2011 Chevrolet Silverado HD / GMC Sierra HD Review

Decades ago, passenger cars were redesigned or retouched every year or two, and trucks evolved at a glacial pace. Nowadays, trucks—both pickups and SUVs—have picked up their evolutionary pace, and this includes pickups earmarked for heavy-duty use. Case in point: Three years ago, GM introduced its current Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra HDs, and they’re already being massively upgraded for 2011.

It’s interesting, then, that they don’t look any different. GM developed a new, fully boxed ladder frame; beefed-up front and rear suspension components; bigger and better brakes; and a new Duramax diesel engine that offers stratospheric torque and better fuel efficiency. But other than a full-width chrome bumper and the relocation of the fake hood louvers, there is little you can see inside or out that broadcasts to the world that there’s anything new about these trucks.

Is That Some Torque in Your Pocket, or…?

The fact that there’s so little to brag about on the outside is curious because, under the hood, GM is winning the old game of “mine’s bigger” against Ford and Dodge. Although we provided a thorough rundown of what’s new on the 2011 Silverado and Sierra HD back in February, what GM didn’t release then were the all-important horsepower and torque ratings for its slightly revised 6.0-liter Vortec gas V-8 and heavily reworked 6.6-liter Duramax diesel V-8. Only after Ford announced the output figures for its Super Duty pickups in March did GM toss out its own figures: 360 hp and 380 lb-ft of torque for the gasoline V-8 and 397 hp and a monstrous 765 lb-ft for the Duramax turbo-diesel, which comes with a bespoke Allison six-speed automatic transmission. (The gas engine’s peak figures are unchanged from 2010, but the torque curve is broader and efficiency is said to be improved.)

The gas figures place the Vortec V-8 behind the 385 hp and 405 lb-ft of the Super Duty’s new 6.2-liter V-8, as well as the 383 hp and 400 lb-ft of the Ram 2500’s 5.7-liter Hemi. But the Duramax vaults way out in front of the 350 hp and 650 lb-ft of torque of the Ram’s 6.7-liter Cummins inline-six turbo-diesel and even the mighty 390 hp and 735 lb-ft for the Super Duty’s Power Stroke turbo-diesel V-8. So although it’s not an across-the-board smackdown, it can be argued that in the HD world, where diesels are the keys to the kingdom, the Duramax wears the crown.

Additionally, the Silverado 3500 is rated to tow up to 21,700 pounds with a fifth-wheel hitch, whereas the Dodge is rated for 17,600 pounds max. The Ford can pull up to 24,400, albeit only in even burlier 1.5-ton F-450 form. The F-350 tops out at 20,300 pounds. Still, there are few purposes for which 10 tons of towing ability (or the Dodge’s eight tons, for that matter) aren’t enough. The Silverado’s 6635 pounds of bed capacity is equally impressive, although we’re not sure what exactly weighs about as much as a Hummer H2 and can fit in the bed of a pickup.

In reality, disparities of 7 hp and 30 lb-ft among trucks weighing nearly four tons are minute. Unladen, the Ram, the Super Duty, and the GM HDs are equally overqualified for the task of basic transportation. Indeed, lighting up the rear tires in the 2011 Silverado or Sierra is absolutely no problem—GM claims a 0-to-60 time of fewer than nine seconds for the Duramax-powered 2500 and a quarter-mile time of fewer than 16 seconds. Accelerator travel is long, a deliberate decision to allow better management of all that torque, and the engine is amazingly quiet and smooth for such a humongous and powerful oil burner.

Stops and Turns, Too

The adjacent pedal controls a significantly updated system. Much was done for 2011 not only to upgrade the brake hardware but also to enhance the pedal feel. As with the steering, the effort makes the truck feel far more comfortable and, dare we say, more carlike. Diesel models now come standard with a button-actuated exhaust brake, which uses the engine’s compression to slow the vehicle. This is done seamlessly and quite effectively. Even with heavy loads in the bed, the HDs we drove thus equipped required little use of the brake pedal even on some of the steep Appalachian grades we descended on our drive. With the cruise control on, it was a set-it-and-forget-it affair.

