Anyone else holding out for new 2013 Chevy/GMC truck?

[yooper1]

wow, 13 is not bad for something that big.

thanks

 

[Martian]

I was getting around 13mpg average. I either had a load on the bed, pulling something heavy, or both.:laughing:

I would have to say I'm right around the same. They aren't as bad as you would think.

I've never calculated it though to be sure.

 

[yooper1]

thank you MTM

 

[Fi-Q]

Ok, haven t read the while thread, but that 2013 chevy silverado must be a scam. This is a chevy cheyenne prototype from 2003, i sat in that truck at the
Montreal autoshow back then. I probablly have a picture of it somewhere..... You can find it on the net as well http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/1573/Chevrolet-Cheyenne.html

I qould really doubt that gm would copy & paste a 10 year old concept for there new truck line...... But who knows..... Back then i tought it was good looking, but change
My mind now, the interior was awesome, the qheela were like 24 in......

 

[timswi]

I would have to say I'm right around the same. They aren't as bad as you would think.

I've never calculated it though to be sure.

Martian and Tokicker...Love both of those trucks...Someday maybe...

13MPG ain't bad at all for tanks like those.

 

[Martian]

Martian and Tokicker...Love both of those trucks...Someday maybe...

13MPG ain't bad at all for tanks like those.

They are awesome. When I heard they were going away I was surprised because of how good of a seller they were. If/when they start making the medium duty again I will be adding a second to my lineup:thumbsup:

 

[Topkicker]

Ok, haven t read the while thread, but that 2013 chevy silverado must be a scam. This is a chevy cheyenne prototype from 2003, i sat in that truck at the
Montreal autoshow back then. I probablly have a picture of it somewhere..... You can find it on the net as well 2003 Chevrolet Cheyenne - Images, Specifications and Information

I qould really doubt that gm would copy & paste a 10 year old concept for there new truck line...... But who knows..... Back then i tought it was good looking, but change
My mind now, the interior was awesome, the qheela were like 24 in......

Already noted. More about the article than the old concept pic.

 

[JasG]

Would you agree that the auto co bailout to GM and Chrysler was really a political payoff to the UAW? How much stock in he 'new GM' did the UAW wind up with?

.

I was asked to stop posting facts that show how and why people like myself who have owned GM product in the past. Will never buy a GM (crysler either) product ever again, or to start a new thread.

The answer to 1# is back in my previous posts #273 & #275. #275 has a link to a story about the UAW and the shape they are in. I also list some of the other companies that design, test and build cars here in the USA.

In answer to the 2nd question somewhere between 17% & 20%. Some how through the retiree trust or some such thing. So that would probably mean when they have trouble with retirement costs, if it is a loser, it can be dumped to the taxpayer.

 

[Monster5601]

And don't give me that lots of people would have lost their jobs if GM failed crap. GM is not even in the top 100 employers in the US. It was all political. Unions vote Dem. Enough said.

If GM was to fail, which they still may if you read what is going on, it would not have been that big of a deal.Chris

Crap, here we go again.

You could not be more wrong.

While I am thinking of it, point me to what you read about what is going on with GM that may cause them to fail, again.

If GM failed, yes, many folks would have lost their job but more importantly, the automotive industry would have collapsed, that means Ford, Chrysler, and foreign makers that depend on suppliers for parts. Now that would have been a big deal.

Profit margins in the supply chain are so thin, the loss of GM would have brought down all of the suppliers thus stopping parts shipments to the other auto makers.

Our economy could not have survived. The decision to prop up GM and Chrysler as well as the banks (who still have their hand out while paying the top the most) was to prevent the collapse of the US economy.

Another consideration is the supply chain is global. The havoc that would have resulted could have been terminal, globally.

I don't know how many GM employes, but the number of people working because of GM and the automotive business is massive and expands well beyond any maker or supplier or dealership.

If you must wack at someone to vent your frustrations (I'm just as angry as you), pick on Fanny or Sallie who both have their hands out looking for more while their execs are making millions.

 

[two_bit_score]

I was asked to stop posting facts that show how and why people like myself who have owned GM product in the past. Will never buy a GM (crysler either) product ever again, or to start a new thread.

The answer to 1# is back in my previous posts #273 & #275. #275 has a link to a story about the UAW and the shape they are in. I also list some of the other companies that design, test and build cars here in the USA.

In answer to the 2nd question somewhere between 17% & 20%. Some how through the retiree trust or some such thing. So that would probably mean when they have trouble with retirement costs, if it is a loser, it can be dumped to the taxpayer.

Sounds like you agree that the bailout was Obamas political payback to the UAW.

I don't understand why people insist on trying to punish GM/Chrysler for taking bailout money when the real purpose of the bailout was to pay off the UAW and give them government money to support Obama in 2012.

Anyone who did not like the bailout should be taking action against Obama not GM/Chrysler. But I guess it's more fun to bash a brand you don't like than to put the blame where it should be?

Get rid of Obama in 2012 and demand Congress stop the bailouts across the board.