C&G First Look - 07 Silverado/Sierra

[Flybrian]

Information

Images

[Cory Wolfe]

Eh...

[Moto_08]

Hmm....

[Moto_08]

Better interior and the Silverado looks better than the Sierra. Something about the Sierra reminds me of a Ridgeline.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Moto_08

[DetroitNut90]

Oooh-I like the Sierra Denali a lot! And the rims on the extended cab Silverado look nice.

I'm a bit sad that the Atlas I6 won't make it into the engine bay, though...

[CSpec]

These are awful images; I'll hold judgement. The interior looks like it's going to be good though. Looks like the Titan contributed something to pickup design though.

[Drew Dowdell]

damn! the GMC is HOT!

[vetmst]

damn! the GMC is HOT!

170089[/snapback]

WOW never thought the GMC would look better than the chevy

Edited July 23, 2006 by vetmst

[BigPontiac]

The Chevy's styling looks better on the Extended cab than it did in the crew cab spy shots. I like that they stole the door design from Nissan for the X-cab, however the seatbelt mount on the x-cab is a major step backward from the GMT800.

4-speed auto for the first model year...I'll wait for the 6speed in the next year, thanks.

I still want to see the non-Denali version of the Sierra. I like my 4wd with a low range option!

[ocnblu]

Very strong design. These trucks are typical excellent GM trucks.

I also hoped the 4.3L V6 would be laid to rest for the 4.2L I-6. And I was hoping the 6 speed auto would be available at the start, with the 900 SUVs in production already.

Very good differentiation between the two. I want to see the GMC SLE trim, it probably has chrome bumpers and a horizontal bar blacked-out grille. I like the fact the sheetmetal is different from the beltline down between Chevy and GMC.

The interior is excellent from what I can see.

I guess the nice-looking 5 spoke Chevy wheels are the 18 inchers. 20's aren't necessary for me, I guess. I hope they still make a 6 foot bed/regular cab configuration.

Next step is to see the equipment levels through the different models.

[mystik]

The Chevy looks hideous in that shot. Much worse than the pictures of the slate colored one led to believe the truck looked like. Why release pictures of the trucks at such bad angles? The GMC looks better, more masculine and rugged. Looks a little dopey, both do, but Ill try and reserve judgement for the actual images.

[Cadillacfan]

I'm getting a strong F-150 vibe from the GMC. I'm not to impressed with these photos. I'll wait until the official unveiling in a month or so.

[Northstar]

They will look a lot better when we see actual jpegs instead of scans, but I'd say the GMC looks better at the moment.

The interior shot with leather appears to be very similar to the T900 SUVs, while the other one must be the work truck. They don't appear to share a whole lot (look at the door panels, air vents, the hump over the gauges, and center console). That's pretty impressive, IMO, considering both are Chevys and they're that different.

The equipment on them sounds impressive, as does the reconfigurable bed area and the rear doors.

[I hope GMRULES again]

Not the best pics to judge them by. I think there is only so much you can do with the look /style of a pick up the important thing is getting all the little things right and improving as many things as you can and I'm sure they've done that.

[loki]

the 4.3L is a sad case when the 6.0L has the same MPG est. , guess it may last as long as the 3.8? anyway......

the huge swing of the rear door is impressive, ... no manual awww

I could say the pics are dead on, but the specs? still unofficial i bet, but we'll see...

the interior is a huge improvment over what i know of our '95 C1500 while still being quite basic looking from that shot.

lets hope some of the official specs surprise us.

[network engineer]

I hope that's the very base interior, because it really doesn't step up to the plate. This design is too evolutionary for me. I was hoping for a more revolutionary design. Some of the fetures, like the reconfigurable bed look cool, but they will hardly sell the truck. Power and looks sell every truck and this will have the power, but there are better looking trucks in side and out across the street at the Ford Dealer. Would I buy a ford over the chevy? No. But alot of people may and the new Tundra is not a bad looking truck at all.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

I love the GMC. That is a nice truck.