The roads we drove were generally silky smooth. We encountered only a few rough patches, which we found to be managed heroically well for such a strong and sturdily sprung truck. Credit the independent front suspension—still a GM exclusive in the HD segment—the asymmetrical leaf springs, and the rock-solid, fully boxed chassis. The steering isn’t too light but rather nicely weighted for a big truck. It’s quite precise, too, with a semblance of life on center—something of a rarity in the HD-truck segment.

New Denali Is $18,000 Upgrade

Also present was GMC’s new Sierra Denali HD that, not surprisingly, is just like the light-duty version, only with sturdier guts and the option to get the diesel engine and dual rear wheels. We drove a 2500 model equipped with the 6.0-liter Vortec and found it to be quite pleasant, although at its $46,860 price, some of the hard-plastic interior panels start crying out for padding. Or stitching. Or both. And the leather and “wood” quality need to be brought up a notch or two. Still, with its glitzy wheels and perforated grille—now with ribs—the Denali is as handsome a truck as it’s ever been in light-duty form and one that ought to appeal to many a boss seeking to assert his or her authority before ever stepping out of the truck.

Lesser Sierra and Silverado HDs start at a far more reasonable $28,960; both offer the upgrade to the Duramax with the Allison transmission for $7195. They have received formidable increases in sturdiness, so these prices, which see a slight increase from 2010, are not exorbitant.

Style Deprived

It’s too bad, really, that the attractive pricing and the newfound strength aren’t accompanied by anything new aesthetically. Newness matters, and Dodge and Ford have fresh trucks, too—Dodge revamped the Ram HD for 2010, Ford redid its Super Dutys for 2011. GM’s best-ever HD trucks are arriving in dealerships now, and the company will have to get the message out to its customers via some smart and targeted marketing efforts, because the one thing these trucks can’t do on their own is spread the word.

2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco - Road Test

With summer here and gas prices some four to five times the mercury reading, it’s all most drivers can do to stay cool at and away from the pump. Mileage ratings are soaring past horsepower figures in mainstream headlines, and the fuel-economy wars are in full swing. (Paradoxically, so are the horsepower wars. But we digress.) The ongoing influx of hybrids shows no sign of slowing, but costly batteries and electric motors aren’t friendly to all budgets (not to mention curb weights), so automakers are also duking it out with conventional powertrains. One of the hottest battles right now is being waged within the C-segment ring, where cars like this Chevrolet Cruze Eco are topping the 40-mpg-highway mark.
Eco Optimization
Like many economy-optimizing trim packages, the Eco uses low-rolling-resistance tires (Goodyear Assurance) and lighter wheels to help meet its goals. Unlike most of its competitors, though, the Eco has a higher (mileage) calling from the moment it starts down the assembly line. With weight saving a priority, it is constructed differently than the regular Cruze, using slightly shorter welds and thinner sheetmetal in specific areas. The lighter Goodyears and the stylish 17-inch wheels combine for a saving of more than 21 pounds compared with the 16-inch combo on the Cruze 1LT. Factor in a fuel tank that is smaller by three gallons and the lack of a spare tire on manual-equipped cars, and the Eco weighs in at 3018 pounds, between 125 and 188 fewer pounds than other Cruzes we’ve tested.


Although a commendable and essential effort for achieving better fuel mileage, the Eco’s diet isn’t the only difference between it and a regular Cruze. Benefiting from the hundreds of hours its even-thriftier platformmate, the Volt, spent in the wind tunnel, the Cruze Eco is fitted with the latest aerodynamic gewgaws. It has a movable shutter in the lower grille that closes at high speeds, underbody panels behind the lower front air dam, and a rear spoiler. And it sits 0.4 inch closer to the ground. Overall, the Eco’s coefficient of drag is 10 percent less than the standard Cruze’s, helping manual-equipped models achieve 28/42-mpg ratings from the EPA.
Penalty Box No More
Unlike fuel-economy specials of yesteryear, the new crop of misers—like the Hyundai Elantra and Ford Focus SFE—doesn’t require you to serve a penalty for not paying at the pump. Instead of forcing buyers into the most basic, stripped-out model to obtain those extra mpg, the Cruze Eco is a normal conveyance with all the customary amenities of a modern small car.


