Chevy Officials Lying!
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 74
Likes: 22
Chevy Officials Lying!
Lies of omission and other marketing manipulation of the facts. These are paraphrases:
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
Last edited by gregsfc; Sep 4, 2018 at 06:59 AM.
5 Year Member
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 362
Likes: 126
From: New Brunswick, Canada
Lies of omission and other marketing manipulation of the facts. These are paraphrases:
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 707
It's called marketing... They give classes in it at Universities and Junior Colleges all over the nation.
They all do it. An example is the F150 HDPP. Ford makes it because they like the claim "Most capable Half-Ton" But they did that initially by simply replacing the badges on the light-duty 3/4 ton (F250) with F150 Badges. They now drastically restrict options on it to discourage retail sales (CAFE concerns).
They all do it. An example is the F150 HDPP. Ford makes it because they like the claim "Most capable Half-Ton" But they did that initially by simply replacing the badges on the light-duty 3/4 ton (F250) with F150 Badges. They now drastically restrict options on it to discourage retail sales (CAFE concerns).
Last edited by Gene K; Sep 4, 2018 at 08:06 AM.
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 133
Likes: 53
From: Marietta, GA
Lies of omission and other marketing manipulation of the facts. These are paraphrases:
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true...
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true...
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 202
Likes: 23
From: Southern California
Gregsfc, I care. The 2.7 30K Turbo was a hit right out of the gates. I would have to say that customer service at Chevrolet is top notch everytime I dealt with them a couple years ago. Glady, I have not dealt with Ford's customer service which is probably awesome as well, I had a 2015 F-150 which is still motoring along right now as well as the Raptor.
Last edited by brendon1112; Sep 4, 2018 at 01:39 PM.
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 707
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,159
Likes: 723
No fart cans allowed
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,342
Likes: 2,367
From: MO
Lies of omission and other marketing manipulation of the facts. These are paraphrases:
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.
1. We're keeping the starting price of our least expensive truck the same in an all-new Silverado 1500.
Okay; so technically, the starting price of the 2019 all-new, regular cab long bed work truck will remain roughly at the same price as the current model with the same configuration and trim level with the exception of the fact that all manufacturers have recently raised the destination charge to around $1,500, but also, what Chevrolet is not talking about is the fact that all manufacturers who sell a base work truck in a regular cab configuration no matter how updated it is are basically price takers; not price makers. They're boasting about how they have saved on cost versus Ford in their new design by keeping the aged power trains in the low end models and not going with an all-aluminum body and how that will help them keep the prices down, when if fact, Ford and everyone else who sells a regular cab with a 6 cylinder and work trim will sell at roughly the same price no matter how updated and advanced the truck is. And to make Chevy's statements even more laughable, they're putting the three lowest trims in a category, and they've chosen to call the least category, the "high value" category, but in reality, they're low value compared to F150, because they're giving low-end customers fewer choices than Ford and older technologies. And to add insult to injury, they're eliminating the regular cab short bed from their lineup, and so they won't even have the lowest-priced configuration available since they won't even build it while F150 still has it; they won't add anything new with respect to power trains in these three lowest trims, while Ford offers three advanced power trains in the RCSB in XL and XLT and four advanced power trains in RCLB; and, they haven't gone as far as Ford with respect to weight reduction and other technologies to produce an advanced truck for their customers on the low end. The result is that the V8 and 6-speed in their all-new, supposedly lighter and more aerodynamic and more modern pickup actually comes in with a worse mpg rating than the current truck with the exact same performance as before and capability only slightly better; whereas a Ford customer, for example, can get a regular cab, long bed 2WD XL with a 5.0L updated in 2018 with class-leading mpg and up to 3,300 pounds of payload. Or a customer can get a RCSB under $30K before incentives that is so light that the GVWR comes in just barely over the class minimum (around 6,010) and get an estimated 20/26/22 mpg. Chevrolet will have a great mpg number for the new, little turbo, but it won't be available to the low end customers. Ford customers can get the latest power train work at all price levels.
2. We were able to apply DFM to save on fuel cost for our customers without resorting to downsizing and turbo charging.
The fact is that DFM has mixed results in different power trains, but overall the mpg will remain roughly the same as the current trucks with AFM. They simply forgot to change their marketing communications after the results came in. DFM is a huge disappointment. This was supposed to be a technology that would have competed with Ford's downsizing and turbo charging for improving fuel economy, but the best example so far that one can point to is with regards to the 5.3L and 8-speed where they were able to match Ford's V8 mated to their 10-speed that has no cylinder deactivation and has more hp and torque and has much higher available payload; and as for mpg, they'll both be tied for the V8 non-hybrid championship at 17/23/19 while Ram will come very close with their V8 and eTorque @ 17/22/19; these are all 2WD max-possible mpg with their respective V8s. But compare this to Ford's two Ecoboosts: The 2.7L Ecoboost comes in as high as 20/26/22, and the 3.5L comes in as high as 18/25/21. That's 2 and 3 mpg higher rating in the mixed driving FE result for the Ecoboost compared to DFM by GM; and both Ecoboosts have superior torque numbers, while one also has a superior hp number and both can be configured to bring in a higher towing number and/or a higher payload number.
3. Our customers have asked for more choice, and we're giving them 6 choices.
Not. Yes there are technically going to be 6 power train choices, but two of them are previous-generation power trains that they're including as separate choices; and no particular truck buyer gets more than 3 choices and many buyers will get only two choices; whereas Ford customers can have as many as four choices (XL, XLT, and Lariat).
4. Worst lie of all--We will offer our downsized turbo to more customers than does Ford and cheaper than Ford.
This is totally laughable and a ridiculous statement. While it's technically true that Chevrolet will offer their 2.7L as a base engine in a lower trimmed truck than Ford (LT versus Lariat, $39K versus $41K, respectively), Chevrolet will not even allow their new engine in any other trim levels, either as an option or a base engine, except for two trim levels. What this boils down to is that Chevrolet will not let anyone drive a 2.7 Tripower pickup for under around $39K, whereas a Ford customer can have a twin turbo for around $30K. Moreover, Chevrolet will not allow a regular cab customer to drive a 2.7L Tripower pickup truck; whereas Ford allows customers all the way through the lineup to choose and drive at least one twin turbo choice; and in many trims and configurations, Ford customers have as many as 4 truly separate and modern choices in many trim levels. Chevrolet has stated that they expect uptake of this new power train at or about 10%. Ford's 2.7L Ecoboost is right around 30% and the 3.5L Ecoboost is over 20%; so if it is true that Chevrolet is out marketing Ford with respect to their new turbo, then why will it have a miniscule uptake versus Ford's two twin turbo choices that have had a large uptake from the very beginning.
The sad thing about all of this is that the auto media is letting Chevrolet get away with all this garbage talk about offering value only because they are offering some good value in one or two trim levels that are popular and screwing everyone else.