The 'Rado is alright. I like it's look -- like, not love; it reminds me of the second-generation S-10 for '94. The extended cab looks so much better than the crew cab.

And, what this? Two different interiors for uplevel trucks and base-level trucks? Whoa. Didn't see that coming. The base-level interior keeps a similar design to the GMT-800, but is lightyears ahead.

(A thought: put the work truck interior in the Tahoe for the base-level models, decontent things a bit, and one could avoid a hefty price tag and increse sales that much more.)

Lets hope the GMT-900 magic rubs off on the NG GMT-355 trucks and possible SUVs.

...And the new Tundra is not a bad looking truck at all.

170144[/snapback]

You can't be serious. GM losing sales to that? That thing is a rolling eyesore in all aspects and I'd bet quality will be poor to boot.

There's "playing it safe" and "going balls to the wall." If "going balls to the wall" brings crap like the Tundra, I'll "play it safe" with the GMT-900s, thank you.

Edited July 23, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[bowtie_dude]

the 4.3L is a sad case when the 6.0L has the same MPG est.  , guess it may last as long as the 3.8?  anyway......

the huge swing of the rear door is impressive, ...  no manual awww

I could say the pics are dead on, but the specs?  still unofficial i bet, but we'll see...

the interior is a huge improvment over what i know of our '95 C1500 while still being quite basic looking from that shot.

lets hope some of the official specs surprise us.

170143[/snapback]

As long as they stay in LS/LT bench seat work truck trims, I don't think the 4-spd and 4.3L are a big deal.

[ocnblu]

The new Tundra looks like an Atomic Tadpole. No thanks. :AH-HA_wink:

[Northstar]

I hope that's the very base interior, because it really doesn't step up to the plate.  This design is too evolutionary for me.  I was hoping for a more revolutionary design. 

170144[/snapback]

There are two different interiors, the one that you can see the dash is the work truck version. The one where the doors are open is for everything else, and as you can see it looks similar to the T900 SUVs, and it's a lot different from the work truck (just look at the door panels).

[Moto_08]

Don't talk loud about the new Tundra lets just not talk about it all everytime we say something isn't good enough it backfires. Look at the Ridgeline I don't like it either and have no idea why it's truck of the year.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Moto_08

[bowtie_dude]

You're probably looking at a $40k Tundra there. Lets see what the Z71/Denali interiors look like before we make comparisons.

[network engineer]

I love the GMC. That is a nice truck.

The 'Rado is alright. I like it's look -- like, not love; it reminds me of the second-generation S-10 for '94. The extended cab looks so much better than the crew cab.

And, what this? Two different interiors for uplevel trucks and base-level trucks? Whoa. Didn't see that coming. The base-level interior keeps a similar design to the GMT-800, but is lightyears ahead.

(A thought: put the work truck interior in the Tahoe for the base-level models, decontent things a bit, and one could avoid a hefty price tag and increse sales that much more.)

Lets hope the GMT-900 magic rubs off on the NG GMT-355 trucks and possible SUVs.

You can't be serious. GM losing sales to that? That thing is a rolling eyesore in all aspects and I'd bet quality will be poor to boot.

There's "playing it safe" and "going balls to the wall." If "going balls to the wall" brings crap like the Tundra, I'll "play it safe" with the GMT-900s, thank you.

170148[/snapback]

Ouch! I don't think I said the Tundra was balls to the wall, did I? Nope there's my quote, looks like I didn't. You can't honestly tell me that based on these pics that it looks like GM really brought their best game, can you? I didn't say the trucks were bad, What I was attempting to convey was, that the trucks look like GM played it safe. I love GM, no doubt and would never buy a Tundra. I'm just sick of GM bringing out kickass concept trucks and then lowering the bar with the production vehicles.

[network engineer]

You're probably looking at a $40k Tundra there.  Lets see what the Z71/Denali interiors look like before we make comparisons.