In fact, if you’re in the market for a Cruze, we’d strongly suggest you consider the Eco. For starters, it’s a fine-looking ride, with the aforementioned lowered stance and showy 17-inch wheels. It looks more sporty than frugal, and we’d even spring for the $195 Black Granite Metallic paint of our test car to add a dash of elegance. Its interior, like those in costlier Cruze trims, is quiet and stylish, with excellent fit and finish. Some of the interior plastics could stand to be a grade or two higher, but the fabric trim panels on the dash are a first-rate focal distraction. With its base price of just $19,175, and the $525 Connectivity package—Bluetooth, a USB port, steering-wheel-mounted audio controls, and a leather steering wheel and shift knob— it’s hard to justify a more premium trim. (Fitted to our 2011 test car, the Connectivity package will be standard equipment on 2012 cars.)
A Closet Enthusiast?
Aiding the Eco’s case is the fact that it is the quickest Cruze we’ve tested. Chevy acknowledges the fact that the manual’s first- and second-gear ratios are “aggressive,” which helps this miserly compact hit 60 mph in 7.8 seconds. The quarter-mile is gone in 16.1 at 87 mph. Previously, our quickest Cruze was an automatic LT RS, which was some two-tenths slower to 60 and three-tenths and 2 mph behind in the quarter-mile. And although this car’s slipperier Goodyear rubber howls loudly at low cornering speeds and draws angry stares in the Whole Foods parking lot (maybe that was because we weren’t in a hybrid), the Eco managed a respectable 0.81 g on the skidpad. Braking would have been average a few years ago, but now it’s at the back of the pack. The soft pedal gets worse with repeated stops, with the car needing 184 feet to stop from 70 mph.
Around town, the Cruze is quiet and comfortable, although rough roads elicit the occasional thunderous whack from the suspension. The steering rack is playfully tight but isn’t much into talking back. Those buyers wanting to eke the most from every atom of fuel will appreciate the coaching of the green upshift light, which tries to keep revs between 1500 and 2000. By 35 mph, it wants the car to be in fifth or sixth, the latter of which is a very tall, Eco-specific cruising ratio that offers almost zero power for acceleration. We, of course, drove the Eco like we’d stolen it and still managed 29 mpg overall in 600 miles of driving.
The compact-car class is rich with great choices. Although the 2012 ford focus is the current champ, the value offered by the Cruze Eco is at least a good way to beat the heat at the pump.

2011 Chevy Volt

Mass-produced electric cars are finally here. And, this time around, it appears they’re here to stay.
It’s irrelevant that, depending on how their electricity is produced, electric vehicles don’t come very close to living up to the zero-emission label they often receive. Also irrelevant is the point that battery packs with enough capacity to power a vehicle for any significant range are prohibitively expensive today. That’s because the trump card already has been played: It’s called government intervention. The Obama administration has started to unleash part of a planned $69 billion to thousands of clean-energy companies—through tax credits, loans, and grants—as well as to consumers, with a $7500 federal tax break for buying a car that has at least 16 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy stored in a battery pack. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the Chevrolet Volt’s lithium-ion pack contains exactly that amount?
But beyond the commonality of large battery packs, the Volt sets itself apart from the Nissan Leaf and the forthcoming EV crowd: It also has a gas engine that can step in to extend the Volt’s range when the battery’s energy is depleted.


This is why GM calls the Volt an “extended-range electric vehicle,” and the dual-power-source arrangement makes a lot of sense at a time when there’s precious little charging infrastructure. Currently, 48 of 50 states have fewer than 10 charging stations, and even California’s relative abundance of 422 pales in comparison to its roughly 10,400 gas stations. In other words, it’s going to be some time before charging while at work or out on the town becomes the norm; for now, EVs’ batteries will be replenished largely at home. And with maximum ranges in the 100-mile neighborhood, good luck with any long- or even moderate-distance travel. And forget about having a pure electric as your only vehicle.


