2016 GMC Sierra 1500 Adds Jolt of Electricity

2016-GMC-Sierra-eAssist-048 II

By Brian Wong

GMC announced today that it will add a mild hybrid system to the Sierra 1500 half-ton pickup, which it said will improve both fuel economy and performance.

The eAssist system will be available only on 2016 Sierra 1500 SLT crew-cab two-wheel-drive models with the SLT Premium Plus Package. GMC said it will make only 200 eAssist models this year (all to be released in California) and then adjust the mix across the country if the system proves to be popular. It pairs with GM's 5.3-liter V-8 engine, which is standard on this trim level. Final pricing for the new powertrain system has not been announced at this time, but new eAssist pickups should be getting to California dealerships by May. 

As a mild hybrid system, eAssist is very different from the full hybrid powertrains once found in the Sierra 1500 and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (discontinued after the 2013 model year). Those pickups could cruise on electric power at speeds of up to 30 mph, but that's not the case with eAssist. Rather, it serves to augment the capability of the V-8 off the line and at speed, providing an extra 44 pounds-feet of torque and 13 horsepower in situations where an extra boost of power is needed for a short amount of time. Additionally, the use of the electric mode enables the engine to stay in four-cylinder mode longer and more often in certain situations. 

The electric motor also doubles as a generator, capturing energy during braking to recharge the battery. The battery is a 24-cell 0.45 kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack situated underneath the middle of the front seat and weighs roughly 100 pounds.

GMC also has layered other fuel-saving technologies into the eAssist system, including stop-start capability and aerodynamic improvements such as a soft tonneau cover and active grille shutters, which close at speeds more than 30 mph.

The EPA estimates that adding the eAssist system will bring fuel economy to 18/24/20 mpg city/highway/combined, an improvement of 2 mpg for each category. Adding the eAssist system doesn't affect the Sierra 1500's capability; its max trailering rating remains at 9,400 pounds, and we assume payload capacity is down slightly given the extra weight. 

Manufacturer image

 

2016-GMC-Sierra eAssist logo II

 

Comments

The RAM EcoDiesel is still better than GM's latest effort from a pure MPG standpoint. The problem I have with Hybrids (mild or full) is that it's another layer of technology added to the vehicle that can and will need maintenance if one owns it long enough.

Turbo Diesels give better bang for the buck, despite the gouging by the Truck Makers... Perhaps more folks would adopt TDI's if GM / RAM and Ford used the price model similar to Land Rover.

Sounds like something that might pick up steam later onsite Ram and maybe Ford. 9400 lbs is about what the Ram tows. How come people on here only give Ram a hard time for tow ratings?

2020 Bronco Pics -- move over Jeep

http://www.bronco6g.com/forums/showthread.php?46-2020-Ford-Bronco-Concept-Rendering


"an improvement of 2 mpg for each category"
That's BS. There's no way the 2 MPG improvement can be sustained for long periods of time.

I agree with Ed: that's just another layer of technology that can break.

No one cares about diesel in 1/2 ton pickups.
It doesn't make any sense: costs more, payback is on the order of a decade-if ever, lower performance, more diesel issues: lack of heat, requires plugging in temperatures below 0F, fuel:water separator maintenance.

GM should just bring out the 10 speed automatic to replace the 8 speed. That would allow an axle ratio change-to the taller, and result in one extra MPG city & highway.

To date GMs eassist effort has resulted in extremely anemic fuel economy gains. This is because the electric motor can only provide a very small amount of torque (and hence can only apply a small amount of torque in the form of braking effort to add to regenerative braking, hopefully they have improved upon the system (but I really doubt it).

Chrysler is planning to add a similar system across the board on many vehicles in the near future, but is particularly looking to add this system to the Ram truck line and at least some jeep models (ack!).

To date GMs eassist effort has resulted in extremely anemic fuel economy gains. This is because the electric motor can only provide a very small amount of torque (and hence can only apply a small amount of torque in the form of braking effort to add to regenerative braking, hopefully they have improved upon the system (but I really doubt it).

Chrysler is planning to add a similar system across the board on many vehicles in the near future, but is particularly looking to add this system to the Ram truck line and at least some jeep models (ack!).

Value of this system depends on how you drive.

If you spend a lot of time in stop/go driving it's a big advantage.

Cruise the Interstate a lot? Not so much.

Value of this system depends on how you drive.

If you spend a lot of time in stop/go driving it's a big advantage.

Cruise the Interstate a lot? Not so much.

2020 Bronco Pics -- move over Jeep

http://www.bronco6g.com/forums/showthread.php?46-2020-Ford-Bronco-Concept-Rendering


I would buy a jeep over this ugly thing and i hate jeeps

Jeeps are for Girls, especially Wranglers. Bronco FTW.

