It takes a Chev HD to carry an aluminum ladder?

Looks like a fiberglass ladder to me.

nah,its alum.,just painted red so something looks good in the picture!!

If there will be a Ford Superduty you never see a ladder in bed,maybe something a full bed of rock or something heavy staff...But for Chevy its OK,they show what they mean,its OK,go head Chevy,go down hill,its OK for you...just one word - SHAME ! Nothing special,same body,same front end,and a same low ground FRAME,I hate it!!! - Good day!

Thats one heavy ladder .

@VFSD sounds like pent up frustration because Ford will be going to the 4th all new diesel engine in less than a 10 year span.

The tall frame of the GM truck makes for a strong, stout towing platform. This frame has also housed the world class Allision since 2001. This transmission happens to be a stout piece for hauling/towing with a nice solid track record.

A truck doesn't have to sit eight feet off the ground to be a competent towing and hauling platform. Those that seem to be a little insecure of their manhood seem to think that a truck cab and bed should be oriented somewhere into the stratosphere. Unfortunately such high orientation of the cab and bed make the vehicle pretty useless for being a truck, or actually hauling or towing anything. Boy how that perception of a truck must sit eight feet in the air couldn't be more wrong for using a truck as a truck.

GM had less than 5% of the diesel market back in 1999. Now GM commands in and around 30% of the diesel truck market. This was Ford's market to lose, GM's share gain came at the expense of Ford.

Let's hope Ford new diesel attempt doesn't concede more market share to GM or Dodge.

I agree with you guys that must be a heavy heavy ladder. I think i see the rear end sagging a little bit, oh well heres my fingers crossed for the American trucks, climb that heavy ladder back to the top of the game

@DM - you mentioned frame. Would that be a ladder frame?
Sorry. I couldn't resist:)

I had a Chevy 4x4 in Alaska. The low ground clearance was a major problem on even the mildest rocky roads. My 2006 Dodge Cummins has plenty of ground clearance and the much more reliable manual trans. For my trips between the Arctic and Central America, I can not have an auto trans as they can fail 100% leaving a person stranded.

@ VFSD

Thats the current model pictured, not the 2011. All the same, as stated a high frame is kinda pointless on a rig meant for loading and hauling...

coloca as fotos da silverado 2500hd 2011 e quando sai a modelo 2011

2500/3500 HD Chevy/GMC have proven to be the most reliable trucks. Excellent diesel, and the allison transmision is the best by far. The only problem with the new one is it will be using urea fluid to meet 2010 Emission standards. Thats too bad but the Cummins in the newly designed, smoother riding RAM HD is for 2010 will be the diesel truck of choice until we see 2013 GM redesign trucks. Can't wait to see what they do then. Maybe even ford will redesign their 10+ year old design. The new 6.7L Ford Diesel will be at dealer in 3 or 4 months, so in a year or two we will be able to judge the reliability of this engine(can't be much worse than last 2 attempts), but it also will be running urea fluid which will add extra cost in maintenance and the urea fluid price rising all the time.

diesels that don't have DEF, seem to guzzle more fuel than the new diesels that do have DEF. A guy on Ford-trucks.com claims the new Scorpion diesel averages 19mpg combined cycle (that was on a dually)- may be true, may not be true, but none of the other diesels gets close to that, so if it is true, if it takes DEF to get good fuel economy AND meet emissions, then I'm all for it. DEF acts as a catalyst anyway, so it's not going to consume a lot... it will be like calculating your cost of running including the windshield washer fluid.

@ alex , those fuel economy numbers "a guy" claimed for the new 6.7L ford diesel are pure speculation because the engine isn't even out yet. My duramax gets 20 mpg and no Diesel exhaust Fluid). Besides you have to factor in the cost of Urea fluid at upwards of $32 a gallon and the extra maintenance and wieght of urea system. The more trucks that start using urea ,the higher the price will go, just as diesel fuel increased when diesel pick-ups became so popular. Don't believe some guy who has never driven the new ford diesel. I'm betting the new ford diesel gets 15-16 mpg plus cost and hassle of urea .

