What features & options do you want to see on the new 2014 full-size trucks?

[GMTruckGuy74]

There's a lot of news floating around on the Internet the past two months about the upcoming 2014 GM full-size pickups and SUVs. GM is being very tight-lipped on these new offerings, having just shown them to dealership owners in Las Vegas and Milford. With such secrecy, there are lots of rumors and opinions on what these new trucks will look like, what options and features they will have, and will they truly be game changers in the truck marketplace.

So I ask you to share with us what features and options you would like to see the new full-size offerings have. Doesn't matter if you're into trucks or not, at some point all of us either drive one or ride in one.

[GMTruckGuy74]

- I'm hoping the new styling allows for two-tone paint options again. This was a feature of GM trucks up until 2006 (2007 Classic models to my knowledge were monotone only; SUVs lost two-tone after 2001).

- Hopefully the in-bed LED lighting makes it to the option list, as last seen on the 2011 GMC Sierra All Terrain HD Concept. Roof mounted cargo lamps are good, but usually don't illuminate the entire bed (put a tonneau cover on and forget about the cargo lamp).

- Along with the lighting I'm hoping bedside storage bins finally make their appearance, especially since the Avalanche/Escalade EXT is gone. RAM 1500 & the Nissan Titan can't be the only trucks with useful bed storage options.

- I hope the option list opens up regardless of the trim style or cab configuration selected. If I want a mid-level GMC Sierra with a power driver's seat, I should be able to select that option (2013 models I can't get it, but can get Bluetooth for my cell phone!). If a buyer wants a base model with some nice features (outside of packaged equipment groups), then they should be able to select them. Why should GM limit its profit potential?

- Give Chevrolet truck models their "upscale" package. Actually, make it two - western-themed for those that want it, and urban-themed for those not into the whole cowboy thing. GMC should do the same; keep Denali (urban) and add an outdoors-type of theme (different than the western theming for Chevy). Actually, GMC should capitalize on the "All Terrain" theme they established with the Sierra. Instead of cowboy like on the Chevy, go after the off-roading enthusiasts. Think more "Hummer" than "rodeo".

Edited September 26, 2012 by GMTruckGuy74

[Camino LS6]

I don't really care what options they offer above what we have now, but no more silly option packages in which unrelated options are grouped together!

In fact, I'd be much happier with no option packages at all - just line-item options so you can build what you want.

I'd love this on any automobile, but it is far more critical on a truck.

[hyperv6]

The line by line option is a thing of the past. Too expensive to built and too hard for dealers to sell if they end up with a lot of odd optioned cars on the lots.

I remember when you could do this and wished they could do it again but I expect we will never see that in any regular production cars.

The one truck option I would like to see is better bed storage like they have in the Dodge and Toyota. There is wasted space in the lower quarters and bed sides that could be put to good use.

[Robert Hall]

A height adjustable suspension option would be good...get down close to the ground when parked for ease of entry/exit and loading/unloading, as well as for high speed driving for better aerodynamics...

Edited September 26, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Carguy]

I would like to see a lightweight RWD Silverado SS using the LS7 with DI and a 6 speed manual trans! With something like 550HP using Direct Injection and starting out in base work truck trim this could be a wonderful return of the sport truck for Chevrolet!

Edited September 26, 2012 by Carguy

[Camino LS6]

The line by line option is a thing of the past. Too expensive to built and too hard for dealers to sell if they end up with a lot of odd optioned cars on the lots.

I remember when you could do this and wished they could do it again but I expect we will never see that in any regular production cars.

I've been hearing this for years, and I think it's a lame excuse - the way I see it, they are missing a marketing opportunity. But putting that aside, the line-item option has always been there on trucks to at least a certain degree. Given the nature of trucks that they are used in so many different ways, it's a necessity. Limiting that flexibility on trucks would be quite stupid. As for option packages, if we can't kill them they should at least make sense. Back when I was looking at Avalanches, it was those inane groupings of options that decided me against buying one. You couldn't get a locking rear diff. without ordering a huge (and expensive) option package full of creature comforts - and that just makes no sense.