170159[/snapback]

I'm sure we are looking at the top of the line Tundra. I just think it was a bigger leap over the previous generation.

[Northstar]

I'm sure we are looking at the top of the line Tundra.  I just think it was a bigger leap over the previous generation.

170162[/snapback]

The Tundra was a big leap, and partly because the old one was so crappy, but how can you tell that it's a bigger leap if you haven't seen the top-of-the-line GM interiors? The picture that you can see the dash is the bottom feeder, and is totally different than the top models.

[RandyMN]

I've owned 6 Silverados since 1991....IMO the best word to describe what I've seen so far for the '07 Silverado is "boring". I love my Honda Ridgeline though.

[sgfootball2006]

The Tundra was a big leap, and partly because the old one was so crappy, but how can you tell that it's a bigger leap if you haven't seen the top-of-the-line GM interiors? The picture that you can see the dash is the bottom feeder, and is totally different than the top models.

170163[/snapback]

The top of the line models have the same interiors as the suv's

[Northstar]

The top of the line models have the same interiors as the suv's

170166[/snapback]

Do you know that for sure? It just says they're similar, but the door panels look the same or very similar, and the center console too. Either way they'll be very close.

[sgfootball2006]

Do you know that for sure? It just says they're similar, but the door panels look the same or very similar, and the center console too. Either way they'll be very close.

170168[/snapback]

I dont know that for sure but I have read it and it looks the same on the extended cab with the doors open. It may vary a little bit like you say, but overall I think it is the same style.

[bowtie_dude]

And the same thing is probably going to happen with the trucks that happens with every other GM vehicle. No matter how nice the surrounded trim is, you've still got an ugly ass flat-black stereo insert and HVAC controls that GM has just slid into a square-shaped hole.

Is it so f@#king hard to give these bowtie radios friggin piano black faces? GET A CLUE GM!

EDIT: Censored myself. GM's cost-cutting just pisses me off to no end. The Enclave interior is going to look like total ass thanks that the same damn flat-black radio/HVAC insert. Meanwhile the Lexus RX has had a better looking dash since its MCE, and its almost due for a new model.

Edited July 23, 2006 by bowtie_dude

[network engineer]

The Tundra was a big leap, and partly because the old one was so crappy, but how can you tell that it's a bigger leap if you haven't seen the top-of-the-line GM interiors? The picture that you can see the dash is the bottom feeder, and is totally different than the top models.

170163[/snapback]

You're right about the interior. That I can't tell, but the exterior styling was definately a greater improvement for both Ford and Toyota. Dodge really dropped the ball on the new Ram though. People were expecting something really great there and they delivered the same old truck.

[network engineer]

And the same thing is probably going to happen with the trucks that happens with every other GM vehicle.  No matter how nice the surrounded trim is, you've still got an ugly ass flat-black stereo insert and HVAC controls that GM has just slid into a square-shaped hole.

Is it so f@#king hard to give these bowtie radios friggin piano black faces?  GET A CLUE GM!

EDIT:  Censored myself.  GM's cost-cutting just pisses me off to no end.  The Enclave interior is going to look like total ass thanks that the same damn flat-black radio/HVAC insert.  Meanwhile the Lexus RX has had a better looking dash since its MCE, and its almost due for a new model.

170173[/snapback]

Here Here! I second the motion!

[FAPTurbo]

As many people say, I'll wait to see them in jpeg's and give my opinion then.

But I will say, that compared to the overwrought Toyota Tundra, these trucks are conservative looking, but in a strong, silent way.

Let Toyota have it's showoff design.. The real muscle you buy a truck for comes in these rigs.

[ponchoman49]

Not sure what to think of the styling but it sure looks better than the dump on wheels Tundra. The 4.3 is a joke along with the ancient 4 speed automatic. It's also rated at 5 less hp than earlier Silverados with the 4.3. The 4.8 is still at 285 hp and the 5.3 is rated at last years all alloy 5.3 at 310 hp. So much for the huge power increases that were rumored earlier this year! This seems like another half assed attempt at an update though the interior looks better and higher quality. If I were GM I would axe the 4.3 and 4 speed automatic right away from civilain models and instead make an AFM 4.8 std equipment and a 5 or 6 speed automatic available as an option. Why do we still have 1996 designed 4.3 Vortecs and 1982 designed 4 speed automatics in 2007?

