“That thing got a 350 in it?” is a question I’d often hear when driving my beloved 1989 Chevy K1500 — a truck I sometimes regret selling because it was, by far, the best truck I’ve ever owned. But with the new millennium, the beloved 350 left the Silverado and was replaced with another icon: the 5.3-liter small-block V8. This became the standard for the last quarter century, but now it’s gone and the 350 is back. Joining those cubic inches is a fresh new face, a new interior with a big passenger-side screen, and so much more. Let’s have a look at the new 2027 Chevrolet Silverado 1500.
Upon hearing that the 2027 Chevy Silverado is ditching the 5.3-liter and 6.2-liter V8, my first thought was “Wow, that 5.3-liter has been around a while!” And so my initial headline was “The 2027 Chevy Silverado Ditches Its 5.3L V8 After 27 Years.” But then I saw what that 5.3-liter is being replaced by — a 5.7-liter (350 cubic-inch) V8 — and I decided it was best to celebrate the return of the most iconic Chevy truck engine displacement than to lament the 5.3-liter’s passing.
To be sure, this is obviously not the same 350 as my GM400’s TBI 350, but it’s still a cool throwback that Chevrolet says on its press release “honors Chevy Small Block heritage.” The 350 is joined by a 6.6-liter replacing the 6.2-liter that’s been around for almost two decades. Sadly, we have no power or torque figures, but displacement for both motors is up by 0.4-liters, so things sounds promising. Chevy says about the two motors: “these next-generation V8s deliver improvements in power and torque giving customers more choice without compromise.”
The gigantic 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder is sticking around (Chevy says it has been “enhanced”), though now it’s mated to a 10-speed auto instead of an 8-speed, and a 3.0-liter turbodiesel joins the fun, as well.
Chevy emphasizes that of its seven trims, three of them are lifted: the ZR2, the Trail Boss and Custom Trail Boss. (Random thought: If Chevy had six trims, would they say three are lifted or three are lowered? Food for thought…).
The ZR2 sits on 35s with a two-inch lift, a special “off-road hood,” standard lockers front and rear, and Multimatic DSSV dampers.
The Custom Trail Boss (a more budget friendly Trail Boss) and regular Trail Boss (shown above) has the same two-inch lift, but makes do with 34s.
I myself like the Work Truck trim, because the steelies look great. On the other end of the spectrum is the High Country, which is the flagship trim:
It’s got a gorgeous interior that matches the aggressive, angular exterior styling pretty much perfectly:
There’s a lot of screen happening in the cabin, with a 16.3-inch center display, a 12.2-inch gauge display, and an 11.5-inch screen for the passenger. How well will all of this screen-ification age? I don’t know. But as of right now, it looks great.
Really, overall the truck — built on the T1-2 platform that is a modified version of the outgoing truck’s T1 bones — looks nice. It’s not a huge departure from the outgoing machine stylistically or architecturally speaking, but it’s a nice update, and I’m really excited to learn more about how the new V8 motors perform in the Silverado 1500.
All Images: Chevy
Will they be reusing the same DOD lifters from the 5.3 and 6.2?
It’s called the Department of War now.
Did anyone else have the urge to Doctor Evil-air-quotes “Chevy Small Block” referring to an engine with a 5.7L displacement?
Is the SBC 350 not a small block?
I wouldn’t call a 5.7L engine “small” when it comes to passenger vehicles.
Once upon a time the 350 was quite common in American passenger vehicles
My first five cars, added together, displaced less than 5.7l.
Your collection of Hot Wheels while I’m sure was impressive doesn’t count.
One thousand and forty seven CCs should be enough for anyone!
On a sport bike? Most certainly.
On a semi? Only if that’s cc’s per cylinder.
