Consumer Reports Chooses 2014 Chevrolet Silverado As Top Pickup Truck

 1 Chevy Silverado II
 

By Aaron Bragman

Influential consumer testing organization Consumer Reports has ranked the 2014 Chevrolet Silverado pickup as its top pickup truck choice, scoring the freshly redesigned truck above the 2013 Ram 1500 and the previously tested Ford F-150. The Silverado garnered a score of 81 points out of 100, just edging out the Ram's score of 78 points in a recent head-to-head comparison test by the publication, but the scores did not fully indicate how close the two trucks were in subjective testing.

The Silverado edged the Ram in objective numbers, coming out tops in payload capacity, tow rating, fuel economy, step-in height and the size of its bed — but the Ram 1500 was rated by CR's testers as "the better car." They cite it as a better daily driver, with more comfortable seating for passengers, better controls and quicker acceleration while still maintaining its own hefty pickup truck ratings. In the end, despite giving the nod to the redesigned Silverado, the organization said that "you can't go wrong with either truck." CR tested the Silverado LT crew cab with a 5.3-liter V-8 and four-wheel drive as well as the Ram Big Horn with a 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 and eight-speed transmission. You can see Consumer Reports' article on the Silverado's win here (subscription required for full article).

Earlier this year, PickupTrucks.com held its own Light-Duty Challenge, giving the nod to the Ford F-150 equipped with the EcoBoost V-6 engine as the top truck due largely to its own objective qualifications (power, towing, etc.). But the winner of our own subjective contest was the Ram 1500, with PickupTrucks.com's editors agreeing that the Ram's interior comfort, power and user-friendly electronics made it the most pleasant place to spend time. The Ram placed just a hair out of winning our own competition as well, with fewer than 13 points separating it from the Ford's top score. Have a look to see how we scored the latest batch of light-duty trucks here.

Chevy Cones II

 

Comments

All 3 trucks, Chevy, F150, and Ram are significantly improved over the past 10 years. Unfortunately prices for high optioned 1/2-tons are exorbitant. My 2002 Chevy 2500 4x4 LT Crew Cab Duramax/Allison stickered for $47,000 new...which was outrageous then. $47,000 won't even get you a loaded 1/2 ton gasoline truck in the same configuration. I guarantee that 60% of the buyers of these trucks can't afford them. They will put little to no money down and finance them for 84 months with a payment of $600.00. That's why the US is in such big trouble financially, because our sorry public school system doesn't teach basic finances. That's why the rich get richer and the middle class and poor get poorer. The rich know how to handle money. They don't finance ANYTHING....especially things that depreciate. NEWS FLASH.....If you can't pay cash for a vehicle, you can't afford that vehicle!!!

Not so fast my friend. If there was no financing of anything then no one could afford to buy, which would halt manufacturing, which would create massive layoffs. Out of control spending is bad, no one argues that. Spending more than you need is also bad. Millions of people are financing houses and cars and having no trouble making payments.

I have to agree with Dale Milner, but the problems arise when people finance themselves too deeply and the lenders are all too willing to help/encourage this mentality. Ever see ads promoting financing regardless of past credit history? All just to get product off their lots! Its one vicious circle!

I don't have a problem with financing. If there were no financing then everything would seize up and the economy would be in the gutter. BUT I do agree with the fact that people need to stop buying stuff if they know they can't afford it or its going to put them at risk. My general rule of thumb is to keep ALL of my payments to half of my monthly pay. So if I make $3000 a month in bring home pay (after taxes) then I keep my bills to $1500 or under a month. If you are married or if you have another second source of income then obviously this would be higher.

@Shawn - No wonder you can’t get financing, at $3K a month, you make $36K a year in take home pay...lol.

Where do you work at McDonald’s? Can I get a Big Mac, a Chocolate Shake and fries please?

@nlp Your remark about financing really boggles the mind. Today's interest rates are dirt cheap, unless you have lousy credit. I'm no millionaire but my mailbox is jammed with mail every day from banks and other lenders wanting to re finance my already cheap rates.

I agree that prices for trucks are crazy but the dealers want those leather seats and electronic upgrades because they are juicy with mark-up and the buying public wants it.

The build quality and drivetrains on todays half ton trucks are out of this world compared to the stuff that they were building in the 1980s.

@fake Lou

Who cares where he works. He was just giving a "common sense" example...

Ford will be along soon enough to squash this thing like a bug. Count on it.

@ nip: Try watching an episode of 'airplane repo' sometime.The rich stay rich by not paying their bills,lol.