[Bazzy]

As far as i know, Toyota has always produced a tank of a truck. I own a Tacoma, it's been through just about everything. Although i'm sure the first year the new Tundra is out, it will have a few problems. Just like the 2005 Tacoma did, but have all been fixed in the 2006 models. I really like the look of the GMC, the Chevy looks about the same as the spy shots. The interior is bland, but did you honestly expect anything else from Chevrolet?

[wjfox]

I guess I'm just not a truck guy. I don't find anything particularly attractive about these designs. They look like pickup trucks. I think the Tundra looks a little bit better, but it still looks like a pick up truck. I just hope GM go the details right on these things; that they do their jobs as trucks better. Then they will sell a bunch of them, because obviously America loves pick up trucks, even if they all look about the same.

[pow]

I still prefer the Avalanche or the current Denali.

[jbartley]

Heh, anyone for a response over one syllable?

170082[/snapback]

i'm LUVIN IT!

it looks like they are saving pics of the nicer interiors for later.

And people shouldn't compare the tundra interior to these. It's too damn busy, and talk about material overkill, these are trucks, not sports cars.

[bobo]

Interior design looks good. I still don't like the oversized Colorado exterior styling. I might even prefer the current truck. The new Avalanche looks so much cleaner than the Silverado.

[bowtie_dude]

i'm LUVIN IT!

it looks like they are saving pics of the nicer interiors for later.

And people shouldn't compare the tundra interior to these.  It's too damn busy, and talk about material overkill, these are trucks, not sports cars.

170218[/snapback]

Why not? The media sure as hell will be, so GM needs to make sure their interiors are up to snuff. The same bland, cheap matte-black radio insert isn't going to cut it, its that simple. No matter what GM does to the rest of the interior, that radio insert always makes it look worse, simply because they do NOTHING to fix it. They could swap out the buttons and face for some faux-aluminum or piano-black, but no, they just pull the same radio the put in the ass-tastic Impala and slap it in the Silverado. I mean, its not like GM isn't CAPABLE of making it piano-black.

Same exact radio, only in the Sky they put a piano-black finish on the face. Its amazing to me that out of GMs interior range of vehicles, the Sky is the only vehicle with an interior that totally blows the competition out of the water. Hell, even the radio insert they were putting in the Equinox had an aluminum face on it!!!!

I just don't get it.

[gmcbob]

Well Ponchoman, a quick answer to your question about old V6 motors and old school 4 spd. transmissions: cost. They're cheap to make. My opinion on the tranny after the next comment.

Overall, I like the new GM trucks, they look good. I'd love to see GM crush Toyota in the full size truck game once again (and they will, they have a bigger fan base when it comes to trucks). Not only does GM have a fanbase advantage in this arena, the Toyota looks ugly as sin. I'm sure the 07 Tundra will be a lot nicer than the truck it's replacing, but the styling will kill it in the marketplace. Only the die-hard Toyota fans will embrace it.

On the transmissions for the new GM trucks, GM should have introduced these trucks with the 6 spd. transmission. This is a glaring example of how GM has a few sluggers on the team, but they don't have any defense. It's like the 1st baseman can hit home runs all day, catch and field, but their pitching staff is all single A club quality. Why not just speed up the production of the 6 spd. and have that be the standard transmission??? I don't get management's thinking sometimes. It's as if the GM fans (like the guys on this site), know more than the people being paid to run the company. Oh well, go figure. Hey, it's not like GM doesn't have the resources. They've been building modern, 5 and 6 spd. transmissions for a long time, I think they could have figured out a way to put them in the new trucks right from the get go.