[riviera74]

Ordering packages rather than line items for each option is more efficient from a factory perspective. It costs a lot more to do that than pursue options packages. If nobody went to the dealer and bought from existing dealer inventory, then your idea is more viable. Of course, state franchise laws may make that impossible (especially when culling dealers).

[Camino LS6]

I never understood why we haven't moved toward factory orders anyway, the dealers still gamble when they order and the customers still accept whats on the lot - makes no sense to me. I've almost always ordered my new cars and trucks. By the time I hit the dealership I can just hand them a list of codes.

[hyperv6]

Setllemire pointed out one time confirming what we already knew. Case in point, Scott showed us that the F body went to standard power windows in all cars as it is cheaper and more profitable to make them all that way,

Second most people would not wait the 4-8 weeks to order a vehicle in this instant gratification society. I see enough people bitching because they are a week over on their order and would cancel the order if they could.

Third the more options you load in the easier it is to sell and more profitable the vehicle is.

Finally dealers would complain if they got stuck with odd optioned vehicles they can't unload and would ask for help from GM to unload them.

Like many things times have changed and auto buyers have changed.

GM has tried to counter with options like the work trucks and other packages that decontent trucks to make them cheaper or have options companies and construction workers would look for.

Ford also limits the option choice but they offer about 10,000 model combo packages and the like GM will do limited run vehicles. I once saw a F250 that had a special package for Lumber Cutting companies out west. The guys brother ordered one for him here in Ohio. It had every kind of skid plate and off road item you could think of. It also had special tires and it was factory lifted. But the company also bought God knows how many to get the deal.

Like most things anymore packages are much more profitable and easier to deal with all the way around. For the most part the public has no issues with it as long as they can find pretty much what they want on the lot or dealer trade for it.

4 of my last three cars were dealer trades and it only took a day to get them. I got what I wanted and never had any issues with missing a option I wanted.

In the past and the lack of computers finding the right car was a major issue but today it is easy. I found my HHR SS and my Terrain myself at home before the dealer and knew they could get what I wanted easy.

Besides if someone for some unknown reason wants a power passenger seat what better way to get them to pay a little more and take the LTZ package. Always leave them wanting to pay more.

Edited September 26, 2012 by hyperv6

[Camino LS6]

I "built" every new truck I've ever had - and wouldn't do it any other way.

Spending that kind of money, I want what I want and nothing less will do.

[ocnblu]

I much prefer factory-ordering a vehicle, and I've done it several times. I think my next one will have to be ordered so I don't overspend.

[Camino LS6]

It's going to be a truck this time, isn't it Ocn?

[ocnblu]

I have to wait a while to make sure I'm secure at this new job, but I think it is going to be a truck.

[hyperv6]

I always expect to order but always find what I want in a dealer trade. I have never had to leave off one option.

[balthazar]

Theres a very tangible reason why the domestic truck lines have such a superior appeal, and its configurability & appealing to the consumer. Option packages favor the factories over the consumer. I'd settle for just a move toward more line-option choices rather than a full menu. Its not an optimal balance as it is now.

RE Roger's suggestions- better bed lighting would be great, including a switch in the rear for the cargo light. More than a 10-min interval would be good, too. What is the LED proposal? I'd like to see repeater cargo lights in the tailgate jamb, aimed inboard- they could easily be incorporated with the tails. Something along the bed rails would be tricky to protect from damage.

[GMTruckGuy74]

What is the LED proposal?

See the white "line" at the bulkhead and on both sides of the inside pickup box? Those are white LEDs that light up the cargo bed. Works great, from what I saw of it at the 2011 NYIAS. Plus if you had a tonneau cover in place, it still works great compared to a roof-mounted cargo lamp.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I am not a fan of plastic bedliners nor the rough-looking, painted liners. I prefer the body-colored metal bed to either of those "options", though I know it's hard to keep a painted metal bed looking nice if you actually use the interior of the bed. In this case I would suggest a composite bed/bed floor would be a nice feature (such as the picture above shows). For weight reduction I'm thinking GM may be offering this option once again.

