More than four years after General Motors invited media and analysts into its Warren, Michigan design dome to show off the prodigious lineup of battery electric vehicles it was developing, the automaker is still struggling to get market traction with its Ultium platform. For Chevrolet, the Silverado EV was supposed to be key to unlocking EV sales of more than 1 million units per year by 2025. The first Silverado EV variant that regular consumers can buy has finally arrived into an increasingly crowded market of electric pickup trucks, and we’ve finally had the opportunity to drive it. Will this truck turn the tide for GM? Or does it epitomize bigger problems?
Since the debut of the GMC Hummer EV SUT in late 2021, sales of GM’s lineup of Ultium-based have been far more meager than anticipated. There’s a range of reasons behind that including problems with automation equipment for assembling battery modules and continually buggy software. But perhaps the biggest challenges are self-inflicted product-planning issues.
First, let’s address the real elephant in the room, and I mean that quite literally. Weight. GM’s EVs simply have too much of it. Granted, all battery electric vehicles (BEV) are heavier than internal combustion engine (ICE) equivalents. But GM’s Ultium-based BEVs take this to new heights, especially the full size trucks and SUVs. When I drove a GMC Hummer EV pickup in early 2023, I took it to a weigh-scale and it came in at 9,200-lbs — empty. The Silverado EV 4WT work truck that I briefly sampled in August of last year had a curb weight 8,568-lbs and it lacked many of the customer friendly features found in consumer trucks. This first consumer trim Silverado RST that I just drove has all the goodies including four-wheel-steering, mid-gate, air suspension and other accouterments, bringing the curb weight to a staggering 8,953-lbs.
[Ed Note/Full Disclosure: Chevy invited us out to drive the new Silverado EV near Detroit. Sam, an incredibly talented engineer-turned-journalist whom I’m thrilled to have contributing to The Autopian, lives locally, so he went for us. I assume Chevy paid for some meals, so that’s worth disclosing. Anyway, get excited for more Sam content here on the site! -DT].
Weight, Cost, Acceleration, Range: A Vicious Cycle
That’s more than twice the weight of a base-model regular cab gasoline Silverado, and not far from twice the weight of a base crew-cab gasoline Silverado. To be a bit fairer, let’s look at some other similarly-sized luxury EV trucks: the Ford F-150 Lightning Platinum has a curb weight of 6,893-lbs, a three-motor Tesla Cybertruck tips the scales at 6,884 lbs and a four-motor Rivian R1T 6,918-lbs with its mid-size “Large” battery pack. Each of these competitors has a rated range of about 300 miles.
The Silverado, like the Hummer I previously drove, has substantially more battery capacity than the others. The gross capacity is estimated at nearly 250-kWh, with about 210-kWh usable. The other trucks range from 123 to 131-kWh usable. As a result, the Silverado has significantly more range than the competition, but it’s also less energy efficient because of all the mass it has to lug around. We’ll delve further into the weight issue later on.
Another major issue that has hurt adoption of GM’s EVs is cost. When surveyed over the past decade, consumers have consistently cited affordability, availability of charging and time to charge as the biggest barriers to adoption. The Silverado EV RST is a prime example of this. When it was originally shown in mid-2022, Chevrolet announced a projected price of $107,000, a number that would have been unfathomable for a pickup truck not so long ago. Even the work truck that was launched last fall for fleet customers was priced at nearly $80,000 initially. Recently, like many other BEV manufacturers, Chevrolet announced a price cut, with the RST’s new price at $96,500 — still very expensive, but moving in the right direction at least.
Cost and weight aren’t unrelated. The excess weight of the Ultium BEVs means they require more battery to achieve similar or better ranges than the competition. More capacity adds cost, with the current cost of EV battery packs running in the range of $100 to $150 per kWh. At somewhere between 250 and 275 Wh/kg, increasing the battery by 10 kWh adds about 36 to 40 kg (about 79-88 lbs) of mass that in turns reduces efficiency and requires more battery to reach that range. It’s a vicious cycle, and it’s part of why the launch edition Hummer needed well over 200 kWh to get a range of 329 miles, barely more than a dual motor Cybertruck gets with 123-kWh.
The Silverado and its GM truck siblings use a dual layer battery which is effectively two of the batteries from a Chevy Blazer EV stacked on top of eachother. The longest-range variants, including the RST, feature a battery with 24 modules in total. Accommodating this massive battery takes some structure.
