocky with sharp edges, then the rest of the truck has the same smooth flowing lines as previous years. It looks to me like they just stuck a different nose on it to say they made a change.

Now, look at the Avalanche. It has the sharp, blocky lines in front, but the rest of the truck does also, which makes it look like it belongs.

The new GMC's still look good. They still have the rounded, smooth lines to match the rest of the body.

As far as the power plants go, I think their going in the right direction. They're still making good torque and hp while still getting 20mpg. The new Gen III and IV small blocks are excellent engines. IMO they beat the snot out of our old school carb'd small blocks. These engines aren't slouches by any means. They also respond very well to computer upgrades, nitrous, turbos and superchargers without alot of modification from what I've seen.

Jay Leno's Toronado has a stock LS1 crate engine with twin turbos and made 1200 hp. Let's see somebody do that with a stock 350 sb!

Just my .02 whatever it's worth.

[pjmoreland]

Is this the ugly minivan/suv mutt you're talking about? I couldn't believe how hideous this vehicle is the first time I saw one. It's the Chevy Uplander.

[Longhorn Man]

You oughta see how they hold up....or rather, DON'T hold up.

[BBC Beater]

I'll stick with my Reg Cab, Short Bed, Hemi Sport. I'm probably selling my 04 to get an 06 in the same style. Dodge makes the only good looking truck hands down except for maybe the Superduty Ford. Plus I can tow 9200lbs.

But I do think that the GM trucks are the best all around trucks with good fuel mileage etc...

[screwballl]

wow someone needs a wet willie!
I personally hate Fords hands down, they suck and are bad luck... but the newer ones are excellent with safety. ( i had a major accident a year ago in a 00 Explorer)
I myself have liked the Dodge truck styling since the early 90s and have liked the GM truck style up except the latest one. the sharp corners on the front don't match up to the rest of the truck so it just looks funny (as mentioned above). I loved the 99-03 style as well as most the rest of them since our classics.
With the push for better fuel economy, 20mpg still isnt that great. Look at our trucks after the gas shortages when they were putting slant 6's in our trucks.
Now they are getting 20-25mpg with the same 350 plus getting about the same if not better acceleration and power.

[N2TRUX]

Originally Posted by tripleblack

.... GM trucks are becomming weaker, engines becoming smaller with fuel saving displacements, and what happened to stlye? I mean everyone on this board will agree with me when i say there is not a better body style than the 67-72 edition......

While it's true the engines are smaller in displacement, they are far from weaker. The newer "smaller" motors have twice the horse power and torque of most older motors. They also get better fuel mileage.

While I can agree that there is "not a better body style than the 67-72 edition" the 67-68 styling should be seperated as the true classic of this era. Believe it or not, some of us happen to appreciate the lines of the 73-87 as well.

Certainly the new truck styling is subject to personal opinion. I like some of it, and some of it leaves me wondering what they were thinking. As much as I love these old trucks, I like the new ones for what they offer too. I appreciate cabs that are quiet, seats, windows and mirrors that have power, and a tailgates that latch with one click. It may seem silly, but dual controls on the heat and a/c allow my wife and I to ride in more comfort too. I don't think anyone can argue that the new sound systems are far superior to anything that GM has offered "ever".

I can understand some of your frustrations with GM since I have had my issues with them on warranty work. I can assure you it not just GM these days. After researching my latest truck purchase (a Dodge) I came to realize that all of the current manufacturers build a pretty good truck, and they all offer poor customer service.....

[special-K]

GM has always been able to get more out of less,make them last longer,and keep them the same longer than the two fickle competitors.I come alog and ask why the trucks don`t look as good as 35 years ago.Where have you been?Things have been evolving through over three decades and three major body design changes.Does anything look as good as it did back then?I`ve been buying newer trucks only as trucks,doesn`t matter what they look like,really.I buy classics for their style.And,the fact that these were everyday rucks for me when I got out in the world so I have alot of respsct for them still,as trucks.All new trucks for me are a love/hate thing.Tougher in some ways/wimpier in other ways.I`ll take any new diesel one ton if you give it to me.