[Camino LS6]

I really like the idea and the looks of it in the pic, but I do wonder about durability.

Still, the roof-mounted cargo lights are mostly useless.

[hyperv6]

If they can make lights that hold up on the floor of a theater or air plane this is not an issue.

Besides most trucks are not used as trucks anymore.

The only real issue I worry about with the new truck is for the gas to spike at into again like the last time and hurt the roll out.

Edited September 27, 2012 by hyperv6

[Robert Hall]

The only real issue I worry about with the new truck is for the gas to spike at into again like the last time and hurt the roll out.

That's when they roll out the Eco model w/ a 1.4L engine...

[balthazar]

gas is already spiked.

I remember that LED concept feature now- interesting; should work.

The 'plastic bedliner vs. composite (plastic) bed' seems a mite minor AFA the bed interior goes. How about a composite liner?

I still have a number of tailgate work surface ideas I'd like to see.

[hyperv6]

The only real issue I worry about with the new truck is for the gas to spike at into again like the last time and hurt the roll out.

That's when they roll out the Eco model w/ a 1.4L engine...

Might in a Colorado but not going to happen in the full size as you will get a new 4.3 with 10% more MPG and 50% more power. Or at least that is what some claim.

Edited September 27, 2012 by hyperv6

[hyperv6]

gas is already spiked.

I remember that LED concept feature now- interesting; should work.

The 'plastic bedliner vs. composite (plastic) bed' seems a mite minor AFA the bed interior goes. How about a composite liner?

I still have a number of tailgate work surface ideas I'd like to see.

Gas has not spiked as you have not seen anything yet. With what is going on in the MIddle East and the drop in our standing over there we are heading for a world of hurt. The Global Oil Economy will bite us in the ass even if we do not use any of their oil.

To do this right they need to figure out a composite bed that works for the Half ton line to lose the weight and have no need for liners etc.

Edited September 27, 2012 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

Gas has not spiked as you have not seen anything yet.

Really, do tell. Where & when do you see gas prices spiking to in the future, Oh seer?

Diesel is still about 75% of it's historical high that I've paid, that's close enough to 'spiked' IMO.

• • •

Again: substituting structural steel for backup cameras is the WRONG direction to work toward.

Half-tons still need to hold up to long-term use above & beyond their spec- thats a key component to how they've earned the loyalty they enjoy.

As soon as they become 'powder puff' trucks, there's another domestic segment lost.

[Camino LS6]

Gas has not spiked as you have not seen anything yet.

Really, do tell. Where & when do you see gas prices spiking to in the future?

Diesel is still about 75% of it's historical high that I've paid, that's close enough to 'spiked' IMO.

• • •

Again: substituting structural steel for backup cameras is the WRONG direction to work toward.

Half-tons still need to hold up to long-term use above & beyond their spec- thats a key component to how they've earned the loyalty they enjoy.

As soon as they become 'powder puff' trucks, there's another domestic segment lost.

Absolutely.

Take the tough out of trucks and you can kiss the segment goodbye.

[PurdueGuy]

I'm a day late on the discussion, but modern lean manufacturing processes should be making it easier & easier to allow for line-item custom ordered vehicles. Some of the options groups I've seen when playing with configurations are silly. Grouping so many options together is either laziness or an attempt at forcing larger upsells, and I suspect it's more the latter one. For example, if the bean counters think that a number of people are going to want a sunroof, let's group the 20 speaker $1,000 stereo system option with it. Enough people will be set on the sunroof that they'll be forced into the upsell.

[ocnblu]

I agree with your assessment, Perdue. A shameless attempt to take more money from the customer.

[hyperv6]

There is no shame in making more money,. If that is the case GM needs to be more Shameless. Stated this earlier and every company does this and it works. Profits are in the options more so than the vehicle. More options more profits.

Case in point when we bought out GMC SLT-2 we went the extra cash for the better package as it has the memory seats etc.

We also got things we may have skipped but to be honest I am glad to have these extras now.

Good Marketing always leaves you wanting more.

