Silverado "top truck"

CKNSLS wrote:
The argument that they received a bailout and now I won't buy one of their products rings hollow at best. The money is already spent-it's gone. That's it. The only reason Ford din't take any money is because they had already taken money from the governement in '09-
But wait a minute.

From Forbes-

"OK, Ford didn’t file bankruptcy or get bailed out by Uncle Sam, but didn’t it receive $5.9 billion in low-cost government loans in 2009 to overhaul its factories and bring out more fuel-efficient technology?

Its the principle of the thing. I have already been forced to support GM by my tax dollars. I don't have to be forced to spend even more money to buy from a company that I believe is poorly managed. Thats the beauty of the fading theory of the capitalist market, I can chose whom I wish to support with my spending dollars. I currently chose Toyota. You can chose whomever you want, I really don't care.

On to your second paragraph... Ford received low cost LOANS. A loan is repaid with interest. The US taxpayers received their money back, plus additional interest, from Ford. The US taxpayers will never recover the $25 billion in direct aid that was GIVEN to GM. Eventually we may receive some money back if the US Gov't ever sells its shares of GM stock that was used to "repay" the majority of the "loan" portion of money they received. We will be lucky if we can sell the stock for face value and I would highly doubt that we, as taxpayers, receive any interest.

In general I disagree with "special loan rates" for "special companies" offered by the US Gov't. Its better than an outright bailout, but still reaks of favoritism in what is supposed to be a free market society. My father in law owns his own business. He is only privy to "market rate" loans that are available to anyone else. If the US Gov't is willing to offer Ford a loan at (for example) 1% interest, why not my father in laws business too?

spoon059 wrote:

CKNSLS wrote:
Yea, they should have been allowed to go belly up and put the already fragile economy in to a full blown depression!

I sense sarcasm, even though I agree 100% with what you wrote. We set a horrible precedent by subsidizing private industry. Where does it stop? GM had 95,000 direct employees in the US at that time. How about a company that only has 85,000 employees, are we gonna bail them out in 2 years too? What about 60,000 employees? Private industry is just that... PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Companies that cannot compete in the private sector go under all the time. Just as point of reference, in the month of August 2013 the United States lost 278,000 private sector jobs from business's that the US Gov't didn't think were "too important to the economy" to prevent from failing. That is almost THREE TIMES as many jobs as GM would have lost, and those jobs disappeared in a months time.

Before we start talking about employees losing jobs and suppliers losing income and how losing GM would cause an avalanche of job losses, lets get serious for a minute. There are X numbers of vehicles sold every year in the US. For a very simple example lets pretend its 100 vehicles sold every year in the US amongst all the car manufacturers. Lets say that 30 of every 100 cars sold was a GM product and the other 70 included Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, etc. If GM went out of business, does anyone really think that we as a nation would only buy 70 cars a year instead of 100? No, probably 28 or 29 people would buy from a different manufacturer and 1 or 2 would hold on to their GM product and keep buying parts from outside vendors. At the end of the day, the parts suppliers would still have the other big brands to sell to and the laid off auto workers would probably find jobs with another manufacturer who now has a bigger piece of the market and needs more employees.

GM had about 95,000 employees in the US at the time of the bailout. $25 billion that the US government GAVE (not loaned... GAVE) to GM would equate to over $260,000 per employee. I'm not even going to get into the loaned portion of money that GM "paid back" by giving shares in GM. In my opinion, I would have rathered the US government allow GM to go under and give each fired GM employee $25,000 as severance. That would have cost taxpayers 1/10th the amount of money, would have been more than fair to the employees and helped them weather the transition to work for Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc etc.

Anywho, back to the original topic. Chevy/GMC make nice looking trucks but have never really been my cup of tea. I wasn't a huge GM fan before the bailout and I REFUSE to support socialism and buy one now. It seems that everytime a new model is released with some new changes, some magazine declares it the "Best New Vehicle" based upon arbitrary opinions and testing about specific features that the new vehicle has that others don't. Its kinda like Ford having the "best turbo engine V6 on the market". Pretty easy to be the best when you are the only. My daughter is the best child I have ever had... she is also my only child. It doesn't do anything but prove my arbitrary opinions...

The argument that they received a bailout and now I won't buy one of their products rings hollow at best. The money is already spent-it's gone. That's it. The only reason Ford din't take any money is because they had already taken money from the governement in '09-
But wait a minute.

From Forbes-

"OK, Ford didn’t file bankruptcy or get bailed out by Uncle Sam, but didn’t it receive $5.9 billion in low-cost government loans in 2009 to overhaul its factories and bring out more fuel-efficient technology? What would have happened to Ford if Congress hadn’t authorized taxpayer money to fund that $25 billion Energy Department program during a moment of crisis for the industry?"

Full article here-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2011/09/19/ford-looks-hypocritical-in-new-anti-bailout-commercial/

Back to topic. I had an opportunity to test drive a 2014 Silverado half ton yesterday. I already have a 2011 Crew Cab. The reworked Silverado is very impressive. It is the smoothest riding truck I have ever been in-whisper quiet at highway speeds. The transmission is now silky smooth and the transition from V8 to V4 mode via AFM is now truly not perceptible.

I bought a half-ton because I didn't want the "truck ride" now the new Silverado exceeds that request in every way. I know some will say-"but hey It's a truck! I don't care it can still be smooth and whisper quiet!

Didn't get much out of that article except they choose the Silverado over the Ram.... Now just because they raised the tow ratings to match Fords doesn't tell us how it will actually perform.

Blue Coolaid drinker here!

We all know that the blue oval is truly king when it comes to 1/2 tons with there comfort, style and power! :)

CKNSLS wrote:
Yea, they should have been allowed to go belly up and put the already fragile economy in to a full blown depression!