Not a fan of AFM or tiny motors with multiple turbos, but I like them better than any hybrid pickup idea. Hopefully we get an administration that will put a leash on the EPA and let trucks be trucks. Batteries are very fossil fuel intensive to build, so you start in a hole (emissions wise) before you ever use one. Am I a caveman stuck in the past? Quite possibly.

Maximus - tow ratings accompanied with poor cargo ratings means poor GCWR.

No point having a crewcab pickup and towing close to max and legally having to leave all your passengers at the curbside along with any extra gear.

@PapaJim - agreed. It will be good for frequent stop start.

Since this also engages at highway speeds (when reg hybrids do not), I think this could help when passing, hill climbing, etc while cruising. Those little bursts of power can kill your mpg's.
But I doubt it will make sense when we see the added expense. Pay me now, or pay me later.

Sounds like something that might pick up steam later onsite Ram and maybe Ford. 9400 lbs is about what the Ram tows. How come people on here only give Ram a hard time for tow ratings?
Posted by: Maximus | Feb 25, 2016 8:26:32 AM

Like the others said, the Ram lacks payload capability. (Tops out around 1780 lb, most have 1500-1600 lb or less with the ram box). Even a Colorado can be had with a 1590 lb payload rating.

The GMC in this article only has a 9400 lb rating because it has 3.42 gears for better FE. If it had 3.73's it's rated at 10,800 lb. 2000 lb payload rating, possibly less with the hybrid system.

I would love Ford to release that Bronco. Then see it stuck on trails where Rubicons shine. Sorry, but the only thing that comes close is the Defender, which isn't made anymore.

@Alex,

How can you comment on a new vehicle that's not even out yet, but it's ok we get that a lot here from trvlls like barfo.

Frank, not only is it not out, it's a friggen cartoon. It doesn't exist. But obviously, if it did exist, it would be on an F150 chassis with IFS, which of course would have an open differential. I just don't see Ford making anything as capable as a Rubicon with the articulation from two Dana 44 solid axles, front and rear lockers, electronic sway bar disconnect. Not to mention the massive aftermarket support. Sorry but I prefer real vehicles to fantasy ones. Also it's $40k for a Rubicon. Pretty hard to beat for something that's ready to go from the factory.

Alex, yeah, you're right.

The jeep is good off-road, it is basically a an enclosed 4 wheeler so naturally it's quit capable. It is however pretty crude to drive on a daily basis.

For only $500 more it's well worth the extra 2 mpgs. Like Ford850 said, this system will engage in highway driving which will let the engine stay in 4 cylinder mode longer. It seems like a very good system which GM can build upon and improve.
I can only imagine at some point GM will go full Volt on these trucks. I wonder how such system would do in a full size truck.

By the way GM will release 500 Silverados as well. PUTC is just late with the news.

I've driven a Lacrosse with the eAssist, it drives like a really good stop start system. This should help out in city driving. Pairing it with the 8spd makes it pretty attractive, well worth the $500.

"For only $500 more it's well worth the extra 2 mpgs."

You sure about that? At $2 per gallon you'd have to drive 50,000 miles just to break even on that $500 comparing 18 combined mpg to 20 combined mpg.

Personally I'd rather pay less in initial cost and have all my cylinders working more often.

Gas won't be $2 forever and 50K miles for many is just one year of driving.

And 2 mpg city gain is way more than realised here apparently

$500 option & Gas @ $2 & 2 MPG Difference

$500 ÷ $2/gal * 2 mi/gal = 500 miles

2mpg ÷ $2/gal = 1mi/$

$500 * 1mi/$ = 500 miles

By the published numbers I believe the pay off arrives fairly quickly.

@MathDude

Not sure what you're trying to say, but I'm guessing he's breaking it down like this:

18 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 555.55 gallons. (10,000/18)

20 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 500 gallons. (10,000/20)

The difference of 55.55 gallons equals $111 for every 10,000 miles at $2 per gallon.

Are you trying to say that a person who gets 2 MPG better only has to drive 500 miles to save $500??? If so I'd like some of whatever you're smoking...

Not impressed..
Let me know when they make full hybrid,,such as this

https://youtu.be/Fygtg9qtJpU

This is interesting, but a full battery-electric GMC Sierra would be even more interesting! It'd have Tesla soiling their pants!

Sounds like jumping through a hoop to appease the CARB folks or the EPA.

They should sell this to Ford, so their V6's can finally get good fuel mileage LMBO!

@Silverfox

Shouldn't you be calculating the MPG based on the city EPA numbers, not highway. The whole idea behind a hybrid system is improved city fuel economy.

Hybrid:
18 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 555.55 gallons. (10,000/18)

Non-Hybrid:
16 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 625 gallons. (10,000/16)

70 gallons * $2/gal = $140
70 gallons * $3/gal = $210
70 gallons * $4/gal = $280

16 mpg city is pretty optimistic IMO. A regular gas-engine truck won't hit 16 in a northern climate. Most trucks I've owned were doing good at 13 or 14 mpg city until it's fully warmed up. Even then, it takes a lot of restraint to not gun it bit off the line.