What if your family in California needs you to visit? While a pure EV—needing long recharging sessions every 70 miles or so—will transport you back to the era of the monthlong road trip, the Volt could easily drive across the country on gas when there’s no time or electricity available for recharging. Closer to home, if this writer had been driving a Leaf instead of a Volt, I would have had to deal a blow of rejection to a five-year-old nephew  whose birthday party was 60 miles distant, due to the lack of a place to charge while there. Do you think he would have understood?
And although the Volt has both a gas engine and two electric motors—one primarily to power the wheels and a second to generate electricity from the gas engine—it is unlike any gas-electric hybrid on the road today: If charged sufficiently, it can operate continuously, at any speed, as an EV, without ever needing to switch on the gas engine. Of course, this raises a whole new set of questions, ranging from: “Won’t the fuel go bad at some point?” and “Isn’t it beneficial for longevity’s sake to start the engine once in a while?” to “Hey, boss, when can we start expensing our home electricity bills?”
This is but a glimpse into the Volt’s complexity and why, after six weeks of electric-only operation, the Volt will start to ask the driver via the instrument panel if it’s okay to switch on the gas engine for a bit to keep it fresh. And the Volt makes sure to burn through a tank of fuel each year to ensure it never gets stale. Plus, in order to extend the life of the very expensive battery—sources say it costs as much as $10,000; GM won’t comment—it uses only about 9 of its 16 kWh for propulsion and requires its own coolant circuit in order to heat or cool the 288 cells to keep them in the optimal temperature range (32° to 90°F). There’s yet another circuit to cool the electric motors. Things get even more complex in the powertrain, more so than we were initially led to believe Behind the wheel, however, it all operates seamlessly. Hit the glowing blue start button, and the seven-inch LCD-screen instrument panel, like the one used for the standard navigation, comes to life. It presents an estimated electric-only range, a gas range, and a total of the two. To the right is a graphic that provides driving feedback; the Volt is operating most efficiently when the spinning, green ball of  leaves stays in the middle. Hit the gas too hard, and the ball elevates, shrinks, and turns yellow. Go for too much brake, and the ball does the opposite, slinging downward because energy that could have otherwise been recaptured regeneratively is being wasted. It’s a very straightforward and easy-to-follow setup. The center screen above the array of touch-sensitive controls on the dash keeps track of electrically and gas-driven miles separately, displays fuel economy (more on that later), and rates the efficiency of  your driving.
Whether or not the gas engine is running, the Volt always has an EV-like demeanor. Which is to say there’s almost no waiting—and no downshifting—as it responds swiftly to throttle inputs. Acceleration is one continuous ooze of thrust—sort-of CVT-like, only without the engine drone. In fact, although the Volt isn’t slow compared with its peers—its 9.2-second 0-to-60-mph time beats both the Leaf and the Toyota Prius by 0.8 second—it feels quicker than the numbers suggest because, off the line, no matter what the driver does, the electric motor’s 273 pound-feet of torque rolls out modestly and averts wheelspin. The immediacy you feel shows up better in the 3.7-second 30-to-50-mph time, which is just a couple of ticks slower than a V-6 Mazda 6.
There’s not much noise, either. In EV mode, the cabin is as quiet as a Lexus RX350s at 70 mph, and even with the engine running, it matches the Prius at 72 dBA. The point at which the engine fires is barely discernible—the reconfiguring of the digital dash when it transitions is far more obvious. When the driver hammers the Volt in range-extending mode, the engine revs more assertively but is never harsh or intrusive.


