Yep, for the same price I can have a F-150, with the creature comforts, mileage would be close or better and I can tow 11,000 lbs, not that I need to, mind you.

GM built this solely to say they have the only Hybrid Truck. Many diss it while others praise it. I'd rather take an Ecoboost F150. No Thanks!

The hybrid truck has many disadvantages...

1. Price
2. Hybrid package only comes with the fancier trims
3. Lower towing rating
4. Reliability??????

Everyone spends so much time on the disadvantages, why doesn't anyone test the hybrid in ways that show just how well the hybrid can do?? The EPA has the same (agressive) tests to determine the MPG rating for all cars. The EPA rating is crappy because if you drive aggressively the hybrid cant do its job. With changes in driving technique and more conservative methods (and no this doesnt mean drive 25mph all the time) the hybrid will really kick ass in the MPG department.

Until the bugs are worked out though, the 3.7v6 in the 2011 F150 may be a better option.

The facts is, Chevy still is the KING of fuel economy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The facts is, Chevy still is the KING of fuel economy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

All within the eye of the beholder.

@ David That same driving technique will get you better mileage in a non hybrid vehicle as well. Problem with hybrids is the miles needed to drive to recoupe the intial investment. Everything suffers from towing to payload etc so in my mind time to payoff is very important. The EPA system is not perfect but it levels the playing feild so all vehicles are tested under identicle conditions. Its kind of ironic that because of the test procedure used it discourages some technologies that increase mileage in real world driving like auto engine start/stop. Its becoming common on alot of european cars. You come to a red light, engine shuts off when you stop and no fuel is wasted. Light goes green, step in the gas and engine fires up and away you go. EPA test has very little idle time so automakers a reluctant to invest in a tech that will not boost EPA numbers regardless of real world benefit.

@Bobby

The 2011 epa ratings have been released and no changes are in for the 4.3, 4.8, @5.3. For 2011, the f150 line up will be the 3.7v6, 5.0, &3.5 ecoboost. Ford will also being offering the 6 spd auto with all of the engines. GM does not offer the 6 spd with the 4.3 and 4.8, my opinion, GM has been neglecting its base engines. When the EPA ratings for the F150 comes out, there will be a new king. My 2006 Silverado has the 5.3 with 295hp and 335ft/lb. I do not tow loads over 6000lbs. Why get the 5.3 when the 3.7v6 will make almost as much power?

@Jordan

I hypermile with my 2006 Silverado, I have a 4x2 w/ the 5.3 and 3.23 gears. The ratio is now a bit higher since I now have 265/70/17s. I have been trying to perfect my driving techniques over the last year and I continue to improve. This summer I'm commonly getting 24-25mpg highway and 22mpg in combined (70%hwy/30%city) driving. When my Firestone All terrains wear down I will switch to a highway tire, with a LRR tire, I bet my mpgs will increase (consumer reports testing looks promising). My truck doesnt have AFM, it doesnt have the "improved" aerodynamics and it does not have the 6spd auto but I'm still able to get amazing numbers.

Despite my improvements, you can only do so much with a non-hybrid engine. So much fuel is wasted during acceleration and even during coasting, the truck continues to idle. With a hybrid, you can take hypermiling to a different level. Some of the techniques used by hypermilers are complicated but If someone with a prius can get 150-200% of the EPA rating, the same concept can be applyed to the silverado hybrid, I bet a combined 30mpg in the silverado would be a piece of cake. And regarding the EPA's tests, there is more idling than you think,

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510.

It is all about exploiting technology, and the hybrid silverado can be exploited in ways that a plain 5.3 can't. Of course the 5.3 with AFM is a good target for hypermiling as well. The 3.7v6 and 3.5EB seem to have a lot of potential. The big thing I'm waiting for is the 1/2 ton diesel. Now if the idea of diesel hybrids was put in a truck?

@Jordan

Of course, breaking even regarding the extra cost of a hybrid is going to be tough. With my best driving techniques I bet It would still take me 4-5 yrs to re-coup the cost. Instead of trying to break even, the better option may be to jump ahead at the very start. I again go back to the 2011 Ford F150 line-up. The 3.7v6 is getting me very excited. It is lightyears ahead of the vortec 4.3 and the magnum 3.7. It is also the only v6 in the big three that will be offered with a 6 spd transmission. I dont know how the 3.7 will be re-runed when put in the F150 (it will make 305hp & 280ft/lbs in the mustang) but it will likely leave GM's 4.3/4.8 in the dust and give the 5.3 a run for its money.

Now dont count GM out. The 5.3 is offered with Active Fuel Management. GM states AFM is good for a 5 to 7.5% improvement in MPGs, but if you learn how AFM works and how you can stay in AFM, the possibilities for awesome MPGs is there.

GM, either update the 4.3/4.8 or get rid of them. If Ford can put the mustangs 3.7 in the F150, why cant GM put the camaro's 3.6 in the Silverado??

@ David Thats pretty good mileage. I can`t touch that with my 92 Dakota. I`m sure that a diesel could be offered for similar price to a hybrid power train with the benefit of torque and longevity. The long term reliabilty of all the high tech gear to make hybrids work is unproven. Lets see what they are like 10-15 years from now. As far as V6`s go the 3.7 magnum will dissapear when the 3.6 Pentastar shows up it looks as impressive as the 3.7l ford. With all GM`s high tech 6s you would think that they would ditch that ancient 4.3l. And for the idling of the EPA tests, it can`t compare to rush hour in the city. Thats exactly where start/stop tech would really help. Of course it would take awhile to get enough on the road to make a difference buy you gotta start somewhere.

Everyone is missing the point. This truck is ugly and outdated.