Look back into automobile finance history. You have not always been able to finance a vehicle. It's very much a 1970's to present idea.

Look, financing is not evil. However, you should not finance ANYTHING that depreciates in value. Financing a Home, Law or Medical degree USUALLY (not always) pays dividends in the future. Financing a vehicle, boat, furniture, tires, etc are wealth-sapping propositions in both the short-run and long-run.

so funny how noone has reviewed the new tundra............ the ride quality and interior are second to none now. I know why they did the test before the 14 came out now! throttle response is completely different, the interior is quieter, the ride is REALLY comfortable, and the materials are 10 times as nice as the others now.

While I agree with you basic premise that the USA needs to move back to a credit system instead of debt system, the rich are not rich because they are more financially astute.

They are rich because they serve the 0.1% parasite/criminal class.

@ nip: Henry Ford was the first to introduce factory financing a long time ago.

I bought a new 2011 F250 for $47k and put down $24k from my trade in, financed the rest for 3% @ 48 months. Are you saying I wasn't wise to do finance it because it'll depreciate? The majority of people can't afford a car/truck purchase without some lending. IMO financing homes/vehicles/student loans are fine, anything else I wouldn't finance. But I'd never finance a car or truck with 0 down for 72 months.

And Consumer Report's love affair with all things GM continues. At least they didn't name Avalanche as the "Best Truck" this year like the usually do. This guys at CR have lost all credibility and do not even deserve an article about them on this site. The deciding factors of what decides the "Best Truck" is laughable at best, and has nothing to do about how a truck is meant to be used. Instead, it's how much a truck is like a car. Stick to reviewing Priuses CR.

@ Matt. My last 3 vehicles were 0 down @ 60 mo. Why? Vehicle was cheaper than used in the long run or just about break even since used cars do not get 0 or 0.9% finanacing. My last car (2012 Odyssey) was loaded to the gild for the wife. Off course, I still own my last 2 cars and they are 7 to 12 yrs old. Usually had the majority of the money in the bank, but life (ahem ... marriage and family) happened and financing was the right choice. Of course, the wife will not get another vehicle for at leat 10 yr, and one of my other vehicles will be sold to put some change into my much deservered new diesel truck. Why? Because I want one.

It sure seems like the truck differentiate themselves by: work truck, car comfort, towing features.

I think a lot of the payload and towing is very close that I don't make it a decision to be made. I want to know about the ride quality (suspension, noise, steering, overall feel), durability, and when stuff is going to fall apart or rust. With a 1/2 ton I tow my sport boat, so I want towing features that are commonly found in the 3/4 ton. I hope Ford does a complete refresh, as I think the F150 looks like a cheap toy. There was a good video review between Ford and Ram done by Edmunds that demonstrated the transmission differences and noise. I'd like to see a lot more of those video reviews, so we can all be subjective in our evaluation.

It's a good looking truck. I've read quite a few positive reviews on it so maybe Chevrolet got their act together.? I question how much staying power it will have when the Atlas comes out still. That and the upcoming Ram. They're gonna have to stay on top of this thing that's for sure.

@ FordTrucks1: The 2015 Ford pickup will not be called the Atlas--it will be the F-150. Ford will never retire the F-Series name; it has more recognition than any other model name they've used since the Model T.
The 2015 model may borrow some styling from the Atlas (personally, I hope it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there), but it will be called an F-150.-

But yes, the 2014 Silverado is a good-looking pickup. Better than the outgoing model, that's for sure. The only way I can look at a GMT900 model and think it's good-looking is if I compare the front grille to that of the 1967-68 C-Series, which was one of the best-looking pickups ever.

Test post--are my posts getting through the system?

Dang it, it looks like they are. Sorry for clogging up the comments section here.

Good job GM keep on winning awards and reviews!

I love it! It's a huge step up from the 900 platform, though most would agree that this is what the 900 should have been 7 years ago. In spite of it all, I love the new Silverado.

I am going to try and pay $ cash for my new Power Wagon 392 Hemi V8. Gotta love those Ram trucks. Always at the top of the list or the winner.

Also looking into buying my wife a new SRT 8 Chrysler 300. 392 Hemi V8 with 470 Horsepower and 470 ft lbs of tire melting torque.

Matt,
I'll use you for an example:
Quoting you, "I bought a new 2011 F250 for $47k and put down $24k from my trade in, financed the rest for 3% @ 48 months"

Autos.com reports the average car loses a minimum of between 6 and 9 percent of its value the minute it leaves the lot, with the actual amount depending on the vehicle. CarsDirect reports that the amount can be as high as 20 percent.

