 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / September 20042005 Silverado: GM Moving Backward.
On Sunday, I finally got to see a 2005 Silverado C-1500 Work Truck. The vehicle that I looked at had exactly the same options as my 2004 Work Truck. In my opinion, the 2005 Silverado has been degraded because it has drum brakes on the rear (instead of discs), lower-capacity tires and a lower rear axle ratio. Both trucks had these 4 options: 4-SPD automatic transmission Vortec 4800 V8 SFI gas engine AM/FM stereo W/CD player spare tire lock There were 3 differences in standard equipment: 2004 2005 4-wheel disk brakes Front disc/rear DRUM brakes P235/75R16 tires P245/70R17 tires Max rating 2271 lbs. Max rating 2205 lbs. Rear axle 3.42 ratio Rear axle 3.23 ratio The other difference was the EPA rating of the 2005: 2004 2005 City 17/Highway 20 City 16/Highway 21 It appears that GM has used the 3.23 rear axle to obtain the higher highway mileage in the 2005. There will undoubtedly be a decrease of 4th-gear power of around 6% and the lower city rating indicates that there will be an increase in down-shifting in the 2005. In my opinion, a big step backward. I measured the diameter of the tires on the 2005 and an identical 2004 (both specs above) and found that the diameter of both is 30 inches and the lug pattern seems to be identical. This will allow those who want to install dealer take off tires on some older trucks to do so without affecting the computer, speedometer etc. Dealer take offs are usually a good value, particularly for those wanting to upgrade from painted rims to chrome rims. Keep in mind that the standard 17 inch tire and wheel combination of the 2005 has 264 pounds LESS carrying capacity than the standard 16 inch tire and wheel combination used from 1999 to 2004. Replies inline... > On Sunday, I finally got to see a 2005 Silverado C-1500 Work Truck. The > vehicle that I looked at had exactly the same options as my 2004 Work [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 2004 2005 > 4-wheel disk brakes Front disc/rear DRUM brakes I think you are making this disk/drum thing out to be a way bigger deal than it really is. If you were going to use this truck for autocross or somthing of that nature, then I could see the need for 4 wheel disks. But come on... it's a 1/2 ton 2WD work truck! > P235/75R16 tires P245/70R17 tires > Max rating 2271 lbs. Max rating 2205 lbs. Damn... that extra 66 pounds makes all the difference in the world doesn't it? > Rear axle 3.42 ratio Rear axle 3.23 ratio I don't think a .19 difference is going to change a whole lot. > The other difference was the EPA rating of the 2005: > > 2004 2005 > City 17/Highway 20 City 16/Highway 21 Anyone who takes the EPA fuel economy ratings at face value is a fool. They don't even use real world fuel mileage tests... all they measure is combustion efficiancy, etc. > It appears that GM has used the 3.23 rear axle to obtain the higher > highway mileage in the 2005. There will undoubtedly be a decrease of > 4th-gear power of around 6% and the lower city rating indicates that > there will be an increase in down-shifting in the 2005. In my opinion, a > big step backward. Then put it in 3rd gear! Overgrive is useless below 45 MPH anyway... GM can step backward all they want. If I could buy a brand new 1974 Chevrolet pickup, I'd jump at the chance! As long as there were no computers or electronics in it! -Tony I liked the late 60's pick ups better. GMC Gremlin > Replies inline... > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > -Tony > Replies inline... <<Petty gripes about the downgraded 2005 truck snipped>> My post was a heads up notice to anyone waiting for the 2005's to come out before buying. In my opinion, the 2004, particularly with a closeout price, is a much better buy than the downgraded 2005. Oh, I almost forgot. The new, backward-thinking 2005 Silverado Work Truck costs $395 (2%) more than the 2004. Both prices include a 4.8L V-8 ($945) and a 4-speed automatic transmission ($1,095) for a total of $2,040: Standard price 2004 $19,340 + 2,040 = 21,380. Standard price 2005 $18,735 + 2,040 = 20,775 Difference $605 HOWEVER, the 2004 truck subtracts a $1,000 "WT Power Pack Savings" (a discount for ordering a V-8 and automatic transmission) from the total price, which reduces the cost of the 2004 to $20,380. 2005 $20,775 2004 -20,380 $395 Less for the 2004 >> Replies inline... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mindless drivel snipped< GM went back to rear drums because the rear discs were a stupid idea for a truck. They tend to fail prematurely. FYI, a 2004 ext. cab work truck is selling here (S. Texas) for $16,500 since the '05s are out. KB, Your a backward thinking fool. If disks are better for the front, they are better for the rear. Don't "fix" a wear problem by going back in time, fix a wear problem through better design. Christ, am I the only sane one in here? I drive a 1990 GMC Jimmy, eat gas and tout the pluses of carbs (on engines). I am firmly stuck in the 80's, love hair bands, and am a hateful sun-of-a-gun - and proud of it all. And yes - *I* still think this is a step backwards - and that the only saving grace is that disks are still offered. GMC Gremlin Grumpy Mean Cracker > >> Replies inline... > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > FYI, a 2004 ext. cab work truck is selling here (S. Texas) for $16,500 since > the '05s are out. <<KB, Your a backward thinking fool. If disks are better for the front, they are better for the rear. Don't "fix" a wear problem by going back in time, fix a wear problem through better design.