Isn't this GM's second attempt at this? Isn't this what was wrong with the first one? you would think they would have learned thier lessen instead of building just about the exact same thing.

It's a dang shame we bailed out GM. They are back to the same old tricks. The silverado hybrid is a pathetic joke, underpowered, expensive, & complicated. All around a total failure. Which is just what they wanted. This smoke and mirror show reminds me of a guy wearing a pointed hat, oohing and aawing a few spectators with his chemistry set in about the year 1300!
Mike. Your 'friends' at autoblog green did a nice report on the hy-pa drive F150 what 2 years ago?

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/10/25/sema-2008-preview-pml-flightlink-to-show-ford-f-150-phev/

Pml split, now the concept is in the hands of a company you never heard of and problaly never will.
http://www.proteanelectric.com
Raser-( http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/the-electric-h3)
tried to buy hummer so they could start making 100mpg vehicles. Gm 'wisley' refused seeing as how it would have made EVERYTHING they produce uncompetitive. Gm would have went the way of buggy whip manufacturers. Selling Hummer to the Chinese apparently would not have bothered them as the 100 mpg vehicles would never have made it here anyway... what with the chicken tax and all.
Volvo has it's recharge concept. I wonder if that may actually come to something now that they are no longer strangled by ford.
Saab had a plug-in electric hybrid ? 2 ? years before the volvo recharge collaberation announcement of march 2008.
E-traction had buses running around the Netherlands more than 5 years ago powered by diesel but driven by electricity. The in wheel motors have no problem with cold or moisture it seems. (As a side-bar; Turns out emmissions are easy to control in a diesel that runs at a constant RPM)
Gm's Volt concept is a baby step. Better technology has been shown numerous times by different companies and individuals. But here we are more than a hundred years after Ferdinand Porche first intorduced his hybrid in 1898 and we still drive the 'loser' tech.
Yes loser.
Steam engines were faster and more powerful.
Electrics were quieter and less smelly and lasted longer- a real hit with the ladies.
Diesels are more powerful and frugal at the same time.
Yet here we are driving gas. Wanting something better but being told by the same manufacturerers that isolate themselves from workers, that is just is not possible. Do your really still believe that tripe?

@ Jordan

The idea of the diesel is great, but since no one is putting one out I'm not going to really talk about it.

We dont really have rush hour traffic in the OKC metro area, but I have a garmin in my truck that measures how much time the truck is stopped. On average my truck idles 60minutes for each tank, I dont sit in parking lots idling just to run the AC, 60 minutes is just the time I spend waiting for the green lights. My truck consumes about .45 gal/hr during idling w/ the truck in N, about .6 gal/hr w/ the truck in D, and about .7 to .8 gal/hr with the AC on.

I took my truck in to have it serviced because of a AC problem (the wife likes the AC). I had about 330 miles on the tank and was at about 21.8 mpg for the tank. When I came to pick up the truck, my scan guage estimated the truck had been idled for 45-50 minutes while at the shop. My gas milage for the tank dropped to 20.8.

"Alot" of idling is relative to where you live, but you dont have to live in a big city to know it is wasteful. I try to minimize my idling by picking my routes carefully, timing traffic lights (if you travel the same route everyday, you can learn the lights like the back of your hand).

www.cleanmpg.com did a review on the 2008 Yukon Hybrid, I gives a small taste of what the hybrid is capable of in heavy traffic.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7448

Frank is right if you want the best MPG in a pickup want tell the 3.5L EB engine from ford comes out !! It would put this chevy to shame!!

The idea of the Silverado Hybrid was simply to be the first to the market. I wouldn't be surprised if the other makers follow suit soon.

Regarding the 3.5 ecoboost, I don't expect the EPA rating to be that much better than the 5.3, mainly because the EPA is rather agressive (just like most drivers) BUT, The potential to hypermile with the 3.5 EB is great! If chevy doesn't get on the ball and update their engine line-up, Ford's 3.7v6, 5.0, & 3.5 EB are looking really good!! Brand loyalty only goes so far, Chevy needs to keep up.

Ford will be the new MPG KING.

Ford will be the King of blown head gaskets. LOL.

@David - excellent posts. People's driving habits have a huge effect on MPG.
I was reading through the post on Ford hitting the 800 lb/ft mark. One of the guys commented that the reason why everyone is making these high powered diesels is so people can drive at high speeds pulling a load.
I agree.
Commercial truckers use their heads and plan ahead for steep grades etc. Civilian drivers tend to lumber along without thinking ahead.They mash the pedal expecting the vehicle to compensate for their lack of skill. I see this time and time again at traffic lights and on-ramps.
HD pickup capacity is at the point where unskilled drivers are going to start killing people.
Tourist season is real scary when you get 80 yr. olds in geyhound bus sized motorhomes pulling large trailers. These same guys think they can run these things down gravel roads.

@ Lou

Now lets go from the Ford SuperDuty to 1/2 ton diesels. I dont need gobs of power to haul ass, Just give me the power I need to haul consistantly/safely/reliably.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/06/geneva-motor-show-cadillac-unveils-new-2-9l-v6-diesel-for-cts/

The link goes to an article that a few years old. It talks about the "New" GM 2.9 diesel for a cadillac CTS. The engine has long been canceled. Now if the 2.9 was still around, why would i need the 4.5L diesel when the 2.9L would have made 250hp and 400ft/lb of torque??

My point? Instead of concentrating on how to squeeze more and more torque out of a diesel engine, keep the torque the same but find ways to make the engine smaller and more efficient. IE, GM's 2.9 diesel.

@ David - 2.9L diesel pickup. Doesn't sound very manly to me ;) There lies the problem!