[Camino LS6]

I'm a day late on the discussion, but modern lean manufacturing processes should be making it easier & easier to allow for line-item custom ordered vehicles. Some of the options groups I've seen when playing with configurations are silly. Grouping so many options together is either laziness or an attempt at forcing larger upsells, and I suspect it's more the latter one. For example, if the bean counters think that a number of people are going to want a sunroof, let's group the 20 speaker $1,000 stereo system option with it. Enough people will be set on the sunroof that they'll be forced into the upsell.

Yes, and that's exactly the wrong strategy in this economic environment. It will just chase customers away. It chased me away from the Avalanche.

[GMTruckGuy74]

Okay, just in case anyone from GM reads this thread, I thought I'd be a little more "technical" in what options I'd like to see be available across all cab configurations and trims levels:

• A95 (Bucket Seats), allow as an option on Regular Cab models as GMC has for years
  
• AG1 (Seat adjuster, driver 6-way power), include as an option on the W/T Plus package
  
• AP3 (Remote Vehicle Starter), include as an available option on the W/T Plus-packaged trucks
  
• C49 (Rear Window Defogger), include as an available option on the W/T Plus-packaged trucks
  
• GAT (All Terrain Package), include on the Regular Cab models
  
• DD8 (Inside Rearview Mirror w/ Auto Dimming), should not be grouped with Trailering mirrors and optional on all trim levels
  
• DL3 (Oustide Rearview Mirrors, heated, power folding), should be an available option, not limited to SLT/Denali models (all full-size trucks should be able to power fold their mirrors when parking)
  
• JF4 (Power Adjustable Pedals), make available for any cab & trim package (not just SLE Crew Cab & up)
  
• UD7 (Rear Parking Assist), many people could benefit from this option on any model & trim package, especially if the truck is higher
  
• UG1 (Universal Home Remote), make available on Regular Cabs and offered as an option on all trim packages
  
• UO1 (Amber Roof Marker Lamps), allow this option on all of the 1500 models, not just the 2500/3500 HDs (if they allow the Snow Plow Prep package, then this option is a no-brainer)
  

There's my little list. All of those are current options & features installed on usually the SLE Extended/Crew and up models, many of which are restricted for the W/T & W/T Plus-package and Regular Cab models. I've followed the GMC Sierra for many, many years and will say that GM has allowed many of those items to be optioned before (cost-cutting I guess removed them from the options list).

Thank you.

[balthazar]

^ agreed. If the packages were a few hundred a piece, no big deal. But when they're commonly 1500, they are going to lose out on ordered vehicles. In the past when options were line-item, seldom were 2 models the same. That speaks to the individual preferences of consumers. This is a portion of the reason vehicles have become more like an appliance- homogenization. Unfortunately, there is no 'comp' to judge the profitability potential of line-item options today, so assuming packages are more profitable is merely a shot in the dark guess.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I agree, balthazar. I was "building" a 2013 GMC Sierra 1500 W/T Regular Cab Long Bed today and to get the ISRV Auto Dimming Mirror ($60) I had to include the Trailering Mirrors ($240) that I know I don't want. I don't understand that grouping. Pickup trucks for a long time were generally ordered by a customer who was putting the truck to work in a specific way. As such, that customer wanted to be sure to order the options best suited for getting that work done, and anything else they needed the truck to do. In this new-age way of doing option packages, the manufacturer took away the right of the customer to get a truck equipped his own way. Makes no sense, and I agree with the cost of some of these option packages (two I recall from early today were $825 and $1,620!).

[balthazar]

And the irony of your example Roger, is of course that with a trailer (trailering mirrors), you'd have no need for an auto-dimming IRVM!

I tinted the rear window of my '94 F-150, and since that, and thru the factory tint in my Silverado, I haven't (manually) dimmed my IRVM in 18 years. I'd rather see the money for an ADIRVM spent somewhere else (useful) on a truck. Most lines of trucks these days all have tinted rear glass. Its a pointless option (in a truck) that only adds weight.

[hyperv6]

Generally everyone offers packages so there is no where to chase people away to that would be anything different.

