Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 hours ago, Jsdirt said:

:lol: Well, I don't think Ram is going to eat it in '19. GM has it's work cut out for it if it thinks it's going to compete with them on a level field.  They've got GM beat just on price alone.

 

The new Ram looks pretty but the Silverado's platform is far more advanced. 

14 hours ago, newdude said:

Every review I've read today expressed much enamor for the Ram's 12in display.  Guess I don't get the hype LOL. 

 

Zane, what impressions do you have on material qualities and feel on the various trims interiors?  A couple other reviews I read seemed to wish for a more luxurious interior, mentioning Ram and Ford as both being better. 

Chrysler has a darn good infotainment system and people love big screens, so I can see why it gets a lot of love. Chevy's materials are darn good. I thought the interior is better than Ford or RAM, but that's my personal opinion. Ford uses too many hard materials and RAM's switch gear can be a bit flimsy at times. I also have concerns about RAM's electrical system as FCA vehicles are some of the few that cause issues with my electronics on a regular basis. 

14 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Everything new is the next best thing since sliced bread....until it isn't. How long does that take? Yea...like minutes.  

Except GM will use this new platform for the next decade. Starting off in a good place is key to them holding a competitive spot for many years to come. 

Posted

My turn offs so far of the 2019 Chevy are similar but...

  • Unloaded suspension float on bumpy roads.  I loved the "old" Chevy ride.  Also a bit floaty unloaded but still felt very in control.  2007-2018 are a bit rough on otherwise smooth road.  The white model driven here seemed also to have 18" wheels.  20" wheels are just stupid in a truck.  Stupid.
  • Interior is functional but has a drab design.  I also loved the 2014+ interior.  Sad to see them take that and make it more plain and boring.
  • Limited availability for 6.2L.   So few need a 6.2, but yeah, it does need to be an option in all models.
  • Enough trim levels to make a customer dizzy.  I don't mind dizzy.   Especially when there is a choice.  Does this point also make a contradiction to the above point?  Too many options, but not enough?

I dislike the grill, and the round wheel wells too.  The old square wells gave the Chevy a standout look.  Now it looks just like all the others in that aspect.  Yuck.  I may go GMC this time around.  And, no, the square doesn't hurt aerodynamics.  If you think it does then you probably don't understand how golf balls work either.  And that grill just looks odd.  Chevy has failed at the front end looks before, and once again they've messed it up.  Looking forward to the 2021 redesign, if for the interior if nothing else.

Posted (edited)

I just saw an RST Z71.  It has 33" tall tires, 275/60 20. It was black so it wasn't so ugly. Also saw a chrome grill and bumpered maroon LT Z71.  Not so nice looking.  Although ugly on the outside, I would still get one, but really hope they change the outside soon. Kinda like only after two years like the current trucks. 

Edited by SILVER SLED
Posted

What trim has the body color grill and bumpers, and has "Chevrolet" in the grill instead of the bowtie?  It's the white truck second from the far end on the pic at top.

Posted
45 minutes ago, Nargg said:

My turn offs so far of the 2019 Chevy are similar but...

  • ...  20" wheels are just stupid in a truck.  Stupid.
  • .......

1" less sidewall bothers you that much?

 

On a tire that's 31" in circumference, a 20" rim isn't all that radical - there's 4.5" of sidewall. 26's, or 30's would look ridiculous, IMO.

Posted
Quote

 

Looking forward to seeing one in person.   I'm an HD buyer now and wish GM would release some information on the new HD trucks coming out, before I pull the trigger on a 2018 F350 next week.   

 

Zane, how do you feel the new Intellilink is?   The current version is terrible, map resolution is horrible, and Sync3 puts it to shame in almost all ways.

 

 

Posted
19 hours ago, BobHancock said:

No adaptive cruise, no magnetorheliological suspension, and a face that looks like a Star Wars Storm Trooper in white.  I had the first two in a GMC Denali and grew to like those features.  No reason Chevy can't do the same.  I'll bet it's some kind of corporate decision.  I'd like to hear Bob Lutz expound on this.  