Sure Kevin, I said, it may be true, may not be true....then I said "If it is true..." - Nice that you can only quote the "a guy" part.
Let's just wait and see hey. I'm not ruling it out. 20mpg for a big diesel wasn't that hard to do no that long ago- before all the emissions crap. I'm sure your Duramax doesn't meet 2010 emissions. I know someone with a Megacab with 5.9 that gets 22 on the highway, and it doesn't meet 2010 emissions either. Fuel economy went way down with the Dodge 6.7 because of tougher emissions. Same reason the Ford 6.4 sucked on fuel economy, and same years in the Duramax did too. I dont believe any 2008 big diesel pickup gets 20mpg. So once again "IF" the new Ford diesel gets a combined consumption of 19, it will surely be much better on the highway (22-24?), and that would be fantastic considering it meets 2010 emissions, and puts out 400HP/750 lb-ft. I don't think Ford could have this being crappy on fuel mainly because it is being promoted as the most fuel efficient Powerstroke ever, and the 7.3 was pretty good for fuel economy. Don't promote it as a strength, if it's not a strength, marketing would be better off just avoiding the subject and only discussing power and torque instead.

"I'm betting the new ford diesel gets 15-16 mpg plus cost and hassle of urea.".....

"Don't believe some guy who has never driven the new ford diesel."
Posted by: kevin | Jan 14, 2010 1:06:51 AM

Thanks, I will keep that in mind :-)

@sean chevs arent the most reliable by many people chose not to follow maintaining, fords will always have higher demands put on them, and the Torqueshift 5 Speed and 6 Speeds own the ALLISION

all the more reason I will keep my good ol 5.9 Cummins! No emissions garbage and the whole reason I bought it when I did. 2007 model with one of the last 5.9s installed. Best decision I made in a truck purchase....now I just get to watch this new junk destroy itself

2011 ????? Its just the beginning of 2010! the new trucks are just coming out! Not matter what manuf. after 2 or 3 years they are worth about 10k less than a new one!!!!! un-real!!! And by the way that must be areally heavy fiberglass ladder!!!

Just throwing my 2 pennies in, I believe DEF is going to be around $2.50 a gallon according to Mikes "Welcome to 2010 Got Urea?" report... http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/01/welcome-to-2010-got-urea-.html#more Not $32 a gallon. I don't think GM and Ford would have gone through with a DEF system if it was going to cost the owners $320(10 gal size tank) at every oil change....

I have been a loyal GM fan for years and have purchased 6 new GM vehicles in 13 years. 4 of which were trucks. GM has not impressed me at all with the latest HD trucks especially with the styling of the 2007 and later trucks. The low hanging frame and IFS are the two main drawbacks. The piss poor body quality and design of the 2007 and later trucks is an issue for me as well. This truck really needs a several surprises to win back (or even maintain) their old customer base or even begin to try to conquest Ford and Dodge customers. I have a feeling that isn’t going to happen and we will once again be disappointed with the GM HD trucks. GM HD trucks will most likely remain the soft palm flit boy offering in the HD pickup line up.

Eric was correct with the $2.50/(US)gallon price The refill interval is the same as oil changes. We'll have to wait and see how much the DEF trucks will cost to run. The current emission systems have caused a 30 - 50 % reduction in fuel efficiency. Even the legislated switch to low sulfur fuel has worsened fuel economy. I personally cannot see the benefits of reducing greenhouse gasses when you end up burning twice as much fuel.

I don't think that it is "greenhouse gasses", but rather particulate pollution (soot) and toxins like Nitrogen Oxide that the EPA says cause respitory problems.

Second, if the urea solution becomes widely used, it will become much cheaper as it will be much cheaper to manufacture in volume.

@Jake - thanks for clarifying - is burning twice as much fuel worth the trade off? That is the point I'm trying to make.
I hope that current diesel emissions are in it's infancy like gasoline engine emissions in the 70's, and things improve.