First gen Small Block Chevy varied from 262 to 401 cubic inches. (4.3L to 6.6L)
So no, can’t see putting air quotes around the small in small block
I think they did a good job overall. Even though the 10 speed isn’t perfect, it’s better than the 8 speed, and I think that in certain situations that 2.7 could really use the 2 extra ratios (esp. when towing heavier loads)
From what I understand this next gen small block will (finally…) have port AND direct injection. But what I want to know is if the 2.7 will also have port/direct injection as part of it’s “enhancement”.
Wish they started putting coil springs in the rear, but leafs are fine still.
If they expand supercruise to more than the very top trim… I might have one of these in my possession after the first model year kinks get worked out.
I do wonder if the 6.6 will be an aluminum block or if it will share the iron block from the HDs? Either way they will have siamesed bores, since a 6.6 is kinda like an old 400 in that respect (even if they don’t share any parts, and the rest of the design is very different)
I’d expect an aluminum block design sharing more with the new 6.7L in the Corvette than with the last generation 6.6L in the HDs.
Ah yes, good point. Probably aluminum, which is fine.
Yeah, if it’s intended to replace the 6.2, it will be the “hot rod” engine rather than a workhorse (although still plenty capable of work).
Agreed. I hope this time around they make it so it doesn’t “need” premium fuel though. I believe all the L87 6.2’s recommended premium, I could be wrong though.
Coil springs are still a scary new technology by US standards, but at least they’re been around longer than this newfangled ‘inderrpendant suspension’.
I assume the thinking is that if trucks are going to be taxed as agricultural machinery, then they should stick to the technology of agricultural machinery…from the last century.
They better not nerf these with displacement on demand.
Also, are they ever going to ditch the incredibly ancient pushrod design and go for a modern DOHC one?
Can I get one with a long bed, standard cab an zero options with any of the engines?
The advantages of DOHC (high revs, power for a given displacement) are mostly irrelevant in a truck application.
The pushrod engine offers good power, torque, and fuel economy for its physical dimensions.
I’ve always found it interesting people clamor to ditch the pushrods because they are “crude” or outdated but they never seem to have a specific request for what they would like to get out of ditching them in terms of power, efficiency, or engine dimensions. They only want DOCH because pushrods are outdated, not because they are unsatisfied with the performance of the pushrods motors.
DOHC was invented in 1910! It’s not a new technology either!
Didn’t pushrods come later? Well, according to Wikipedia, pushrods came on a production Buick engine in 1904 while a production OHC design came in, wait for it, 1902. So OHC is more ancient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_valve_engine
It’s all a hangover from the 80’s and 90’s car mag writers who caught a ‘more of everything is better!’ fever from import OE marketing teams – more cams, more valves, more better! (except cylinders…)
Meanwhile, you could get a GM sedan with a V6 for 2/3rds the price of the import 4 cylinder stuff. Which option was actually better is a matter of taste, but ‘inexpensive, simple, reliable, torquey and smooth’ as benefits didn’t ever deserve the seemingly universal condemnation that they got, at least in my opinion.
HP/L was huge on 90s-early 00s car forums.
No one ever had a good comeback to lawn mower engines doing better on this metric than the S2000.
It all stems from the switch from old money (Rolls, Benz etc) to new money (Tech, Rap and bling bling bling) class has left the building
Like politicians always have something to complain about but never have the answers. (Both parties) Before anyone accuse me
I mean, Ford has been putting out more power than both Ram and GM with their (comparatively) tiny OHC Coyote in the F150 since what, 2011?
Sort of, the 5.0 makes more power than the GM 5.3 and the Ram 5.7, but less than the GM 6.2.
In any case though, my point was that it doesn’t matter. The 5.0 doesn’t really get any better fuel economy by virtue of its smaller displacement, and there are no displacement taxes in North America, so who cares? If someone put a 10 liter V8 in a truck and it got 20 mpg, what would it matter if it only made 400 hp like the rest?
I mean, GMs V8s all had a habit of blowing up once they started trying to get fuel economy out of their larger displacements. So it matters a little.