The Silverado, like the Rivian and Cybertruck, has no separate frame. Frame rails have been integrated into a purpose built unibody structure. The unitized cab and bed are more like the Chevrolet Avalanche of the early 2000s but with an integrated frame to support the battery. Despite being built as an EV from the ground up, it’s not obvious that Chevrolet has done a lot to optimize the weight of this structure, which just makes everything worse.
The 24-module battery is reported to weigh over 2,900-lbs. The 130-kWh extended range battery in the Lightning is about 1,600-lbs. The Lightning Pro work truck with that larger battery has a curb weight of 6,361-lbs. Removing the batteries from the Silverado work truck and Lightning leaves about 5,635-lbs for the Chevy and 4,761-lbs for the Ford with roughly similar size and features. That’s an 875-lb weight disadvantage for a purpose-built structure compared to a modified ICE truck. However, supporting the bulk of that huge battery requires more structure, which in turn requires bigger heavier brakes, more cooling and then bigger, heavier eight-lug wheels – it’s that vicious cycle I talked about earlier.
That’s not a great place to start for an EV. So why did GM make these sorts of decisions in planning these vehicles? For the trucks at least, they clearly decided that they needed a lot more range, especially for towing. While the Silverado, R1T, Cybertruck and Lightning are capable of towing at least 10,000-lbs, the problem is: How far can you actually go with that load behind the truck?
With a larger trailer approaching maximum weight, the Ford, Rivian and Tesla can easily grind to a halt after well under 100 miles. Like many truck buyers, GM clearly determined that wasn’t nearly enough. Hence, the Silverado and GMC Sierra needed all that extra battery to be able to go well over 200 miles between charge stops. Just like interest on your credit cards, it all compounds.
How Big Are These Machines?
As mentioned above, the Lightning and Silverado are generally pretty close in size at about 233-inches long and 78.5-inches tall (give or take a tenth or two). Apart from weight, the Chevrolet is also 3.8-inches wider, not including the mirrors. That extra width and the ability to space out the integrated rails near the outer perimeter of the body allowed for a considerably wider battery pack than the Ford can accommodate. At 145.7-inches, the Silverado’s wheelbase is just 0.2-inch more than the Ford. The Tesla and Rivian are considerably smaller, with Rivian really being more of mid-size, virtually the same dimensionally as a Jeep Gladiator.
The unibody structure of the Chevrolet leads to some differences from the Ford. Dimensionally, the cab interiors are very close, with the Chevy having an extra inch of legroom front and back. However, despite being wider, the Chevrolet actually has less 2-inches less shoulder room and 1-inch less hip room. The other major difference is that the Chevrolet’s cab has been shifted forward several inches, and the cowl is a bit lower than the Ford.
As a result, the hood of the Silverado is not quite as long, but forward visibility is improved. Without the need to accommodate a V8 engine, the frame rails up front are moved inboard, which allows for modified suspension with more steering angle. Even on the work truck, which doesn’t have rear wheel steering, the turning circle is ~42-feet – compared to Ford’s ~48-feet, that’s a significant improvement.
The Frunk And The Midgate
The downside of the revised front suspension is less width for the front trunk. The lockable front storage of the Silverado is narrower and shallower than the Ford, yielding only 10.7 cubic feet compared to just over 14 cubic feet in the Lightning. The Silverado frunk is still much more useful than the Tesla’s, however.
Chevrolet makes up for this deficit in the most important part of a pickup truck — the bed. Eliminating the gap between the traditionally separate cab and bed and shifting the cab forward allows for a 5-foot, 11-inch bed – 6-inches more than the Ford and five more cubic feet of bed volume at 57.7 cubic feet.
In addition to the unibody, the RST inherited another important feature from the Avalanche: the fold-down Midgate.
With the rear seats and the Midgate folded down, the Silverado can accommodate objects up to 9-feet long with the tailgate closed. The high-end RST also gets GM’s multi-flex tailgate, and with the gate down and the rear stop raised, 10-foot-10-inch items can be carried. Unlike the Avalanche mid-gate, the new version in the Silverado is split 60/40 so a rear passenger can still be carried.
Slicker Than A Hummer
Design-wise, the Silverado EV falls in between the Cybertruck and Lightning, and in some respects is closest to the Rivian, although it is significantly larger. It looks much more like a traditional pickup truck than the Tesla, but the Chevrolet design team has clearly put a lot of work into the aerodynamics. That’s one of the major reasons for the flying buttresses angling down from the rear edge of the roof to the bedside. They’re nowhere near as extreme as the Tesla, allowing much better access to the bed from the side of the truck.