@Silverfox

Shouldn't you be calculating the MPG based on the city EPA numbers, not highway. The whole idea behind a hybrid system is improved city fuel economy.

Hybrid:
18 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 555.55 gallons. (10,000/18)

Non-Hybrid:
16 MPG means for every 10,000 miles, you use 625 gallons. (10,000/16)

70 gallons * $2/gal = $140
70 gallons * $3/gal = $210
70 gallons * $4/gal = $280

16 mpg city is pretty optimistic IMO. A regular gas-engine truck won't hit 16 in a northern climate. Most trucks I've owned were doing good at 13 or 14 mpg city until it's fully warmed up. Even then, it takes a lot of restraint to not gun it bit off the line.

Lou_BC - papa jim is a hypocrite. If this was a Ford hybrid, he would be bashing it to the hilt, bashing the EPA, the green movement, and say nobody cares about fuel economy in a pickup truck except Florist shops in San Fran. But since its a GM product he has to say it will have a big advantage. Sad you cannot be consistent, jim.

Papa Jim - You have it part right. Stop and Go but it will only be an advantage if you put on a ton of miles. For someone like me who drives about 12k miles per year, the advantages for this setup are zilch.

@Kurt hypocrite? There is nothing duplicitous in anything I said about it.

Putting that aside, the EPA was not mentioned in my comment, nor Ford.

Start/stop takes getting used to. Not my cup of tea--but it is an advantage. I did not say if it was cost effective--that's your take on it, not mine.

You drive 12k miles per year? Why does anybody care?

Now that I have defended my earlier remarks, please share some of your own peculiar wisdom about this particular article, or go pound some sand up your butt.

Talking about Jolt of Electricity

I see Nascar Tony Stewart Racing is switching to Ford products in 2017.

Welcome Tony to the Military Grade Aluminum Age & not the Stone Age.

@blueman, I see that Ford hasn't won a NASCAR championship since 2004. Maybe they should put aluminum on their race cars.

blueman Ford wave big money to Stewart-Haas Racing and as a newish group that needs the money, they took it. Sad part is Stewart-Haas Racing probably won't win another champ. LOL Ford has to try and throw big money out for smaller Chevy teams to join them. I guess I can blame Ford for throw ton of money to make teams go back or join them LMBO. Hell their is nearly more Toyota's then Fords in nascar now.

mark49 Ford don't know what Racing is anymore. That's why their new GT is a flop and their Sh&*stains suck to.

@skinner

I didn't use the highway numbers, i used the combined numbers. According to the article, eAssist gets you "18/24/20 mpg city/highway/combined, an improvement of 2 mpg for each category"

Even if the system is targeted for city, its more realistic to use combined IMO.

Hi have heard good things about the Hybrid Chevy/GMC 1/2 tons when they were out. No one I know or talked to had really high miles yet but they were very happy with them at the time.

Its and interesting idea and I am interested to see how it pans out.

Its no magic mileage bullet nor should it be expected to be but its nice to see GM move ahead with something.

NASCAR is just toilet Bowl racing anyways... I can't believe people watch that crap!!!! ummm.. Lets watch a car drive around in circles.. Lets hope there is a crash is what most people love.

Chevrolet builds a better way to see the USA - - -

You may enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhR8GZ_WWMM

But what is not mentioned in your VIA motors video (https://youtu.be/Fygtg9qtJpU) is the penalty in hauling and towing that gets paid for the heavy components that come along with hybrid technology....

====================

The main reason for such anemic gains doesn't have to do with trying to sip the fuel more efficiently, it has everything to do with weight and drag due to their massive size. In frontal area they are almost 4x larger than any sedan and more than twice as large as any crossover. They weigh an average of 40% more and their aerodynamics are still too much like trying to throw a brick wall into the wind. All of these leach fuel economy.

Lower, narrower and lighter are what is needed. Leave the heavy towing to the class IV and up trucks. I see no reason for a pickup truck to tow more than 15,000 pounds realistically. If you have to have 4x4 (and most don't) then be willing to accept worse fuel mileage than your 4x2 brothers.

@roadwhale thinks you should not even be able to own such a truck.

He's one of the weenies that's stuck in the 1970s when the green movement was convinced that EVERYBODY should be forced to take the bus or ride bikes to achieve some professor's green goals.

GM has done a great job!

@roadwhale thinks you should not even be able to own such a truck.

He's one of the weenies that's stuck in the 1970s when the green movement was convinced that EVERYBODY should be forced to take the bus or ride bikes to achieve some professor's green goals.

GM has done a great job!

By the way GM will release 500 Silverados as well. PUTC is just late with the news.



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 | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us