Let's assume your 2011 F250 only lost 6% when you drove it off the lot. That's $47K x 0.06 = $2820 (buying new). Total depreciation after 4 years is 40%-60%, Let's assume 40% = $18,800
You likely could have sold your $24K trade-in yourself and recouped at least an extra $1000.
Then you financed $23,000 for 48 months at 3%. Using an online calculator, you paid a total of $1500 in interest over 48 mo.
By buying new and financing you cost yourself $21,300 more than if you had purchased a 4 year old F250 and paid cash. (Yes, you would likely have some repair/reconditioning costs buying a 4 yr old vehicle vs new. Let's use $1300. You still spent an extra $20,000.

I remember about 5-10 years ago, some MBA school did some research and estimated that the average US citizen will loose $100,000 in net worth over their lifetime by buying new vehicles vs used plus finance charges.

$100,000 is a lot of money for the AVERAGE us citizen to throw away over their lifetime. Consider that the average 401K balance in the US is only $80,900 (which is nothing compared to what's needed for retirement).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/05/23/average-us-401k-balance-tops-80000-up-75-percent-since-200/

My point with all of this it the US is in a huge financial crisis.
1-in-5 are on food stamps and welfare. Citizen's and government waste far too much money. Our education system is largely to blame. Our schools, parents, and government have done a lousy job teaching citizens how to make and save money. I tell my children every day...want to be rich? Do what rich people do. What to be poor, do what everyone else does. Fortunately my wife and I can afford to send our kids to a great private school. All these kids are exposed to other successful kids and families. Success breeds success, and unfortunately poverty too often breeds more poverty.

One thing the US needs to do tomorrow is to end Social Security and Medicare for ALL citizens with over $500,000/yr in income or over $5 Million in net worth.

@nlp
Most poor countries don't have a system of freehold title to land. This is one of the reasons that has made the OECD rich. Collateral.

Borrowing for a vehicle seems to be a necessity for most. Investing in a motor vehicle doesn't make you money per say, but allows you to gain money as a tool.

That's what motor vehicles are, they are first and foremost tools of trade, to transport, just like a hammer drives in a nail.

We are fortunate enough to have the capacity to buy vehicles we really don't need or use.

A system of debt has come around to allow business to increase. Sooner down the track interest rates will rise. But I can't see that occurring for some time.

Rates have to be kept low to encourage people to borrow and spend to turn and improve the US economy.

Even the government is borrowing and literally throwing money into the US economy and giving handouts to businesses to spend.

The problems is all of this borrowing will have to be paid back.

I pay cash for my new vehicles, no I'm not rich I just put saved up money for my first truck over a period of years and ever since I have starting putting money away for the new one right away. Much cheaper to have the money earning interest then to pay interest on a loan and you have to make a payment anyway so why not make payments to yourself then pay cash when its time to buy.

Ok, Chevy is the best truck, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (at least with intelligent truck buyers). But yes, the cost is way too high and everyone knows brand loyalty trumps being a better truck. People continue to buy the Tundra, a junk truck with no redeeming qualities. The ford girls won't admit they know GM trucks are better. The the difference between the trucks will always be loyalty. I won't need a new truck for years. My 99 GMC is a better truck at 14 years old than a brand new Ram. It would be nice if the 2014's still cost what the 99's did.

I have to disagree with CR about the Ram being more comfortable for passengers then the Chevy. The Chevy has three inches more front leg room when equipped with the bucket seats also the Passenger floorboard on the Ram is like a van with a big hump on the floor. The Ram does have a better taller backrest on the backseat but everything else is better on the Chevy comfort wise.

@nlp don't discount variables such as my 2011 250 was purchased 1 year after it was produced, so it was technically 1 year old on the lot and still brand new. Also the window sticker was nearly $54k and I paid $47k. Additionally my trade in ($24k) was on a 2009 Tacoma, owned (brand new) by me, for 3 years, and I paid $28,600 for it new. So my Tacoma cost me $4600 over 3 years. You're forgetting many Toyota's do not depreciate like Ford and GM. Also, I didn't want a 4 year old 250 with a 6.0 diesel, I wanted the 6.7 diesel. And the last thing is I drive a 98 4runner as my primary car and my 250 stays pristine, not depreciating at your arbitrary annual 6-8%. I can guarantee my truck will not have depreciated 40-60% in 4 years. Those numbers are absurd. Yes vehicles depreciate, but come on, at some point depreciation hits a plateau. At your logic, in 8 years I literally can't give my truck away. And maybe if you were paying attention you'd notice new truck sales are through the roof right now, for all manufacturers. A blind-folded Stevie Wonder could see that helps the price of used vehicles to maintain, or even appreciate in value.. But I guess this guy with an 825 credit score shouldn't buy new cars b/c nlp said so.