Now before you say that it would be good for GM to be the odd man out consider that most of these options are what people buy anyways and when you are dealing on a $35K vehicle and up another $1500 is nothing when it offers you most of what you were getting anyways. Generally the savings would be in the hundreds of dollars and not thousands of dollars by the time you picked and choosed.

The only trucks that really an issue are the base models for company fleets and or what I call parts runners. These are still available even though many companies are moving to smaller and cheaper vehicles. I have seen many companies replace currier and parts runners with Sonic's.

In todays world people buy as much as they can afford on the payment. Generally that is why we so many LS package vehicles now. If optioned right the LS is the best value in the Chevy line no matter the model. My LS Malibu has everything but 3-4 options the LTZ had but it was thousands less.

Also GM would not take a hit either. What ever profit lost with cutting packages you would pay in a higher base price.

Edited September 29, 2012 by hyperv6

[balthazar]

How do you know these packages are "what people are buying anyway" when no one offers individual options to compare to?

You yourself just said 'everyone is doing the same thing'.

The issue is 2-fold : whether a bought package pushes additional smaller packages out of contention for a buyer, and whether individual options could generate more profit or less.

$1500 may not be much to you, but to many its a LOT. To put it another way, it's the difference between a truck getting 20 MPG composite and 26 MPG composite over 3 years (and there's no interest involved there). Some folks were naively trading in their vehicles at a huge loss to move the MPG needle less than that a few years ago.

[Drew Dowdell]

The problem with packages is with the current dealership model, the only way we'll get away from huge option packages is to kill the franchise model dead, otherwise you'll just have more and more of the "largest chevy dealer in the area sells more trucks than anyone!!!" and they're all the same truck.

[Camino LS6]

The proper way to do this is to group line-item options together in logical packages, and then offer them as a reduced cost group. That way, the consumer decides if a package makes sense to them and GM gets real data on what buyers want. Doing this while still offering the options as stand-alone items is the best approach. If "most" people want what is in a package, that package will be popular, if not then it needs to be re-thought.

Done properly, this would benefit everyone.

EDIT: It is far better to encourage people to do a thing by giving them a reason to do it than it is to force them into it.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Camino LS6

[Robert Hall]

Given how many trucks GM sells in a given year, whether they have option packages or not seems a moot point..whatever they are doing is working...

[Camino LS6]

Given how many trucks GM sells in a given year, whether they have option packages or not seems a moot point..whatever they are doing is working...

All the more reason for GM to work harder in this critical segment. In fact, if they screw this up, it threatens the whole company - trucks are crucial.

[ocnblu]

The 2013 I have in my head right now is this:

Silverado W/T reg cab 4X4 shortbed

LS package

cloth seat... vinyl floor

power windows/locks/mirrors

CD player

dark tint back glass

Protection Package (consists of bed rail protectors and rear wheehouse liners, don't need the bed rail protectors)

5.3L/6 speed auto (would love to have a 6 speed manual...)

Trailering Package (hitch, which I don't need, tranny and ps coolers and G80 locking rear end... to get the 3.73 rear end on a W/T, one HAS to order the Trailering Package. I would NOT want the 3.08 highway rear end gear which they come with otherwise!)

Maroon/Dark Titanium

First order of business: 265/70R17 BF Goodrich All-Terrain T/A tires, black side out. Rubber bed mat (to order a bed mat through GM on a sold order, you are forced to order MORE STUFF in conjunction!).

So... the truck I'd really want, I cannot have. I'd have to spend about $3k more than I would if I could spec a truck with individual options.

Edited September 29, 2012 by ocnblu

[Camino LS6]

That, my friends, is a problem.

[hyperv6]

Hell GM can make many mistakes and will make more. Sorry but option packages are not one of them as every MFG does this for good reason and the vast majority of buyers [non auto enthuiast] have no issue with this.

To be honest many buyers today are so detached buying cars they would have difficulty ording a car. I have sent a lot of time on what I would term mostly non entusiast car model sites and have found 3/4 of these people have less than 100% of what they did buy.