Compared to the Hummer, the Chevrolet is about five-inches narrower, which significantly reduces the frontal area. Combined with a much smoother front end, more angled windshield and the sleeker flanks, the Silverado has to do significantly less work against the atmosphere. Along with about 200-lbs less weight and street-friendly tires, the Silverado EV RST gets an estimated range rating of 440-miles, over 100-miles more than the Hummer.
Where People Spend Their Time
As a very expensive, premium truck, the Silverado EV RST has a high-bar to live up to. While the work truck has the typical hard plastic interior built for durability, the RST looks and feels more premium, although still not really befitting of a nearly $100,000 price tag.
The first edition RST comes standard with leather seats with heating and ventilation, but no massaging like the Lightning Platinum. Much of the dashboard is covered in an interesting textured, synthetic material that looks nice enough, but doesn’t feel like luxury. Chevrolet also made the odd choice to add two rows of stitching in red and blue across this material purely for aesthetics. Unfortunately, the stitching doesn’t correspond to a seam and when the material is stretched over the underlying structure, it is often uneven and wavy.
As expected, there’s also lots of screen space. The Silverado has the same screens found in the Blazer EV and Equinox EV, with a 17-inch central touch screen that is tilted slightly toward the driver. Directly in front of the driver is an 11-inch digital instrument cluster display. Thankfully, GM’s interior designers have realized that the most commonly used interior controls should be operated by physical knobs and switches. Temperature, fan speed and defrost switches and knobs are just below the center vents but also duplicated on the screen.
Like all but GM’s entry level models now, infotainment is an Android Automotive system with Google Automotive Services built in. That means it’s got Google Maps, Assistant and the Play store for downloading more apps. There’s a variety of media streaming apps available including Spotify, Youtube Music, NPR, PocketCasts and more. For those that prefer Waze, that’s also available to download. All you need to do is login to a Google account and then load up the apps you want.
At the recent Google I/O developer conference, Google also announced updates to the app policies for Android Automotive, which will allow a lot more types of apps such as video streaming and games to be available in the car. However, those apps will only be accessible when the vehicle is in park, but you’ll be able to watch Youtube videos and probably Netflix while you wait for the battery to charge.
One thing you can’t do, however, is utilize Apple Carplay. About a year ago, GM announced that it would no longer support smartphone projection in its new EVs. The goal is to provide EV customers with a more consistent and enhanced user experience. For example, the embedded Google Maps now has access to a variety of real-time vehicle data like battery state of charge and speed along with the traffic and terrain information to provide more accurate driving range estimation.
If you select a destination that is beyond the driving range of the vehicle, Maps will automatically pull up information about charging stations along the route including available charging speed, and then recommend where to stop for a charge and how long to charge at that location in order to minimize the trip time or to get the most efficient trip.
Maps will show the expected state of charge when you arrive at each waypoint. This is similar to the functionality provided by A Better Route Planner, the app that was acquired by Rivian last year. While GM publicly says the decision to drop Carplay support was to provide that improved experience to drivers, GM personnel have acknowledged off the record that at the time, GM was reluctant to share much of this vehicle information with Apple because it was still a potential competitor. With Apple having since canceled its car project, GM hasn’t reversed course, but there’s no technical reason it couldn’t depending on consumer response to the absence of the feature.
For what it’s worth, iPhones can still be connected to the Silverado via Bluetooth, and music can be streamed from the device or various apps on the phone, and they show up in a similar interface to apps running natively on the system. The same goes for making calls and sending messages as well as using Siri pass-through. I didn’t have time to connect an iPhone during the drive, but I’ve previously used one in other GM EVs and the interface works well enough.
As part of the decision to rely on Google services and Android apps, GM also committed to providing eight years of complimentary connectivity for these services with the purchase of the vehicle. Thus owners won’t have to sign up for an OnStar subscription to use their infotainment.
Cabin Comfort
Despite the slightly reduced shoulder room compared to the Ford, there is no lack of space in the Silverado. Like all other full-size crew-cab trucks, regardless of propulsion, the back seat is absolutely limo-level cavernous. There’s plenty of room in the front as well. The RST has power front seats with heating and ventilation, but surprisingly for a near six-figure truck, there is no massage function in the seats, something Ford does offer in the Lightning Platinum. The seats were reasonably comfortable over several hours of driving and riding shotgun.