And fun fact! Quebec actually charges yearly registration fees based on displacement. Until the turbo-4 mills started coming out, the EcoBoost reigned supreme in “La Belle Province”
Honestly did not know that about Quebec, but if there was going to be one place that did it, I suppose that would have been my guess.
Let us hope that GM has the reliability thing a little better handled this time around.
Yeah, they do damn near everything different there. Living in the capital, I get to stare at “The Dark Side” across the river, where they turn the traffic lights sideways and add shapes.
All I know about Quebec is that I have to read French on Ontario road signs 1000 miles from Montreal, but they won’t put English on the signs at the literal US border.
The Language Police are WILD.
There’s rules on having english on your signs in Quebec. And they actually regularly enforce it through fines and sometimes suspension of business licenses if you don’t comply.
Quebec is the Camelot of the Canadian Provinces, it is a silly place.
Absolutely gorgeous mountains, though. I do love skiing/hiking in Qweebeck.
Go drive a 6th gen Camaro SS or a C7, those ancient pushrods in the LT2 do a damn good job. Took Ferd a few years to catch up to the HP numbers. Sure, it revs to ‘only’ 6500rpm but it pulls all the way to the redline.
I really like the way these turned out. They invoke a handsomeness like the GMT 400, though not as clean or well executed of a design.
I’m curious as to what the GMC versions will look like.
Yeah, the GMC has been the better looking one as far back as I can remember. If Chevy managed to make a truck that doesn’t immediately make me wanna vomit, that bodes especially well for the GMC.
Chevrolets were better looking all the way from the start until the GMT400. At the GMT400, it was close, trim dependent; no clear winner.
GMT800 slightly lean towards Chevrolet for me, with the exception of the facelift turning things in GMC’s favor.
GMT900 the GMC is better.
K2XX is roughly equal before the facelift, and after the facelift, the GMC is the clear winner. Heck, every GMC has been the clear winner since.
This basically coincides with GMC’s arc from commercial brand to luxury version of Chevy.
The hell is an “off road hood?”
It’s the only hood you can use off road. If you even try and use another of the hoods off the pavement, the truck will stop and require you call Chevy and get the off road hood installed. /s
What is the monthly subscription cost for that?
the hood shape is optimised to clear small children off the hood quickly so your sightlines do not get obscured
Pretty sure obstructed sightlines are why those small children got hit in the first place. Or at least that’s what the defense team and followup lawsuit will claim.
Ideally? It would be as featureless and low profile as possible, with upgraded seals to prevent water intrusion and painted flat black to prevent lighting glare.
In reality? They’ll probably do the same thing as Toyota and give it a big, chunky, view obstructing hood scoop with an opening that increases cooling by allowing room temperature mud to enter the engine bay.
I kind of want that 2.7l 4 cylinder. It can run on two cylinders!
Pfft. I had an MGB that could do that. You just didn’t get to pick which 2 or when it would do it.
I’d also like an MGB!
They’re perennially cheap, so just get one whenever you’re ready!
I know. Kids and space are the problem right now.
Love that green. All hail the 350!
They’re still hideous to me, especially the 2500 and up. Let’s hope this engine line is less problematic.
The 2500 isn’t pictured here though?
Only the 1500 is new at the moment.
I know, and I find it unattractive and awkward looking.
Seeing a 350 SBC shoved into every boring-ass Boomer hotrod for the last 60 years kind of ruined that motor for me. It’s the opposite of “That thing got a Hemi in it?!” Whereas a Hemi, especially old one, is cool as hell, saying “Yeah, it’s got a 350” elicits nothing but yawns from me.
I loved the 1990s-2000s built ’50s trucks with the owner proudly describing the ‘Corvette motor’ in it.
My brother in Christ, that was 230 horsepower when new.
If I had a dollar for every boomer dude who saw my Beetle and said I should “drop a porsh motor into it” I might actually be able to afford said Porsche engine.