Matt, you should have gotten at least 10K off that F-250, I would have gotten at least 12K off it was sitting on the lot for a year.

Rick I got $8345 off the sticker. I don't think $12k was going to happen.

@David, I guess the new F-150 is what I meant. It's just a habit I have to call it Atlas. Yes, the gmt900 model Silverado's were pretty ugly. I think this new one is sharp though. It's like the classic square body trucks from 73-87 meets a little gmt400. Two winners in my book. I also agree with ya on the prior truck. Those 67-72 Chevrolet models are hands down the best looking trucks built by anyone before or since. I liked their stuff from the 50's too. Chevrolet had good looking design down pat for years-decades there for sure. This new Silverado is turning the tide back to the good stuff design wise. Still, Ford won't sit back and just let this happen. Ram won't either now that their on a roll.

I live in Baltimore, they have crew cab Fords and Dodges listed for 10-12K off sticker before any negotiation even begins.

@Matt
The price you stated that your Taco cost isn't an accurate depiction of the transaction that occurred.

Change over price is what counts. I mean are you better off paying $18 000 for a new truck with a $1 000 trade in valuation. Or are you better off paying $100 000 for a new truck with a $90 000 trade in?

Wow cr for one make a good choice about time somebody stop to over rating ford...and good job ram....

please stop with the square fenders. man those are ugly. the front is not very attractive either. the interior needs work as well. to much stuff in the wrong place. ford and dodge are still far better

@hemilol,

It is because nothing else has changed to give it more points other then it may pick up two points in interior. That is it, everything else is the same. A slight tune to the suspension (IE a slight change in shock pressure or rebound rate) isn't enough to give it a great ride or correct the infamous bed bounce. They need to fix that wet noodle of a chassis first to fix that. Same poor mpg mid pack motor. Throttle response? LOL, that is good for maybe a tenth of a point? Was that even a problem before in tests?

Long story short, nothing new to test that would make a difference.

NO!!!!! Not all trucks have the same payload and towing. Also, towing X amount of pounds is not that same in all of them either because each manufacturer has their own idea of what towing is. To some, it is barely having enough power to keep speed going up hills at 7,000lbs and to others it is having power to spare.

2014 CHEVY Silverado Ecotec 5.3L (355hp/383lb-ft) 3.08 rear end with a tow rating of 6,600 towing 5,700 lbs-
It can't even keep speed with RPMS in the 5,000 in first gear and I doubt a 3.42 rear end would do much better. Apparently Chevys idea of towing is not even being able to pull the weight they say it can tow.
http://youtu.be/93bojH6syDQ

2013 TOYOTA Tundra i-Force 5.7L (381hp/401lb-ft) 4.30 rear end with a tow rating of 10,000 lbs(truck has HD tow package) towing 7,200 lbs.
The Tundra does well at first but has they have to keep it floored as the grade increases with 4,000+ rpm. Apperantly Toyotas Idea of towing is having just enough to pull the weight they say it can. -Keep in mind the Toyota is the only one going by SAE J2807 towing standards.-
http://youtu.be/cqv1QvyPEvE

2013 Ford F150 Ecoboost 3.5L (365hp/420lb-ft) 3.73 rear ratio with a tow rating of 9,600 lbs(truck does NOT have HD tow package) towing a 7,200 trailer.
The F150 easily tows the same trailer the Tundra towed with less rpms in higher gears and had plenty of power left to accelerate. Apparently Ford's idea of towing is being able to not only pull the weight they say it can but have power to spare while doing it. The bad part is that the stupid guy put the trailer brake control gain too much to the truck so the truck was doing all the stopping and heating up the brakes.
http://youtu.be/eq05bNUaBnU

Tests like this is what CR should have considered when doing their test because not all trucks pull the same. Not if the truck feels enough like a car.

The chevy is better then it was but what most truck web sites say is it is still behind ford and dodge by a large margin.

The tundra is a warmed over model that has been out classed for yrs compared to real american vehicles.

The titan will be a real test for foreign companies who assemble vehicles here. If it's not a odd design like the tundra it should gain market share with its new truck.

The new diesel engines coming in the ram and nissan will be interesting to see. If they can pull down 28 to 30 mpg that may justify the price but if they only average 25 mpg then the ecoboost will remain supreme.