I don't know if it is worth it. Seems like a lot of extra equipment and stuff to go wrong. On the other hand I do get tired of breathing diesel exhaust on the roads and we are all sharing the same air.

As an aside, I know someone who recently retired from Caterpillar and he said that now-a-days the air coming out of the exhaust pipe on their tractors is cleaner than the air coming in. I thought that was kind of funny.

Guys if the new Powerstroke is reliable that will be enough for me... One sight I read (not this one) said the new 6.7L Ford was supposed to average in the 18 - 19mpg area. How they know I have no idea. IF they get the fuel mileage problem figured out then maybe at some point in the future we can finally get our baby Powerstoke in a F150.

@Lou and Jake - I agree. Whats the point of burning twice as much fuel to save on particulate matter or soot? Kinda of stupid when you think about it. There will always be a trade off somewhere. How much more harmful emissions go into the atmosphere by having to make that much more diesel fuel, which is a by product of gas so it should not be as high as it is anyway...

Lastly even though I'm a Ford guy I will say Chevy makes a damn good truck. If they would change the front end, and give it a little more ground clearance (not 8 feet) It might be on my radar when I go back truck shopping in the fall. When I bought my 2004 F150 I did take a look at some of the Chevy's but they were all 3000 - 5000 more than the Ford in their class. Then again if the new Powerstoke holds up with no major problems I might go that route to... decisions decisions...

The price of urea fluid will go up when more of these trucks are on the road not down. Reason 1: More urea fill stations will have to be built to accomodate the general public. Reason 2: More plants will have to be built to produce enough for demand: And i bet the government is going to want some extra tax on the fluid for road repair or some excuse. Didn't Mike also post a $32.00 gallon urea in europe lately saying bad,mercedes,bad; and Mike wrote the price and use of urea may be the death of diesel? Check it out.

I've got a diesel Chevy that gets 22mpg. 11 city plus 11 hiway.LOL

Gene, a %100 agree with you,DM should read your comments,I think he don't know how low is frame to the ground on Chevy.

My brother supervises road and bridge construction and maintenance.His biggest complaint about Chev 3/4 tons is the low slung frame. He's not a fan of the Chevs. He likes the Dodge 3/4 tons. He hasn't had a Ford company truck in over ten years but the guys he works with love the Ford chassis. His company doesn't buy diesels because the guys out in the field are lucky to get 50 - 60,000 miles out of their trucks before they become too costly to run. They find that there is no return on investment with a diesel truck in that short a time frame.

Hay Ford and Dodge lovers, stop the GM bashing! If you like big rig semi type vehicles that are heavy and ride like a tank then by them. GM trucks may not be as big or heavy as the Ford or Dodge trucks, but in my personal opinion I think they look better and I know they have a better ride, turn sharper and get better fuel economy than the Ford or the Dodge trucks period!

Why so many people here are so quick to bash and belittle GM's trucks I'll never understand. I think GM, Ford and Dodge all make a good truck. When it comes to Diesel engines and transmissions, I think the best Diesel and transmission combination is definitely the Duramax and Allison transmission. Besides, if everyone drove the same brand it would be a boring world out there. So buy what you like and stop the GM bashing.

Bob I agree with you,just one more thing remove this ALUMINUM LADDER from bed, :))),just kidding !

Sorry Bob,but Chevy NOW is not look better than Ford and Dodge.Ride better?Mmmmm,meybe...like car? But I drove a Ford,Dodge and they ride very,very nice !

FORD SUCK'S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you guys sound like you know what you are talkin about...may i ask?
have 2007 2500 hd with a six speed tranny ( long story ) and a 6.0. and 3.73
had 9 new chevy 4x4s all the same. this one has the hotest engine of the bunch...but the tranny feels like a carb. that it to rich...
harry.ruffino @knology.net
thanks

That's a nice looking truck...IMO

That's the current model pictured, not the 2011. All the same, as stated a high frame is kinda pointless on a rig meant for loading and hauling...