Agreed. It could be the most powerful and fastest SBC/LS in the world, and it’s only going to elicit a yawn from me.
Most of the time they just say “350 motor” without any more detail, too. A 350 from what? Is is a crate engine? a 150hp anchor from the late 70s? From a fishing boat? If you aren’t going to give me any more details, I’m assuming the worst.
“Eyyy, dat got a small block Chebby innit? Gawt damn Mouse motah! Sumbitch’ll hop a coke can!”
Autopian on Pickuptrucks: All these screens everywhere are great!
Autopian on Mercedes Benz: How lazy, they just put screen everywhere.
It’s not uncommon for one writer to have a different opinion than another.
Shame they can’t get a screen into the steering wheel. Maybe the sun visors too.
Maybe the whole windshield could be a screen. That way if it was gross and rainy outside, it could replace it with the visual of a nice sunny day.
They could actually improve visibility that way by letting you see what’s in front of the tall-ass hood. But that might make people feel less manly, so instead they’ll let you add taller hood options with big scoops.
Next gen there will be no screens.
No buttons.
No steering wheel or pedals.
No glass at all either.
Just a plug into the back of your neck….
…enjoy the soothing feeling of a new reality.
There’ll be a screen. It’ll play 20 minutes of idyllic nature scenes as Tchaikovsky plays over the speakers. The AC will dispense a gentle anesthetic, then a stronger one, and finally flood the entire car with nitrogen.
After a while, when the car’s microphones have determined no non-mechanical sounds are present within the vehicle, it will deliver you to the processing plant where you will be rendered down. Not into Soylent Green, though, oh no.
Soylent High Octane.
That’s going to be for the Denali Ultimate Apex Materhorn Platinum editon
I will not be satisfied until the entire interior is s c r e e n
That passenger screen area would be 1,000x more useful as an open cubby or secondary glovebox.
That’s exactly what you want coming at you at 200mph in a crash, a tablet shot from the steering wheel hub.
Perhaps just like Idiocracy, Pimp My Ride was foreshadowing the future.
Oh no, 2000s show cars are leaking into 2026 production…
I sincerely hope that this new generation of small-block GM V8s fixes the lifter issues that have ailed the outgoing ones. The current 6.2-liter truck engine is known to kill itself in as few as 2,500 miles. So then you have people who’ve spent $100K+ on Yukon Denalis and Escalades sitting there with their brand-new cars apart for weeks or months.
A V8-powered truck was the one vehicle that GM, historically, was unquestionably good at building, so I’m rooting for a return to form.
Agreed, hoping that is the reason they developed a new gen.
I work next to a GM dealership. They’ve had catastrophic powertrain failures before even leaving the lot. It’s almost embarrassing to witness as often as it occurs.
My nephew’s company buys GM for their trucks and every employee has been stranded at least once because of the lifter issues.
Ngl, full size trucks with 5 seats feel wrong to me.
I’ve always felt this way, but after getting mine with the 6 Seat front bench (stupid online order only option) I feel this way in my bones.
What are you carrying in the center console that is so massive a folding middle seat with a center console built into the seat back wouldn’t work?
Every day I’m finding new places to store shit in my Ram 1500.
Unless you smuggle toddlers in center consoles for a living I see no reason to get a massive non-removable center console.
What’s the case for the 3rd front seat though? I’d put a kid there if I absolutely had to for some reason, but otherwise the large console is used far more often than a 6th seatbelt would be.
Middle seat is clearly for your significant other.
I love my wife, and she presumably loves me, but the idea of her sitting in the middle seat on a long road trip while a perfectly good seat of her own is available on the other side is pretty laughable.
Typically it’s for date night, not long trips. My wife has said she would like a bench seat for rigorous handholding on date nights.
I suppose it depends on how well you get along with them, with the Hummer H1 being on the far end of the scale in terms of dislike of your SO.
tbf, if you’re driving an older Hummer, you’re already shouting your dislike of other people already.