The best of the best!

@Dan - I'm sure that you find yourself completely amusing and the very fact that I am answering one of your posts must have you firing a wad into your coloured underwear (yellow front, brown back). Ultimately, your cowardice hurts PUTC and if you do have a problem with Square Fenders then you should have the intestinal fortitude to debate me face to face without hiding behind your fat ass.

@truckguy
From what I've read not many here have towed and reasonable weight.

Even towing 5 000lbs behind a vehicle is considerable and it has a significant impact on any gas powered vehicle.

I do think diesel will be better at towing, not for speed, but the ability to pull the weight much cheaper.

I will be interested to see a Hemi powered Ram up against the VM diesel Ram in a towing shootout.

But most will judge how quickly the vehicle acclerates under load rather than the overall performance of the vehicle.

It's the overall performance of a vehicle that you assess when purchasing a vehicle. If you buy a pickup because it has a 1/4" more rear legroom or 2hp more or whatever else these phan boi's argue about. Then you will buy a vehicle you just don't need or suit your requirements.

I think at the end of the day when you buy a pickup, by one that suits your needs, not by a brand name. Brand name guys are superficial people in real life.

To the guys who are men (not the inexperienced school kids) how often does the woman in your life influence what you buy? Even a pickup.

If you want a Ford and she likes the Chev pickup and says you ain't gettin no pickup honey unless you buy the one I like, I bet most men will buy what she wants, just so you can have a pickup irrespective of brand.

My ex-ex used to own a Corolla, but somehow she always ended up driving my 4x4 dual cab and I drove the Corolla.

That's life.

Payload? Sure, Chevy won that. Towing capacity? The 5.3 Chevy is rated to tow more then the hemi, thanks to 17 year olds making up Chevys tow ratings, lol, are we really to believe a 5.3 truck will out tow an 8 speed hemi or Ecoboost? Only if you your Chevy blinders on, or have the same mentality as the so called engineers that rate the Chevys. Maybe during one of these shootouts they will take them to max tow. Maybe they will run them somewhere hilly? The SAE rating needs to be used, the Ford, the Chevy, and the Ram six speed will all lose towing numbers.

Fuel economy? The Ram v-6 betters the Chivy, the 5.3 betters the hemi, in both situations the one with better mileage packs less power then what it was compared to. So better mileage, less power.

Step in height? I would be highly surprised if that fulltime lowrider Chivy has any less higher step in then an lowered air ride Ram.

Size of the bed? The Chevy was narrower last I checked between wheelwells, and other places. But then again, it's Consumer Reports, they don't know what they want.

Here's one nobody talked about: ride height, can you even go anywhere in the snow in the Chivy? Atleast Ram has an optional air ride to clear obstacles.

Lou (from BC) will be along to say the air ride isn't the end all be all for trucks. Hey Lou, I never said it was PERFECT, it should increase payload, and it restrict drag racing times ( it doesn't allow the vehicle to squat during accelation, engergy must go somewhere, it spins the tires) and if you want to do extensive offroading, if it heats up, it aint the best for that. But like lightning Lou said, alot of us barely need the offroad, so once in awhile.

Now lets see what Consumer Retorts says about the Ecodiesel...Chevy doesn't have one of those right? No comparison!

What about the safety aspect, CR fails to mention the Ram has marginal ratings for roll over safety.

I like that statement: Step in height ...., what are you a bunch of Mex's... Hell its on the ground, and why the hell with the Grandma step. surely a feature to get bent the hell out of.....
Lets get it off the ground, My Grandma is not driving this...
GM products suck .. Not impressed at all...... I have had one for 16 years and now have saved up money to buy a F350 or a Ram 3500 ....To hell with GM......

Dear Ram trucks. Please do NOT lower the height on 4x4 Ram trucks. If you want a low rider buy a Rumble Bee, or a 2 wheel drive, or all wheel drive car. Cheby is the worst for off road ground clearance. Some of us actually use 4x4 for off road. The more clearance the better to a point. In fact i lifted my Ram 4 inches from stock height to get the engine out of deep water crossings and break over angles.

THANK YOU.
your concerned customer

@ALL1 stop trolling. We've seen what Chevy can do with 3.42, is was on the heals of Ram's 5.7L with the 8 speed with 3.55s and Fords Eco boost with 3.73s in the light duty shoot out. 3.73s in the Chevy will run with the Eco bust easy look at motor tends numbers.

CR has a bunch of creeps working for them over there. They are not credible and know nothing about trucks. Why would we listen to them?



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com