2019 GMC Sierra 1500 Denali Is Ready to Rumble

2019-GMC-Sierra-Denali-066 copy II

The all-new 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 Denali is starting to show up at select dealerships. Coincidently, Cars.com Detroit Bureau Chief Aaron Bragman just spent a couple days behind the wheel of this new half ton in the wilds of Newfoundland and will have his full report for us Monday. In the meantime, we thought we'd highlight some of the more intriguing aspects of GM's new pickup truck.

Among some of the exclusive features the all-new Sierra 1500 Denali will offer for 2019 is the MultiPro Tailgate with its double-door drop panel that makes access to the bed and stepping into the bed easier. Sierra 1500 Denalis also will offer the industry's first carbon fiber inner bed box to save weight and provide more load strength. The ProGrade Trailering System will significantly improves a driver's ability to monitor and control towing and includes a class-first rear camera mirror that turns the rearview mirror into a monitor screen for a view of what's behind your truck, no matter what's stuffed in the cab or loaded in the bed. And finally, this new pickup will have the largest and most sophisticated head-up display in the half-ton class with more clarity than ever seen before.

Look for our full report on the new half ton, how it measures up to the competition and how it's different from the all-new 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 in our First Drive on Monday. More to come.

Manufacturer images

2019-GMC-Sierra-Denali-056 II

2019-GMC-Sierra-Denali-064-1 copy II


Comments

Clint well said. And hey I am an old man.

I am an old man.
Posted by: Just the truth | Aug 24, 2018

CORRECTION

He is an old man with no command of the facts.

@ papajim Valve timing events effect the volumetric efficiency of an engine. By changing valve event timing with rpm range you can spread efficiency thru a larger range. This is why a DOHC engine with cam phasers can have flatter torque curve.

That's why all fords cam phasers go out. Junk!!!!

That's why all fords cam phasers go out. Junk!!!!


Posted by: TNTGMC | Aug 24, 2018 4:43:23 PM

so what you just posted is ALL Ford Phasers go out, another useless post by TNTGMC the biggest, factless poster on PUTC

@ tntgmc Are you having a bad day. Nobody said anything about Ford cam phasers. Are you A.D.D.? You seem to pick out one word and rant completely out of context and out of control.

Valve timing events effect the volumetric efficiency of an engine. By changing valve event timing with rpm range you can spread efficiency thru a larger range. This is why a DOHC engine with cam phasers can have flatter torque curve.
Posted by: just the truth | Aug 24, 2018

true dat!

However, you've described a considerable increase in complexity in order to achieve a modest and incremental improvement in performance and efficiency.

My Gen 4 LS engine has half as many valves, a simple timing chain, and is the smoothest V8 i've ever owned.

All that additional complexity you described is like having a trophy wife. Is all the extra drama worth it?

@ PAPAJIM To some it absolutely is.

Looks better than the chevy.

Posted by: just the truth | Aug 23, 2018 7:43:10 PM

I agree completely. I have liked the GMC front end across the board, for years over the Chevy. Plus with the GMC you get to be a little more unique in the fact that they are no where near as many sold. This 2019 is a good looking truck. I am not a fan of the 2019 Chevy front end, in most configurations I think it looks hideous.

That's why all fords cam phasers go out. Junk!!!!


Posted by: TNTGMC | Aug 24, 2018 4:43:23 PM

More hatred and Ford jealousy bashing. You post nothing but hate and negativity, almost always unprovoked and always inaccurate, then say how you never do! This person was simply giving some perceived advantages of OHC vs OHV. They both have trade offs. What is wrong with you? Seriously? Papa said I don't post anything helpful. He turns a blind eye on you. Must be love? Geezzz.....

@ ecobust

Lol...jealousy, jealousy

Ford has known issues with their can phasers!! Duh

Gm has none of those problems BC they use pushrods.... Wake up


And just the truth aka....full of cr@p......Their is still tons of room for GM pushrods to add efficiency with HP/TQ

hmmm....I post great stuff in Nissan's, Toyotas, Rams

I dont like fords. And if its a known issue I just stated a fact. Facts upset you obviously.....that's why u get all upset like a crying toddler!!

@ tntgmc Nissan and Toyota have do not build a push rod V8 to sell to the public. GM and FCA are likely the only hold outs for push rod V8s.


Ford has known issues with their can phasers!! Duh

Gm has none of those problems BC they use pushrods.... Wake up


And just the truth aka....full of cr@p......Their is still tons of room for GM pushrods to add efficiency with HP/TQ


Posted by: TNTGMC | Aug 25, 2018 9:05:18 PM

Yeah GM's issue was with the lifters that operate those pushrods neck bone. You don't know that, but you know how much "tons of room" GM has left in lt's engines. Nothing you post makes any kind of sense.

@ ego-bust

Are I related to Frank bc your comments suggest you are.

GM had tons of room means: they have room to increase the HO and TQ in their 3/V8 engines they are currently producing in the half ton and HDs.

Wow, you are clueless and all you want to do is argue. Mr. Jealousy!

No run along and enjoy your Sunday

"YOU". Related to Frank

When you get down to the dirty bits, the pushrod engine is essentially 200-year-old technology that wastes a lot of energy trying to convert linear motion into rotational motion. As long as we're doing that, it doesn't matter how clean they can be, they still will never get economy to where it needs to be. The best diesel is still only 40% efficient compared to electric and we're to the point that we're having to inject different forms of catalysts just to eliminate the particulate emissions, not even considering some of the poisonous gas emissions such has nitrogen oxides and carbon oxides.