I have seen were many of the early 2012 GM buyers are mad as they thought they had Mylink just because the car had a color radio screen. None asked if it had it or even tried it out. To be honest many wouid hit or miss many options unless they had a really good salesman.

Years ago buyers loved cars and spent time learning what all they had to offer. Many used to be able to quote engine and option codes. That is no longer true today as most buyers are idiots.

Today the common buyer wants to know what the monthly payment is, what color and how soon can I get one.

I too wish they had more flexibilty in ordering but with the way the market and marketing is the profits are in option packages. Companies love them, Dealers love them and few people complain about them.

Like I have said on many other things from the past time and the market has moved on. Sad but true.

This whole deal was started with the imports since they could not do line ordering on cars inported from Japan. They showed how it made for easier ordering, inventory and profits when assembling cars. If there were more profits in line ordering GM and every other MFG would be doing it. If there was a great out cry from the public someone would have moved back to it.

[balthazar]

So... the truck I'd really want, I cannot have. I'd have to spend about $3k more than I would if I could spec a truck with individual options.

I guarantee you if I spec'd out a truck, the same relative scenario would unfold. My current Silverado has a number of options I dont' need/ want/ use, and a few I would like. I guarantee you a huge quantity of people have some degree of dissatisfaction with their vehicles; if it were otherwise, there wouldn't be nearly so much online griping and very little in the way of many aftermarket items. I hazard to guess that owner loyalties might be measurably higher, too. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a system that favors the manufacturer over the customer and mandates homogenization.

[smk4565]

Bi-Turbo V6

Aluminum Body to cut weight.

Oh wait, Ford already did that, but better late than never.

[balthazar]

^ Only thing Ford "has" done is an AL hood.

[PurdueGuy]

For best profits, GM needs to be lean. That means minimizing overproduction, which means not having to push a bunch of extra inventory to dealers, but instead dealers stock a basic inventory to provide examples and vehicles available for customers that prefer not to wait on a custom-tailored vehicle to be built. Minimal inventory means they won't have to put huge incentives on the vehicles to get rid of a bunch of pre-configured cars they cranked out.

With proper lean practices, more custom options isn't a big problem. Yes, there are times that packages can get upsales, but push that through incentive, not by lack of option. As we've seen in this thread, you can lose a customer if they feel like they're being tricked or forced into things they don't want. Instead, take a "have it your way" approach, which you can market the crap out of, but then offer savings if you bundle options, and get the upsell that way.

[ocnblu]

I do not like aluminum body panels. They tend to corrode at crimped edges and look like crap after a few years.

[Camino LS6]

For best profits, GM needs to be lean. That means minimizing overproduction, which means not having to push a bunch of extra inventory to dealers, but instead dealers stock a basic inventory to provide examples and vehicles available for customers that prefer not to wait on a custom-tailored vehicle to be built. Minimal inventory means they won't have to put huge incentives on the vehicles to get rid of a bunch of pre-configured cars they cranked out.

With proper lean practices, more custom options isn't a big problem. Yes, there are times that packages can get upsales, but push that through incentive, not by lack of option. As we've seen in this thread, you can lose a customer if they feel like they're being tricked or forced into things they don't want. Instead, take a "have it your way" approach, which you can market the crap out of, but then offer savings if you bundle options, and get the upsell that way.

Absolutely. This is so simple even a beancounter should get it.

And the notion that we all should just accept a stupid way of doing things just because " the market has moved on": or some such drivel is absurd.

When you are making the second largest purchase of your life, there is nothing wrong with expecting some personalized service.

If you accept less, you are a fool.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Camino LS6

[hyperv6]

OK if you do line item options what do you do about all the vehicles missing that important option on the dealer.

Then what do you do when you tell someone it will be 4+8 weeks min to get their truck when they can go to a Ford dealer and get pretty much what they want at the same price the same day.

You can always sell a vehicle with more options but they are hard to sell with less or the wrong ones.

Over production is more a case of keeping the plants moving vs anything else. GM just does the truck sales event every Oct and even at the discounts they make a lot of money.