Other than that, the 10-speed and less weight would be nice but not enough to tempt me away from my current ride. 

Is he still around?

Posted

He's 86 years old and still writes for the back page of Road and Track.

Posted
8 hours ago, Jsdirt said:

1" less sidewall bothers you that much?

 

On a tire that's 31" in circumference, a 20" rim isn't all that radical - there's 4.5" of sidewall. 26's, or 30's would look ridiculous, IMO.

Circumference?  That is one small tire.  I prefer 17" wheels or 18" wheels at the most.  On a 20" wheel a 31" tire should have a 5.5 inch sidewall.  On a 18 inch wheel it's a 6.5 inch sidewall.  17" wheel, 7 inch side wall. To me it's the extra metal that I don't like the look of.  I am from the era that trucks with big lift kits had 15 inch wheels.  The biggest stock wheel came on one tons, 16.5 wheels. . 

Posted (edited)

I am too, Doug ... but anything smaller than a 18" looks ridiculous on modern stuff (trucks, I should say) - they've designed the wheels to be huge these days. Probably so when the crap hits the fan, you'll be literally "spinning your wheels". Wide tires ain't going far in deep snow.

 

When the UPS guy delivered these wheels/tires in summer of '10, he asked if they were going on a tractor-trailer unit. :lol:  When I told them they were going on my little half-ton pickup, he was speechless in disbelief for a few seconds. They looked REAL friggin big inside the UPS truck.

 

LOL, yeah, NOT circumference - might have had a few too many the night before, there.  Meant DIAMETER. Words mean something! :lol: 

 

My summer wheels are 275/55-20, and have 4.5" of sidewall. Look perfectly fine on this piece of rolling Tupperware. :)

Silverado, rims wheels.JPG

 

IMG_9012.thumb.JPG.ff34ed8abe21a2265573269c39c224cd.JPG

Edited by Jsdirt
Posted (edited)

Here's the same diameter tire in a 22" - now it's starting to get a little ridiculous looking on a truck ...

 

 

Status wheels 2.JPG

Edited by Jsdirt
Posted

1955 Task Force is introduced with the all new 265 V8.  The write up that year sounds allot like this one.  

Shinny!!!! New!!!!! Improved!!! Some old, same old decade after decade. See what you young ones have to look forward too. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Posted

I think the biggest mistake is that GM isn't allowing the 6.2 in the lower model trucks or the Trailboss.  Now that Ford is putting the Raptor engine in the standard F150 I think it will help it sell even more. 

 

Who knows what GM will do for 2020 and beyond .

 

Not to mention it has been brought to my attention that these new models are locked down solid. As in nobody can tune them at all and that even to come later on you will not even be able to put a different radio in them.  That will kill the aftermarket for these in the ways of even putting on larger tires if it didn't come from the factory.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

I think the biggest mistake is that GM isn't allowing the 6.2 in the lower model trucks or the Trailboss.  Now that Ford is putting the Raptor engine in the standard F150 I think it will help it sell even more. 

 

Who knows what GM will do for 2020 and beyond .

 

Not to mention it has been brought to my attention that these new models are locked down solid. As in nobody can tune them at all and that even to come later on you will not even be able to put a different radio in them.  That will kill the aftermarket for these in the ways of even putting on larger tires if it didn't come from the factory.

but its not the standard F150. Its only the top trim model. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Black02Silverado said:

I think the biggest mistake is that GM isn't allowing the 6.2 in the lower model trucks or the Trailboss.  Now that Ford is putting the Raptor engine in the standard F150 I think it will help it sell even more. 

 

Who knows what GM will do for 2020 and beyond .

 

Not to mention it has been brought to my attention that these new models are locked down solid. As in nobody can tune them at all and that even to come later on you will not even be able to put a different radio in them.  That will kill the aftermarket for these in the ways of even putting on larger tires if it didn't come from the factory.

That alone would be a deal breaker for me if I was in the market.

 

It's MY truck, I should be able to do what I damn well please to it. Can't say I'm surprised to hear that. Just another money grab by GM.

 

Hey GM - how about EARNING income on merit, instead of stealing it via EXTORTION?