But I digress - the trucks aren't bad. Too bad gas is $3 a gallon, or I'd probably consider having one just because I think they're cool. Oh well.

Edited July 23, 2006 by gmcbob

[gmcbob]

Oh, one very nice positive in my opinion - the large wheels on the Chevy look great!

[sgfootball2006]

The trucks were originaly supposed to start with the six-speeds. Because the trucks production was pushed so far forward, they do not have enough six speeds available. Many insiders are saying that they will deffinately have them for the 2008 model. Evidently across the whole 900 platform. They have increased the six speed production already but with as many tahoes, yukons, sierras, and silverados that are made, they do not have enough to put them into every one for this year model.

Edited July 23, 2006 by sgfootball2006

[sciguy_0504]

Definately not the best photos to judge them by but at least we have a clue as to what the Sierra is going to look like. I think the Sierra is the better looking one as the Silverado appears to be a little too soft and unrefined for my tastes. I think it (edit: Silverado) is going to look the best in extended cab configuration with double cab as the worst. The Sierra would look better with blacked-out headlights, too. Thank God it does not share design language with the Yukon! That was my biggest worry.

I think a midlevel V6 is needed, too. Something between 195HP and 285HP.

Overall, I still like the next-gen Tundra and F150 for their exterior appearances but if the Silverado/Sierra have the GMT900 SUV interiors, they would be tops in the segment.

Edited July 23, 2006 by sciguy_0504

[PurdueGuy]

The 4.3 is a joke along with the ancient 4 speed automatic.

170185[/snapback]

My dad appreciated every one of the 340K+ miles he got out of his "joke" that was in his '92 Sierra.

[hyperv6]

The inside looks nice and I could live with the 4.3 but if the outside of the Chevy is not any better in person it is no sale here.

I was hopping the Avalanche was closer to what we would see!! That is one good looking truck.

The GMC is better but too Square and flat up front.

How long till GM can put the Tahoe front on this thing and get it looking better tha n what it does now.

Right now it has the cheap base grille look from 1988 going now.

I think I will keep the GMC I have for now as it still has at lest another 150,000 mile plus left in it.

[Brandon Lutz]

IMHO the GMC is the better looking of the two. Doesnt have the retarded flares from hell on the vehicle. Also who was tripping on acid when they designed the tailgate? That little design into it was not needed.

My biggest problem with the Silverado is the front of the truck looks big, bold and broad, but as you get closer to the rear of the vehicle, everything looks like it gets small and narrow, culminating with this funky tailgate that looks VERY out of place on the truck.

I'm confident that the trucks will be fantastic pieces of equipment, however, IMHO the GMC kicks the Silvy's rear end in the looks department.

[bowtie_dude]

The extended cab door is cool as hell.

[BuddyP]

I think a midlevel V6 is needed, too.  Something between 195HP and 285HP.

170244[/snapback]

Why?? As far as I'm concerned, the 4.8 doesn't need to even be in the mix. What happened to the 220hp 4.3??? All they need for engine options is a 220hp 4.3, 5.3 and 6.0. There are no manufacturing cost savings in making the 4.8 vs 5.3.

[84jeepjohn]

The trucks were originaly supposed to start with the six-speeds. Because the trucks production was pushed so far forward, they do not have enough six speeds available. Many insiders are saying that they will deffinately have them for the 2008 model. Evidently across the whole 900 platform. They have increased the six speed production already but with as many tahoes, yukons, sierras, and silverados that are made, they do not have enough to put them into every one for this year model.

170242[/snapback]

Like I said in other places, I can NOT believe they are selling that manny Cadies, and Denali's to use up ALL the 6-speeds they are making.

If the SUVs/and trucks all came out 6 months early then in 6 months of sales I'm kinda expecting the 6 speeds to be in most if not all the trucks.

Oh yeah!!!!

GET RID OF THE GOOFY LUGGAGE RACKS ON THE TRUCKS!!!!!!!

Edited July 23, 2006 by 84jeepjohn