I was going to say dog, but in some parts of the country, they are one and the same.
If you need to haul one more person, need to pass through to the passenger side from the driver’s side or vice versa, and more storage in the little footwell of the middle seat (like for a cooler, bag, etc.)
The console storage is better than the footwell storage, because things don’t slide around. Anything too big to fit in the console or back seat I’m going to want in the bed anyways.
Maybe others need to pass between driver and passenger seat often, but this isn’t something I find myself needing to do a lot.
I have 3 car seats in the back of my truck, if I have a 4th kid I still wouldn’t want them up next to me, especially with a car seat. Just seems cramped and uncomfortable.
By contrast, I have a large storage hidden from prying eyes outside, a better armrest, easy access to the back seat from the front, better and more cupholders, and separation from anything moving around that I put in the passenger footwell.
As I’m in favor of choice, I hope the 6 seat bench remains available for people who want it, but I’m not surprised it isn’t more popular.
If the folding bench seat/console combo made a better center console than the actual center console, the actual center console wouldn’t exist.
Bench seat lovers don’t get this.
dog
I feel like a third front seat would be a nightmare for passenger crash safety design?
Doesn’t everything get tossed into a mess when you switch between seat mode and console mode?
Just drinks
I would assume the new trucks will start at crazy expensive and go up to lubricous price. Will the MPG go down?
Pricing will increase until morale improves.
Wow I don’t hate the look of the new truck! That’s rather refreshing. GM’s truck styling has been very iffy over the past few generations, especially around 2021ish on the HD trucks. NOW MAKE A NEW 454 YOU DAMN COWARDS
the tough sell for the 5.7 for me is the small 5.3 bore. bring it up in bore size versus stroke length increase and I would be happier, less valve shrouding on a 2v motor and better suited to use from a junkyard build later. Kind of why 305’s are never used versus 307’s (307 was not quite 4 inches, but it was closer and accepted bigger valves easier. so stroking one was at least an option if you could not find a good 327 or 350.. but I get it a little if this 5.7 is destined just for trucks. increases torque on the cheap. I just wish they could also do away with DFM altogether TBH.
I always wanted to put a 4.8 in my XJ; figured the small bore, big wall was the way to go, and I’d still have a ton more power than I did with the 4.0.
they are the cheap LS way to roll, and yeah, weight less and make better power than a 4.0, though maybe not as much usable torque down low. on Paper the 4.8 is better all around, but I have seen 4.0 HO’s do some pretty crazy stuff with just 235 LB-FT at 3200 RPM.
Curious bit of trivia. The gigantic 2.7 litre four has a smaller “per-cylinder capacity” than either of the V8s.
😀
Because of the Extremely small bore and excessively long stroke to try to bump up torque. But this also tends to cause more piston rock and they don’t last as long at RPM. which is scary considering how those little fellers seem to need RPM to stay rolling up hills with even moderate loads.
That’s the thing with big displacement engines, they seem like gas hogs because compared to engines in vehicles in a completely different class they get horrible MPG.
Compare them to a vehicle in the same class with a small displacement (likely turbocharged) engine and when doing any driving outside the 25 MPH City and 55 MPH “Highway” testing the MPG for the small displacement goes in the shitter and the engine has to work much harder to get the job done, whereas the large displacement engine can easily move around by itself at low RPM and get pretty dang good MPG, and when it needs to haul heavy things it isn’t overstressed.
That’s only if the “small displacement” engine is under load/boost.
Fuel consumption punishes the heaviest foot.
That’s the point. Small displacement engines will be under load way more than large displacement engines in general.
It’s hard to find a small displacement engine that isn’t under load unless you moderate the gas pedal with a touch gentler than a feather.
This sounds like you need some lighter shoes.
MrLm002’s is right though, one time I blew my intake seal in the middle of the night on a turbo vehicle, even the tiniest of hills I could not go above 30mph and 0-60 felt like a minute. Those things just are itching to apply boost.