[64fleetside]

My bro bought a new 2004 with the "work truck option"(power window/lock delete, rubber floormat, etc) last year to work with, metal is too thin to hold sheetmetal screws to mount toolboxes/ladder racks, can't get to the back side to use nuts/bolts. Can't turn the headlights "on" or "off" when hunting/working outside @nite/changing a tire, bedsides dent from elbows when you lift things out. New front bumper is $600. Antilock brakes freak out when truck is loaded or pulling a trailer, it gets 20 mpg(4.8),, my 64 w/230/3spd/3.73 gets 16-18mpg, come on. Brian

[67ChevyRedneck]

Part of the reason the trucks are now like cars is because that's how 98% of people want them. People want A/c, power seats, leather, comfy interiors, power widows, power door locks, etc... But then some people also want to be able to beat the piss outta it. To improve fuel economy and to be able to make the trucks cheaper/more affordable the metal is getting thinner. Government regulations on crash tests and improved safety also drive the cost up. My 67 weighs 3800 pounds, has a 350, 700R4, 3.73 rear and gets about 13 mpg city and 16 mpg hwy. My 00 Z71 weighs almost 6ooo pounds, has 4wd, 5.3L, 4l60, 3.73 rear and gets 15/18-19 mpg, AND has A LOT more power. What do you people expect? I just don't understand. You want the truck bigger, roomier, more power, towing capacity, want it to ride like a car but haul like a truck, have all the comforts of a car, but still "look" like a truck, and, oh yea, get 30 mpg. Do any of y'all even realize that isn't possible? Your asking for contratictory things. You complain they dont have enough power, yet you want MORE fuel economy. MORE POWER EQUALS LESS FUEL ECONOMY. This new DOD technology may help and give these truck 25 mpg, but I don't know. Hell, even toyota can't get good economy out of a fullsize. I agree the 03-06 trucks look awkward due to the fact that they basically slapped an avalanch grill on a 99-02 truck. Chevy did the same thing back in 69. They took a beautifuly lined truck and slapped a big square ugly front end on it. Yup, I said it. Ugly square front end. In comparison it's much nicer than the 03-05, but I'm sure people back then said the same thing about the 69. Man them 68's were nice, but that square 69 front end aint doin it for me.(I like the 69-72 trucks, just trying to make a comparison). You're so used to seeing the same thing that a lot of y'all aren't willing to accept any kind of change. Trucks cost too much, gas is too high BLAH BLAH BLAH. I apologize for the long post, but I'm sick of reading these "GM sucks" threads. I'll put my '00 Z71 up against anyones STOCK truck anyday, and not only will I run circles around you, but I will be able to outhaul you AND do it IN COMFORT AND go about 20-30% farther on a tank of gas. As far as people complaining about their new vehicles breaking down, go back and read all of the "help my truck wont start, OR crap, blew another engine, OR my tranny is slipping, OR my engine is making a knocking sound" threads in the 67-72 truck board. They're there and there are A LOT of them, so don't try to tell me new trucks aren't reliable, or are any less reliable than an older truck. Quit beating the piss outta it, shifting the trans from forward to reverse before completely stopping, and don't put the damned thing in 4wd on the interstate. (some common complaints about the 99-02 trucks) Rant mode off.... for now

[panhandler62]

Well .. try to make a 300hp Cadillac that can tow 12,00lbs and clear a 14" stump while getting an average of 20mpg and you pretty much end up with the $40k conglomerations you see in your Chevy dealer's window today.

Ultimately; the consumer pretty much gets what he says he wants according to how he spends his money.