Edited by Jsdirt
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • $4.00 a gallon here now.   Diesel nearly $5.00 again.
    • If we're talking futures, yes, it's speculation.   The spot price of a delivered barrel is elevated now compared to before the conflict. And that is related more to current supply/demand.
    • SPECULATION on the wars effect raised prices. AI is maximizing the profit. Refining is vertically integrated. 
    • It's the Middle East conflict that raised prices, not AI. But nice distraction.
    • Lauren Fix Is AI quietly deciding what you pay at the gas pump? How the algorithm picks drivers' pockets.   Every time tensions flare somewhere in the world, gasoline prices seem to jump overnight. Drivers expect it. The news blames geopolitics, oil traders blame uncertainty, and politicians blame each other. But here's the question almost nobody is asking: If computers can raise prices within hours, why do they suddenly become so patient when it's time to lower them? Americans have lived with this frustration for decades. The price of crude oil climbs, and gas stations respond almost immediately. Crude oil falls sharply, and suddenly we're told to be patient. Refiners need time. Distributors need time. Retailers need time. Somehow, that urgency only seems to work in one direction. Regulators have already gone after algorithmic pricing in apartment rentals, and they're looking at hotel rooms, airline tickets, and online retail. Now a new California lawsuit and a federal push to investigate gasoline pricing suggest there may be another piece of the story that deserves far more attention. It isn't simply about oil markets anymore. It's about artificial intelligence, algorithms, and whether software designed to maximize profits is quietly changing how fuel prices are set across America.   If that sounds like something out of a science fiction movie, think again. Kalibrating the market? Kalibrate is a real pricing platform. The company markets its software as an advanced pricing solution that analyzes competitor prices, wholesale costs, local demand, traffic patterns, and countless other variables before recommending the "optimal" price at the pump. By the company's own marketing, it serves many of America's largest fuel retailers and convenience store chains. Retailers use it because it promises to increase profit margins while staying competitive. There is nothing inherently illegal about any of this. Every major industry now runs on data analytics. The concern begins when pricing software stops simply reacting to the market and starts shaping it. On June 22, three California drivers filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Sacramento — and they didn't just sue the software company. They sued the gas stations. Kalibrate is the lead defendant, but so are Marathon, BP, Circle K, 7-Eleven, Speedway, Walmart, Sam's Club, and Albertsons. According to the complaint, Marathon alone runs more than 1,000 ARCO stations in California and has been letting Kalibrate set prices at them since 2020. Circle K, plaintiffs claim, has more than 400 stations on the software. Albertsons, they allege, has been using it since at least 2009. The complaint alleges that Kalibrate allowed competing retailers to share competitively sensitive information and receive pricing recommendations that discouraged aggressive competition. It describes a "restoration" feature that plaintiffs say lets nearly all the stations in a market raise prices at the same time. It also quotes Kalibrate's marketing, which according to the complaint tells operators that even in the face of "falling oil prices ... it's critical to avoid a race to the bottom," and warns that cutting your price to win customers "could be making a change that triggers a downward spiral." The plaintiffs call the platform the "central nervous system for a conspiracy to extinguish retail price competition among gas stations." Price pumping What does that cost you? Research cited in the complaint found that stations switching to this kind of software raise prices by about 6 cents a gallon on average — and by as much as 30 cents where most of the stations in an area are running it. Plaintiffs point to a real-world example too: They allege that when one California Albertsons turned Kalibrate on, its pump price climbed 3 to 4 cents within days. That sounds small. It isn't. By the complaint's math, a single penny on the statewide average drains $134 million a year from California drivers' wallets. Kalibrate says it disagrees with the allegations, calls its technology lawful, and intends to defend itself. The retail chains have not yet answered the complaint. No court has ruled on any of it. But what happens when thousands of competing businesses begin relying on the same algorithm to determine prices? Price fixing has been illegal in California for more than a century, and the plaintiffs are suing under that old law. What's new is a statute that took effect on January 1 — AB 325, the Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act — which says plainly that you cannot escape a price-fixing charge by routing the conspiracy through software. Using pricing software is still perfectly legal, but using it to coordinate with your competitors is not. AB 325 makes it unlawful to use or distribute