I sense sarcasm, even though I agree 100% with what you wrote. We set a horrible precedent by subsidizing private industry. Where does it stop? GM had 95,000 direct employees in the US at that time. How about a company that only has 85,000 employees, are we gonna bail them out in 2 years too? What about 60,000 employees? Private industry is just that... PRIVATE INDUSTRY. Companies that cannot compete in the private sector go under all the time. Just as point of reference, in the month of August 2013 the United States lost 278,000 private sector jobs from business's that the US Gov't didn't think were "too important to the economy" to prevent from failing. That is almost THREE TIMES as many jobs as GM would have lost, and those jobs disappeared in a months time.

Before we start talking about employees losing jobs and suppliers losing income and how losing GM would cause an avalanche of job losses, lets get serious for a minute. There are X numbers of vehicles sold every year in the US. For a very simple example lets pretend its 100 vehicles sold every year in the US amongst all the car manufacturers. Lets say that 30 of every 100 cars sold was a GM product and the other 70 included Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, etc. If GM went out of business, does anyone really think that we as a nation would only buy 70 cars a year instead of 100? No, probably 28 or 29 people would buy from a different manufacturer and 1 or 2 would hold on to their GM product and keep buying parts from outside vendors. At the end of the day, the parts suppliers would still have the other big brands to sell to and the laid off auto workers would probably find jobs with another manufacturer who now has a bigger piece of the market and needs more employees.

GM had about 95,000 employees in the US at the time of the bailout. $25 billion that the US government GAVE (not loaned... GAVE) to GM would equate to over $260,000 per employee. I'm not even going to get into the loaned portion of money that GM "paid back" by giving shares in GM. In my opinion, I would have rathered the US government allow GM to go under and give each fired GM employee $25,000 as severance. That would have cost taxpayers 1/10th the amount of money, would have been more than fair to the employees and helped them weather the transition to work for Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, etc etc.

Anywho, back to the original topic. Chevy/GMC make nice looking trucks but have never really been my cup of tea. I wasn't a huge GM fan before the bailout and I REFUSE to support socialism and buy one now. It seems that everytime a new model is released with some new changes, some magazine declares it the "Best New Vehicle" based upon arbitrary opinions and testing about specific features that the new vehicle has that others don't. Its kinda like Ford having the "best turbo engine V6 on the market". Pretty easy to be the best when you are the only. My daughter is the best child I have ever had... she is also my only child. It doesn't do anything but prove my arbitrary opinions...

~DJ~ wrote:
Whenever you see a post by engineer you can ALWAYS count on one of two things. Pro GM or bad mouthing the competition.

I wasn't going to respond to this thread, but since I was called out by name I am going to ask where I have said things like this about GM's competitors:

fla-gypsy wrote:
Consumer Reports, LOL. Well I guess it's a feather or something in their hat

Terryallan wrote:
Ford wasn't mentioned. Could it be, that the completion was just among the also rans, Competing for what is left after Ford mops up.
Just sayin.

~DJ~ wrote:
GM SHOULD be able to build the best truck with all our tax money they can't seem to pay back!!!

If you can find where I have bashed GM's competition I'll let your comment stand. And, if brand bashing isn't allowed you may want to start your clean up effort at home.......

As far as being pro GM, I'd like to ask since when was brand loyalty not allowed in the tow vehicles forum?

........Aaaaand one other thing, I am an investor in GM, and Ford, so if you guys buy either one it gets me to retirement that much sooner. :)

~DJ~ wrote:
Whenever you see a post by engineer you can ALWAYS count on one of two things. Pro GM or bad mouthing the competition.

GM SHOULD be able to build the best truck with all our tax money they can't seem to pay back!!!

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

Yea, they should have been allowed to go belly up and put the already fragile economy in to a full blown depression!

Passin Thru wrote:
Chevy Silverados aren't that great, the transmission to cooler lines leak oil, they're crimped pot metal to rubber, they use Chinese hubs and they go out in 50K or less and you ahve to buy Timkens or they sell you Chinese ones again. I have a 2006 Duramax and it has cost me $3000 in repairs. Chevy won't stand behind them either. They blame the owner for everything and bill him for warrranty work including the fact that the glowplugs corroded at 41000 miles and they would'nt replace them, $940.00 worth and they were a recall item.

That's why one should look very closely when buying a diesel. The repairs are very,very expensive. You can go over on the Ford boards and read how Ford is denying warranty coverage on some issues on their diesel trucks as well.

You might note I said "older trucks" having not owned a newer GM I can not speak to them, other then the power train, GMC and Chevrolet both use the same, there is not a "GM" or "Chevy" engine.

Don

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
To Fish and wmoses sorry but you guys are wrong here.
...
wmoses the older trucks GMC used the expat same fenders, doors, 3/4 panels, beds & tailgates.

Don,

I am not wrong.

In most of my post I state a subjective preference, so by definition I am not wrong. The only thing I can assume you are saying that I am wrong with is when I commented on the parts differences and in that case I gave a specific instance - fenders - while you continue to point out trim differences.

I don't disagree with trim differences - anyone can see that. However, take a moment and actually Google 2010 Silverado and 2010 Sierra and, look at the same views of each truck side by side, and look at the fenders. You will have a different conclusion that the above.

Coming down the same line means squat. They can put different parts on different vehicles coming down the same line - such is the nature of good inventory control. Manufacturing has progressed since the outset of the assembly line.

:)

goducks10 wrote:
Seems like when a new truck comes out it usually wins 'best truck' or 'truck of the year'.

Kinda I have been saying for years.
chevman