[shortymac83]

GM has their heads up their butts. Look at it this way: ford comes out with a cheap performance vehicle (the mustang...bases at 16,000 for V6, 21,000 for V8) that has retro lines and just looks badass. They sell them like popcorn at a movie theater. Chrysler is bringing back performance with the Hemi powered 300, Magnum and chargers. They all look bad-ass (especially the charger) and have decent performance, and are relatively cheap (I think starting for a hemi powered magnum is $25K?) GM comes out with a performance vehicle (after ditching one of the most popular ones - the camaro) that is heavier, almost as fast, and costs $35,000 with no options...AND it looks like a grand prix on crack. Nobody buys them. Why? too expensive, and too boring.

GM needs to take a cue from Chrysler and Ford. Build something that looks awesome and performs like it should for $25,000 and you'll have a winner.

but not only that, look at that new HHR whatever. Ugly as sin. the economy cars just look like cracker jack boxes...I mean, ya know?

There was an automotive stylist in the early 90's that said "you have to bend sheetmetal anyway, you might as well bend it in a shape people want to look at"

[67shortie]

Originally Posted by shortymac83

ford comes out with a cheap performance vehicle (the mustang...bases at 16,000 for V6, 21,000 for V8) that has retro lines and just looks badass. GM comes out with a performance vehicle (after ditching one of the most popular ones - the camaro) that is heavier, almost as fast, and costs $35,000 with no options...AND it looks like a grand prix on crack. Nobody buys them. Why? too expensive, and too boring.

Quit while you are ahead.

I'd like to know where you can get a GT (only V8 I know of) for $21,000, I would buy it and make some cash re selling it.

GM did not 'ditch' the most popular F body line because they felt nobody wanted them (sales were slowing slightly). It had to do with meeting new crash standards, UAW contracts, the Camaro nameplate contracted to the Canadian plant that built the F body. I believe that expires in 2007 BTW. GM felt that development cash was needed in the truck marketplace instead of another F body redesign, so the line was pulled from the pony car sadly. A few years later Ford came out with the Mustang, hot seller (let's see how hot it stays) so GM went to thier global market and picked the Holden Monaro to bring back a muscle style coupe to the market. The UAW *****ed and Holden's inability for increased production to meet demand, so only 15,000 '04's and 12,000 '05's were able to be imported. (Also competing is the Vauxhaul=English version, and Monaro for production) Admittedly, the car was very poorly marketed, had less than exciting styling, and sales slumped as a result initially so very good pricing was introduced to move the remaining '04's off the dealers lots the last half of the year. It also did not help the promise of 50 more hp, bigger brakes, and revised styling of the next years model. The '05's are selling better than the '04's did as a result, both are very well refined cars for the price BTW.

And I hope you are not stating that the GTO (assuming the car described as a Grand Prix on crack ) is almost as fast as the GT? (no way in hell the GT is quicker/faster than the GTO) or the mentioned Camaro?, costs $35000, and no options. Siding with you on this, there is only one option, the tremec 6 speed that costs $695 but saves the buyer the gas guzzler tax of $1300 so it will actually be cheaper to 'option' the car out.

Base price on the GTO is $32995 non GMS, not $35,000.

Everything else you stated is opinion.

And yes, you guessed it, I am a '05 GTO owner so I am a 'nobody'

[panhandler62]

I don't know that I would idolize Dodge too much here. In the early 70s, when everyone else saw the writing on the wall, Chrysler continued building large, powerfull cars with crappy milage. Took a government handout to save the company after that (they teetered for a long while)

Today, with gas heading upwards of $3.00 a gallon and likely to surpass (and stay there) the all time inflationadjusted price -- what is Dodge selling? An suv that gets 13mpg and three cars that struggle to average 18. I think the Magnum and Charger are awsome, but are they appropriate? A top end Accord will hang right in there with a top end Magnum and use half the gas doing so at around the same price.

I like the Magnum a lot more than the Honda -- but which one do you think is going to be around in 5 years?

I have nothing but "here here" to say about the demise of the F body and the resurgence of the 'stang. I've owned three Camaros and zero Mustangs, but I'ld buy the new 06 Cobra without even glancing across the street at the GTO.

GM needs to "pony up" as it were. (I hear rumor that thre is a new GTO that migt change my mind.. but I'm reserving judgement.)