a "common pricing algorithm" — software that uses competitor data to recommend, align, or stabilize prices — as part of an agreement to restrain trade. Whatever you think of Sacramento, it closed that loophole first, and this case is the first real test of it. The A-word Washington is applying pressure of its own — though it is worth being precise about what kind. On July 3, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission sent every state attorney general a letter urging them to investigate whether antitrust violations or price gouging are keeping gas prices artificially high. "Recent volatility in crude oil prices does not suspend either the antitrust laws or state consumer protection laws," they wrote, "and it does not authorize companies to manipulate retail prices or collude with their competitors." The letter followed President Trump's complaint, posted to Truth Social on June 23, that falling crude prices weren't reaching drivers. But read that letter closely and you'll notice something. It never mentions algorithms. Not once. The federal government is going after gas prices with the same tools it has always used, while the argument about the software is being made by three drivers and their lawyers in a Sacramento courtroom. Nobody in Washington has said the word yet. And whether any of these investigations turns up illegal conduct remains to be seen. Anyone who has driven for more than a few years knows the pattern. Prices spike within days of a geopolitical event, then drift down at a painfully slow pace. Economists even have a name for it: the "rockets and feathers" effect, and they have studied it for decades. Researchers point to several reasons, including inventory replacement costs, consumer behavior, and local competition. None of those explanations necessarily involve illegal activity.   Dirty work   But artificial intelligence introduces an entirely new variable. Unlike traditional pricing models, today's software can monitor competitors continuously, process enormous amounts of market data instantly, and recommend price changes faster than any human pricing manager ever could. If dozens or even hundreds of competing retailers rely on similar recommendations generated from comparable market data, the practical result may be less price competition — without anyone ever picking up the phone to coordinate prices. That possibility isn't unique to gasoline. Regulators have already gone after algorithmic pricing in apartment rentals, and they're looking at hotel rooms, airline tickets, and online retail. The Justice Department sued RealPage over the software landlords used to set rents and settled the case last November. The concern in every case is the same: that algorithms may accomplish indirectly what competitors have long been prohibited from doing directly. It's worth being precise about what that settlement did and didn't say. RealPage paid no penalty, and the government made no finding that it broke the law. What the DOJ objected to was the use of nonpublic information from competing landlords — not the software itself. Using an algorithm to price your product isn't illegal. Feeding it your competitors' private numbers is where the trouble starts. That distinction is going to decide the gas station case too. Technology moves faster than regulation. Thin margins This debate also exposes another misconception. When Americans get angry about gas prices, they aim that anger at the oil companies. In reality, what you pay at the pump includes crude oil costs, refining expenses, transportation, taxes, distribution, and retail pricing. Gas stations generally operate on thin per-gallon margins — the National Association of Convenience Stores puts the net at roughly a dime a gallon once credit card fees and operating costs come out — while state taxes and regulatory costs can dramatically affect what you pay locally, particularly in a state like California. If gasoline prices are rising because of global supply disruptions, consumers may not like it, but they can understand it. Markets move. Wars affect energy. Hurricanes interrupt refining. But if pricing software is reducing competition by encouraging retailers to move together instead of competing aggressively for customers, consumers deserve answers. Artificial intelligence is quietly becoming the invisible middleman in countless financial decisions Americans make every day — insurance rates, airline tickets, hotel rooms, online prices, and now what you pay every time you pull up to the pump. Most consumers never know an algorithm was involved; they simply assume that's what the market decided. Algorithms don't care whether you're commuting to work, driving your kids to school, or trying to keep your small business afloat. They don't understand household budgets or family vacations. They optimize. That's what they were built to do. The question was never whether artificial intelligence can set prices more efficiently. It's whether we've quietly allowed machines to redefine what competition means. Because if software can determine the price of something as essential as gasoline today, what will it be deciding tomorrow?   https://www.theblaze.com/lifestyle/is-ai-quietly-deciding-what-you-pay-at-the-gas-pump  
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...