Beyond its impressive powertrain, the Volt drives surprisingly well, with a reassuringly steady suspension. The electric power steering is light but direct on-center, adding weight in proportion to angle. It’s neither totally natural nor terribly off-putting. Ditto the regenerative brakes, which work well at moderate levels, though they’ll never match the feel of a good ol’ vacuum booster. At low speeds and during near-limit applications, the brakes can feel disconnected and very nonlinear.
Naturally, the Volt sports various mileage-extending features, including the anticipated wind-swept shape and a front apron to help aerodynamic efficiency. That said, its coefficient of drag is 0.29, worse than the far-more slippery Prius’s 0.25. The forged aluminum wheels wear low-rolling-resistance Goodyear Fuel Max tires, which squeal loudly as they approach the limit but are surprisingly capable, delivering a solid 0.83 g on the skidpad—same as the frisky Honda Accord. The stability control can’t be disabled, but it operates deftly so as not to intrude on smooth excursions to the limit, where the Volt is actually reasonably balanced.
Another interesting tidbit is an automatic seat-heater function. Warming the car’s cabin can be a significant energy draw—at times even more than powering the wheels—so the Volt will sometimes heat the seats instead of cranking the HVAC system to save power. And the Volt is the first vehicle to feature Bose’s new Energy Efficient Series sound system. The seven-speaker stereo uses amplifiers that rapidly switch on and off to conserve power rather than always-on linear amplifiers, and—combined with higher-grade neodymium magnets—the Bose system is both lighter and uses 50 percent less energy than before. But, most important, its clean and punchy sound quality is competitive even with that of cars costing far more.


Of course, pruning a few watts here and there can’t get around the fact that the 3755-pound Volt is definitely packing some extra weight. It’s some 575 pounds more than the Prius, 549 more than its Chevy Cruze platform-mate, and almost 400 more than the electric-only Leaf. Even though the 435-pound, five-and-a-half-foot-long, T-shaped battery pack lives under the cabin (that’s the reason why there’s no center rear seat), the Volt is surprisingly front-heavy, slightly more so than the Cruze, in fact. However, the battery pack contributes to the Volt’s two-inch-lower center of gravity compared with the Cruze.
Worried about the charging process? Don’t—it’s not the least bit intimidating. Most of us simply plugged the Volt’s cord into a 120-volt household outlet overnight. Ten hours later, it was fully charged. Cost: about $1.60. Also, the Volt can be programmed to delay charging based on a set schedule or electricity rates; doing so can be controlled and monitored via a smartphone application. Although installing a 240-volt system drops the 10 hours to just four, the Volt’s 120-volt charging time (unlike the 19 hours required to charge the Leaf on 120) seems reasonable enough that such a system isn’t absolutely necessary. Owners will probably want an additional charging cord, though, to prevent the constant fetching and stowing of the single, 120-volt unit from the cargo hold.


But what about fuel economy, the Volt’s raison d’être? Well, that requires a fair bit of explanation. And much is still undecided; GM officials wouldn’t venture any estimates, citing that they’re in nearly daily talks with the EPA as to what will be on the Volt’s window sticker when the car hits showrooms in December.
Here’s what we do know: GM’s recently revised electric-range claim is 25 to 50 miles, and we ended up in the low to middle of that band. Getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic—basically the worst-case scenario—yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited back-road loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s.
Following the EPA’s proposed direction for its 2012 fuel-economy labels [pictured below], we computed an energy-equivalent efficiency of the Volt during our 152 miles of EV operation. Even with a lot of aggressive driving, the result is still impressive: 74 MPGe.
But this number, too, requires a couple of caveats. First, we’re counting (as does the EPA) all the electricity used in the charging process—which has a fair amount of inefficiencies—not just what the vehicle deploys to the wheels. In our experience, using only standard-household 120-volt power, it took about 13.4 kWh of electricity to replenish the Volt’s 9 kWh of usable energy. Using a 240-volt setup instead is more efficient and would have boosted the mileage figure.