Anecdotal, but I’m friends with a guy that manages highway maintenance. They’ve switched all of their trucks to the 2.7 and he says they’re dead nuts reliable.
He says they’ve got over a half dozen with over 750k km (466k miles) on the original engine.
These trucks are all fleet spec, see tons of idle time, and are generally beat on as one does with a company truck.
I’d take a 2.7 over a 6.2 that sometimes pukes it’s bottom end out leaving the lot.
I would agree. the 6.2 issues currently are pretty bad. though I might risk the oil consumption in a non DFM 6.6 over both.
the 2.7 is in fact a workhorse and the small bore and subsequent potential for valve shrouding is helped by the turbo and 4 valves per cylinder. turbo fills the cylinder and the multivalve breath a bit better with a small bore.
Worst I have heard is some failure related to the tri-phase cam along with AFM. both seem complicated enough to be a future problem, but most fleets get rid of them just before the 3 year 36,000 mark, so who knows.
I mean the real news here is that GM predictably is moving away from “splodey”. Which you know, good call. Here’s hoping it’s actually good. GM really can’t avoid to fuck up another V8.
Overall this update looks a lot nicer inside and out.
“Try our new V8 engines! Now with 30% more explosions!”
Need more details, but from just the info that was released, this looks like a great redesign. The exterior and interior look great and the new engine and updates to the other ones sound really good.
Aside from the lights and grilles, what on the body was redesigned? The interior looks a lot like the current one with a few mild tweaks. This looks about as phoned-in as the new Pacifica.
I can’t tell truck generations apart anymore.
This appears to be the “Fugly Mk 3” generation.
Gm is seriously missing the plot here.
Owners aren’t asking for more power. They want their engines to stop exploding at random. They want their transmissions to last not only through the powertrain warranty, but even beyond, even as the rest of the vehicle fails around them.
GM needs to work on reliability.
After that they should maybe put some focus onto making their vehicles look halfway decent. The offroad ones pictured appear to have “faces” that are all grille and fugly headlamps, and the non-offroad ones aren’t much better. They’re distinctive, sure, but not in a good way.
The interior looks as awkward and poorly-executed as the exterior. It’s also not that different than the outgoing model as best I can tell looking at side-by-side images.
I’m not particularly confident this new model is in any way an actual improvement.
*edit* oh wait, they moved the interior door handles to a more-usable location! What ingenuity! Such groundbreaking effort!
How are they “missing the plot”? Reliability is definitely an issue, but you act like that can be determined by simply looking at photos. GM has already stated they have focused on reliability and durability but no one will know how it turns out for months and even years into the future.
In terms of styling, they have absolutely knocked it out of the park – modern truck exterior and all the goodies inside that most buyers seem to want.
Go back to your Toyota and their blown engines and poor-shifting automatics.
The styling is almost offensively bad. It’s like they’re in a race with Toyota, BMW, and Subaru to see who can use the most angles in the worst ways.
Yes, reliability can’t necessarily be ascertained from photos, but a blatant transparent statement where they admit they’ve struggled with the 5.3L and 6.2Ls, and that cylinder deactivation has been a greater problem than they’ve previously been willing to state. Even Honda can’t get cylinder deactivation to work right.
How are we jumping to the conclusion they didn’t address reliability? What could they even shown that would have convinced you they did?
When Ford debuted the EcoBoost V6 all those years ago, they had the one truck that got “torture tested” over 150K miles in a very short amount of time and in pretty severe conditions. That sort of thing would be a good start.
If they also openly admit they’re abandoning AFM and that it was a good idea in theory but poorly executed, that would also be a favorable declaration.
I actually think Ford’s marketing strategy on the 3.5 Ecoboost should be studied better.
It convinced a generation of buyers into moving away from purchasing based on cylinder count.
Different demographics.