Now, I'm not a fan of current fuel cell technologies for smaller vehicles because, to be blunt, to have enough hydrogen conversion surface to provide sufficient energy for the kinds of driving we do today, the fuel cell has to be bigger and heavier than a personally-operated vehicle can even carry effectively. Yes, there is an FC Chevy Colorado undergoing tests right now for the US military but even that rig is more power supply than usable truck. One look at the truck and its layout shows half its carrying capacity taken up by the hydrogen tanks and their shielding (for passenger safety) while the hood appears raised just to allow enough room for sufficient conversion area to make the truck functional in a military operations environment. A full-sized truck would have been a better choice and I'm quite sure the technology would work well in an MRAP or deuce-and-a-half-style cargo truck. The bigger the truck, the more effective HFC can be.

This means that batteries will dominate the POV environment at least for the next few decades as internal combustion engines are phased out. The advantage will be that designers will be able to look more at style than at aerodynamics for future vehicles though they'll still work on keeping the CoD (Coefficient of Drag) lower than the 60s-vintage machines.

@ ego-bust

Are I related to Frank bc your comments suggest you are.

GM had tons of room means: they have room to increase the HO and TQ in their 3/V8 engines they are currently producing in the half ton and HDs.

Wow, you are clueless and all you want to do is argue. Mr. Jealousy!

No run along and enjoy your Sunday


Posted by: TNTGMC | Aug 26, 2018 8:34:54 AM
@ ego-bust
"Are I related to Frank"

Open mouth, insert foot is how you roll. Proven over and over and over again...IDK brain stem, are you? I have the ego? I state facts that a small engine can (proven by many test) run equal to a large displacement 6.2 and better than a 5.3 engine and you state your hp and tq advantage (which just makes you dumber, if that's possible). You talk about paying cash, a lake house, boat etc then say everyone is jealous....... Okay dude, you don't have a complex/ego.... Nice try neck bone.

@ ego-bust

I have all of those. I have worked very hard for all them through education and dedication!! You said I LIE! I prove u wrong all day long, yet all u ever say is I lie...yet I clearly dont!

All u ever talk about is how us GM guys lie. Your pathetic!

I'm the one who gives facts. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the head. A forum with no background of how guys drive their trucks doesn't prove that I can't get the mpgs I get.

You are so jealous, move along with your brother Frank. Mr. Jealous!

@vulpine

Please realize the the global investment in highways, bridges, refueling infrastructure, fossil fuel discovery, development, refining and distribution are too integrated into the current scheme to be, as you put it, "phased out in a few decades." That was true BEFORE the refinements in fracking and horizontal drilling.

Cheap abundant---and clean---natural gas means that less-toxic synthetics, both lubes and fuels, are already coming online. Synthetic lubes that can stay in the engine for 12 mos., and super clean gasoline blends utilizing synthetic molecules means that the negative effects of fuel spills are far less a threat than even 25 years ago.

IC engines are not going away in our lifetimes. Many parts of the world are perfectly suited to long term and widespread use of IC power. The places where air pollution is critical will adopted alternative at huge cost because their environment demands it. That is the exception however.

Valve timing events effect the volumetric efficiency of an engine. By changing valve event timing with rpm range you can spread efficiency thru a larger range. This is why a DOHC engine with cam phasers can have flatter torque curve.
Posted by: just the truth | Aug 24, 2018

True but the difference in efficiency between an engine with independent intake and exhaust valve timing and the VVT system used on a modern pushrod V8 is pretty small. Like low single digits small. Also, there's a significant difference in parasitic losses due to that complex DOHC setup. Take a DOHC V8 like the Coyote 5.0: instead of turning just one cam that actuates 16 valves, the Coyote's timing chain is rotating 4 cams (supported by many more cam bearings) which actuate 32 valves. There's frictional losses due to the drag of the huge timing chain against the guides. This complex system also requires a lot of energy in the form of oil pressure - lots of cam bearings, oil actuated cam phasers, oil-fed timing chain tensioners, 32 oil-fed hydraulic lash adjusters, etc. An oil pump requires quite a bit of energy to function and it has to feed a ton of oil to the top-end of a modern DOHC V8. Many manufacturers are going to variable displacement oil pumps that generate higher flow rates using thinner oils instead of generating slower flows at higher pressures using heavier oils. It's evidence of the kind of energy losses that result from the oiling system. A pushrod V8, even with AFM, has a relatively efficient valvetrain. One cam with a bigger base circle, actuating half as many valves, actuated by just one cam phaser. That's partly why a "big" 5.3 or 6.2 liter pushrod V8 delivers similar or better brake specific fuel consumption compared to the 5.0L 32-valve DOHC. The biggest benefits of a 32-vlave DOHC V8 comes in the form of emissions and its ability to rev higher with less engineering work.

This is a very nice looking truck. Even if it's slower than my current 2.7 V6 EcoBoost, I'll seriously consider this GMC 6.2 V8 when I shop next year.

Half-Ton 0-60 MPH at a Mile above Sea Level (Colorado)*
Year Make Model 0-60 MPH (sec)
2017 Ford F-150 Raptor SuperCab 4×4 3.5L EB 6.17
2018 Ford F-150 Crew 4×4 3.5L EB 6.60
2015 Ford F-150 SuperCab 4×4 2.7L EB 6.99
2017 Chevy Silverado 1500 Crew 4×4 6.2L 7.03
2015 Chevrolet Silverado DoubleCab 4×4 6.2L 7.46
2014 Chevrolet Silverado Crew 4×4 6.2L 7.71

Triton is always a quality car that many people choose

it doesn't matter how clean they (IC engines, pushrod engines) can be, they still will never get economy to where it needs to be.

@Vulpine

Who determines what optimum "economy" is? People own and operate cars/trucks in many of the world's poorest places. How cheap does transportation need to be before it becomes impractical. You've taken a practical topic and turned it into an academic exercise.



The comments to this entry are closed.