And these numbers also differ from the Volt’s fairly optimistic fuel-economy readout, which leaves the electrically driven miles out of the calculation entirely. Technically, the displayed number is accurate in that it is the “miles per gallon of gas,” but should electric miles really  be counted as infinite mpg?
Either way, one thing’s for sure: Operating an EV can be exceptionally cheap. Assuming 35 miles of electric range for the Volt yields a cost per mile of just 4.6 cents. That’s almost 40 percent less than that of a Volkswagen Golf TDI diesel getting 40 mpg and 24 percent cheaper than a Prius getting 45 mpg.
The economic picture is dimmer when operating the Volt using its gas engine. We averaged 35 mpg for our gas-powered miles and saw 33–34 mpg at a steady, near-80-mph cruise—not exactly spectacular compared with today’s hybrids. Then again, no one should buy a Volt if they plan to run it extensively in extended-range mode.


Is it cheap? New technology never is. Still, the Volt strikes us as the closest in concept to the winning formula of the Prius, albeit with the next generation of propulsion and the whole thing inverted. Nothing else has so successfully incorporated all of the key aspects of Toyota’s golden child—big fuel-economy numbers, a unique name and styling, and enough range and people and cargo space that it can be an only and everyday car. Those traits have enabled the sales of nearly 2 million Priuses worldwide since its 1997 debut. With the possible exception of a fairly cramped back seat and an undersized cargo hold, the Volt checks all the boxes, plus it outdrives the hybrid competition. This is without a doubt the most important new car since the advent of hybrids in the late ’90s, and GM has nailed it. Is this the handing off of the Prius’s very illustrious torch?
To go along with the coming surge of new-technology vehicles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation are revising the fuel-economy labels for 2012 that are required on all new cars and light-duty trucks. But the new labels aren’t final yet; two designs were shown, and the definitive label won’t be ready in time for the 2011 Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf.
Today’s EV sticker lists EPA city and highway efficiency in units of kWh/100 miles, which makes it pretty tough for a non-calculator-wielding consumer to compare economy at a glance with, say, a hybrid that’s rated in miles per gallon.


The proposals show that cars will be rated on a miles-per-gallon-equivalent (MPGe) scale, which converts alternative means of propulsion—such as electricity or natural gas—based on their energy content relative to that of gasoline (for example, 33.7 kWh = 1 gallon of gas). Vehicles with multiple operating modes, such as the Volt, will get separate ratings for each one. Another metric listed for battery-powered vehicles is the required recharging time, although the assumed power source isn’t given. The new labels also add two emissions scores: one for tailpipe CO2 emissions and another for other air pollutants. Some argue, however, that EVs should be penalized for CO2 emitted during the creation of the electricity they use.
Want simple? One of the proposals puts a prominent letter grade based on fuel economy and emissions at the top of the label. But is it really too much to ask the car-buying public to grasp the higher-is-better MPGe system? Plus, what makes for an “A” will no doubt shift as cars get more efficient, so the ratings likely won’t be comparable over time. We’d also like to see a cost-per-mile figure (instead of annual fuel cost), which would make it more obvious how long it will take to pay back the higher price of a hybrid or electric car.
But the biggest question remains: How will the ratings for a car such as the Volt be combined into a single number that’s used for the all-important Corporate Average Fuel-Economy (CAFE) standard, which automakers are required to meet?

2011 Corvette ZR1

 

 

 

 

General Motors revealed its range-topping Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 "supercar." As expected, the ZR1 is the most powerful and most expensive Corvette model ever.

-New LS9 motor produces 620 horsepower at 6500 rpm

-595 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm.

-Supercharged 6.2-liter V8

-Close-ratio six-speed manual gearbox with a new high-capacity clutch designed for the increased power.

-The twin-disc 260mm design provides plenty of clamping power, while maintaining a relatively easy clutch action.

-ZR1 has a 3.4 second zero-to-60 time.

-The ZR1 has the largest wheels ever of any production Corvette in diameter and width. 

2012 Camaro Zl1

The 2012 Camaro zl1 has a 6.2L V8 like the SS but will probably cost around $50,000 and also has about 550Hp while the SS has 426HP, it also features a dual mode exhaust where the exhaust automatically adjusts to your driving. Is the Zl1 worth the high price for a little more power over the current SS?