Ford also pairs that engine with a hybrid set up in the F150 that can pretty reliably get mid 20s MPG. It’s neat as hell, but no one talks about it because having a hybrid truck is for soy boys or something. It’s not a hybrid, it’s a POWERBOOST!
Isn’t it horribly unreliable?
Not that I am aware of but I’m hardly an expert
Consumer Reports gave it a 4/100 for reliability.
No, I did not forget a zero or add a zero.
I have 3 coworkers with a powerboost, they don’t get much better fuel economy vs the 3.5L ecoboosts they all replaced, which is like 19ish mpg for most of them. While they aren’t disappointed, each of them did think it was going to get better fuel economy and more like the 25mpg you mention. They all do admit it performs really well otherwise. Fuelly also shows most people getting just under 20mpg.
Yeah, the only advantage would be the 7200W onboard power that you unlock with the Hybrid.
I consistently got excellent fuel economy in my non-hybrid 3.5. I still regret trading that truck.
This may be the first time I’ve seen someone praise the 3.5 ecoboost as reliable.
Uh, the 3.5 ecoboost debuted in the 2010 Taurus SHO. Ford learned from that to offer port in addition to direct injection and to move the waterpump off of the timing chain for the F150. The rest of us saps got stuck with a carbon clogging engine that needs a $3500+ chain and pump job at 70k miles.
My apologies, I meant to put “when Ford debuted the EcoBoost in the F-150”
We both know that it doesn’t matter what GM might have said that would appease people like him – he’s trolling for attention and/or has an axe to grind in a vehicle he’d never buy and probably can’t afford.
The proof that they have looked at reliability will only show up many months and years from now when this new engine has had hundreds of thousands of customer miles on it.
But I am hopeful because GM most recently new engine, their 2.7L turbo four has proven to be very stout and has proven to be quite reliable in the base Silverado and new Colorado. It’s been in service for years now in both.
Bbbbutt Reliability isn’t ‘sexy’!
…It is to me, dammit!
But I’ve also owned mostly Mazdas and old Volvos, so I guess I have a type.
It is to me as well, but considering how irrational the average car “purchase” (lease) is reliability doesn’t sell Trucks unless you’re a very rational person, and rationality, like common sense, is sadly uncommon in massive swaths of the population.
Ok, will they let me get a standard cab with a V8 and 4×4? Or will they gatekeep the V8’s for the higher trim levels?
I will be genuinely surprised if a regular cab is introduced at all.
Plus, lets be real, I doubt you would have bought one anyways. Do you currently own a somewhat modern regular cab? Commenters like to say they would have bought one, but they haven’t bought anything newer than their ’91 K1500…
Per C&D they are going to continue to offer the regular cab. Now, I’d guess it’s probably only limited to some super small subset of options/configurations.
Most likely 4-cyl long bed in the W/T trim. With a very limited set of available options. Fleet trim.
Yeah, it’s gonna be base trim all day long. I could see them allowing the 350 in the single cab though. They currently do, so long as you get the long bed.
I have a 98 F-150 regular cab, long bed, 4×4, 4.6 V8, 5-Speed, so that’s newer than a 91
’98?!?! Knock me over with a feather…
Well it was the only single cab, V8, 4×4, manual truck I could find at the time, since no one makes one now, it’s the truck I’ll keep
That interior looks great, I can’t wait to see what they do with Denali and SUV versions of this down the road.
The whole damn thing looks pretty good. Got rid of the weird swoopies down the side that always irked me on the current gen. And while the front is a tad weird, the whole thing seems a lot cleaner. The inside looks genuinely nice, which is refreshing. I was half expecting it to scream MACHO at me like so many truck and/or off road oriented vehicles try to.
Yeah, I agree, this is a good evolutionary change that improves on the last gen.
Yes! Those weird swoopies were my biggest gripe. These look pretty sharp. I could always use less screen, but you can’t win ’em all I guess. At least there isn’t a giant iPad just mounted in the middle.
Loch Ness monster gonna go crazy for the tree fidy