[shortymac83]

what I'm saying with the charger and magnum is that THOSE are what americans want (within 4 months of the charger's debut, there were 4 cruising in my town of 1500 people). GM needs to take a cue and make something that looks aggressive to go with the performance.

I would have to say that if I were in the market for a new car, it'd be a ford.

[oldraven]

Gas prices and the UAW happened to GM.

[panhandler62]

Yeah.. I agree there... even with the price of gas... I roll every time I drive by the local dealer.

They have a copper colored HEMI Charger (don't know if it's a 5.7 or a 6.0) on their lazy susan flanked by a jet black HEMI Magnum and a 68 Charger.

GM could reincarnate the Camaro and go retro -- follow the body lines of the 68 and power it with a turbo v6 .. they should be able to hit mid 20s for economy and make it competitive with the stang in price and performance.

[shortymac83]

ford and chrysler have UAW as well. GM execs were pansies and just bowed to anything the union wanted.

[68Stepbed]

I can tell you from expeience that the 99-present GM trucks aren't worth a flying flip for work trucks. The tailgates were only designed to hold 300 lbs. My dad dumped a whole truckload of lumber on a highway because the cables broke. What moron decided to use cables instead of the two piece metal hinge like they used to use?

GM finally came out with a "performance" car, and they screwed it up. What am I talking about, you ask? The new Impala SS with a 303 hp V8. I was excited about it until I saw one at a dealer last month. IT'S A DAMN FRONT WHEEL DRIVE!!!!!!

I could've bit a 16 penny nail in half when I saw that. It's like the GM execs are afraid of rear wheel drive or something.

Yeah, I would also buy a Mustang before I would even consider a GTO. Chevrolet doesn't have to revive the Camaro or the Chevelle. Why not come up with something new and different?

One more thing, if I could I would slap the out of the Chrysler guys for calling their new monstrosity a Charger! Make a four door Satellite and a two door Charger, but not a four door Charger. Don't get me wrong, I like em as a family sedan, but not as a muscle car that they advertise.

[oldraven]

Originally Posted by 68Stepbed

I could've bit a 16 penny nail in half when I saw that. It's like the GM execs are afraid of rear wheel drive or something.

No, they're just afraid of spending money on their budget brands. Check out the new Pontiac GXP. They actually made that FWD SB work, without torque steer, and the car will even hang the rear out in a corner. Read the Motor Trend for October and you'll see that FWD can be alright. Still RWD would have been better, I agree.

One more thing, if I could I would slap the out of the Chrysler guys for calling their new monstrosity a Charger! Make a four door Satellite and a two door Charger, but not a four door Charger. Don't get me wrong, I like em as a family sedan, but not as a muscle car that they advertise.

Agreed. Thought, I think the Polara name would sell better in todays market than Satellite.

[chevy71super]

Buy the Mustang and you will be looking at the tail lights of a GTO and its not even close. The new Mustang is hands down the best looking car but performance wise it stinks. I saw one on TV the other day taking a flogging by an F250 diesel. The 505 HP Vette keeps pace with the 550 HP Ford GT at half the price and is faster than the Viper for $10K less. In 2006 Chevy is matching the Hemi's horsepower and torgue ratings in their trucks. My son-in-laws both have Hemi's, really like them, but both get less than 10 MPG in town and around 13 on the highway. (Their new DOD engines should do better.) The new Denalli's will get a 380/415 hp/torque engine and will rate better gas mileage than the Ford Explorer. Ya, GM dropped the ball on styling. The styling engineers seem clueless. As much as I love my 71/72's and stock they can't match my 2003 Silverado in any way - hauling, towing, gas mileage, comfort and durability. (Except for styling.)

[Sillyoldman]

My confession is that I drive a '04 for F-150 supercrew Lariat. I needed a rig that suited my daily and recreational needs. Personally Ford was more attractive to me. I'm a courier ans I drive them all day at work, and they are always very reliable. Love my Chevy, but honestly I think their styling has been in a funk since the mid 70's.