>> Yeah, this is the point that I was trying to make. I don't understand the logic of the argument, "It's a truck, you idiot! You don't need disc brakes on the rear! Disc brakes are for sports cars, not trucks!" In spite of this argument, I have not heard anyone suggest that GM go back to putting drum brakes on the front. If GM decides to drop the rack and pinion from its trucks, I suppose we will hear the same argument again. My 2004 Silverado stops better than any vehicle that I have ever driven. The dedicated park brake drums that are built into the rear rotors make for the best parking system that I have ever used. No matter how steep the grade, there is no park brake slippage. This was not the case with the rear-drum system of my 1990 Scottsdale. Best of all, there is no warping of the rear brake drum caused by the park brake, as was the case with my 1990 Scottsdale. Yesterday, I did a tire rotation at 7500 miles and checked out the brakes. All of the disk pads look like new and there is no scoring of the rotors. As far as I'm concerned, the 2004 Chevrolet truck is a better value than the 2005. Hell, I might give a sh.t in 10 years when I go to buy a used 2005 truck. Buying new vehicles is a waste of money. You can come out thousands of dollars ahead by buying a 2-4 year old vehicle. Of course, if you're one of those money-wasting idiots who buys a new vehicle every 2 years, that won't work for you I guess. -Tony > > Replies inline... > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 2004 -20,380 > $395 Less for the 2004 <<Hell, I might give a sh.t in 10 years when I go to buy a used 2005 truck. Buying new vehicles is a waste of money. You can come out thousands of dollars ahead by buying a 2-4 year old vehicle. Of course, if you're one of those money-wasting idiots who buys a new vehicle every 2 years, that won't work for you I guess.>> I have heard this argument for buying a used vehicle: "Let someone else take the depreciation loss." But with new vehicles selling with no down payment and 0% interest, combined with factory rebates, buying used just doesn't make sense to me. I couldn't justify buying a used truck when the dealer was offering 0% down with 0% financing for 60 months. My $401 per month payment bought me (including sales tax and license) a $24,060 truck. Assuming that I could have gotten a 60-month used truck contract --- AND paid nothing down -- the same payment, when financed at 8.5% would only get me (including sales tax and license) a $19,545 truck. That means that I would have needed to buy a used truck priced at around $17,800. Instead of a new truck with 0 miles, I would have to settle for a 2002 or 2003 model with at least 25,000 miles. My new truck came from the factory with a 36-month/36,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty. This is not the case with a used truck. I also got into the new truck with no down payment. I don't think that this would be possible with a used truck. I would probably have been required to put at least $2000 down on the used truck, which would be the same investment that I have made in my new truck since the payments started in April, 2004. (Five payments of $401 = $2005) The investment in the used truck would have been a lot more than that, ($2000 down and five $324 per month payments, for a total of $3620). A far more likely used truck scenario would be a 48 month contract which would raise the monthly payment to $389, for a total to date of $3945 -- twice what I have invested in my new truck. I don't understand how buying a new truck with a full warranty, at 0% down with 60-month, 0% financing makes me a money wasting idiot. Even if a person can afford to pay cash, he would be foolish to do so when a new truck is offered with these terms. > <<Hell, I might give a sh.t in 10 years when I go to buy a used 2005 > truck. Buying new vehicles is a waste of money. You can come out [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a person can afford to pay cash, he would be foolish to do so when a new > truck is offered with these terms. But you MIGHT be an idiot if you buy a new one every two years as he suggested.... V.B. > > I don't understand how buying a new truck with a full warranty, at > > 0% down with 60-month, 0% financing makes me a money wasting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > V.B. Yes indeed. I'll be upside down in the truck for most of the first year. But I was having trouble with this part of the observation: "Buying new vehicles is a waste of money. You can come out thousands of dollars ahead by buying a 2-4 year old vehicle." My credit union will finance used vehicles at 3.24% for up to 72 months with no money down. Maybe you need to shop around. > <<Hell, I might give a sh.t in 10 years when I go to buy a used 2005 > truck. Buying new vehicles is a waste of money. You can come out [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a person can afford to pay cash, he would be foolish to do so when a new > truck is offered with these terms. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.