Like the rest of GM’s new BEVs and many other EVs, the gear selector is back to being column mounted, leaving plenty of space on the console for cup holders, wireless charging and big storage bin under the armrest. Compared to a Cybertruck, visibility out of the cab is outstanding, and even the rear buttresses don’t intrude much.
Forward visibility is better than the Ford thanks to the shorter hood and lower cowl. For those who prefer optical rather than digital rearview mirrors, the Silverado has a reasonably sized window, although like all modern trucks, it is high enough to restrict the view of smaller vehicles or pedestrians directly behind, so I highly recommend using the digital mirror.
Going Hands-Off
The first edition RST also comes standard with Super Cruise hands-off driver assist. This system uses a combination of four surround cameras, five radar sensors (one long range on the front, and four short-range at the corners to detect blindspots and cut-ins) and high-resolution maps of over 400,000 miles of highways and secondary rural roads. Earlier this year, GM announced that over the next 18 months it would push out quarterly updates to the maps that will expand the available roads for Super Cruise use to over 750,000 miles.
Super Cruise was the first hands-off driver assist system on the market, and having tried all of the currently available systems, it’s still the best and most consistent in its performance. When active, the light bar on the steering wheel is always visible in your peripheral vision, and makes it very clear what state the system is in. When the bar is blue, the system is ready to go active once the driver centers the vehicle in the lane. When green, the system is working, and the driver can release the wheel and must keep eyes on the road and be ready to take control at any moment such as when the bar goes red. The light bar goes red if the driver monitor camera detects the driver isn’t paying attention to the road or if the maps indicate that the current road is no longer approved for hands-off operation.
As on other GM vehicles, Super Cruise locks on to the center of the lane keeps the vehicle there. If the vehicle ahead is going slower than the current set speed, the sensors will check the lane to the left when it’s all clear, an auto lane change indication will appear on the instrument cluster and the turn signal will turn on. If the driver doesn’t want to change lanes, they can tap the turn signal stalk to cancel the maneuver. It all works smoothly and seamlessly, and I’ve never had Super Cruise try to change lanes where there wasn’t enough of a gap to safely complete the maneuver.
Since this is a truck, Super Cruise also works when towing a trailer. Auto lane changing doesn’t work with a trailer connected, but the system will estimate the trailer weight based on how fast the vehicle accelerates or decelerates for a given amount of torque output. This trailer weight estimate will be used to adjust the following gaps to ensure enough room is left to be able to stop safely. We didn’t get a chance to test this with the Silverado, but I’ve previously tried the system with a gas Silverado at the GM proving ground and it works as well as other Super Cruise functions.
How About Normal Driving?
All Silverado EVs right now are equipped with two permanent magnet electric motors. Like the Hummer EV’s “watts to freedom” mode, Chevrolet offers a wide-open-watts (WOW) mode for the RST that provides bursts of up to 754-hp and 785 lb-ft of torque. That’s enough to move this 4.5-ton behemoth to 60 mph in about 4.5-seconds. Even the slightly lighter WT we drove last summer with just 510-hp felt plenty quick enough, and while the RST isn’t going to win any drag races with a Cybertruck, it has more than enough grunt to shred its costly 24-inch tires as fast as any other BEV.
Unlike the Hummer WTF, WOW can actually be engaged anytime, and left on all the time for maximum power. WOW is limited to short bursts of 1,000-hp because of heating the battery, motor and electronics. However, you probably won’t want to engage WOW full-time, because the truck makes a very loud and frankly rather unpleasant sound when WOW is active.
I spoke with Chevrolet engineers about both this and the low speed pedestrian warning sound, and there are currently no options to use a different sound although that could potentially be updated sometime in the future.
Chevrolet won’t actually say what the peak power and torque are when WOW is off, saying only that it depends on the driving modes, slip detection, cornering forces, etc. We’re guessing it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of the 510-hp of the 4WT work truck. We had a chance to do a short drive loop on some rural roads in a 4WT, and it actually felt quicker than the RST without WOW, which would be expected given it has a 400-lb weight advantage.
Physics being what it is, a 9,000-lb truck is never going to handle like a Miata. But the combination of four-corner, independent air suspension and four-wheel steering make this beast reasonably comfortable and maneuverable in most normal driving. The tighter-than-normal turning circle makes parking relatively straightforward without having to go back and forth multiple times.
When we took the RST out on the same country road loop as the 4WT back to back, the RST felt far more ponderous than the work truck. Even with taller sidewall tires on 18-inch wheels which howled around the corners, it felt easier to toss the work truck around, at least to the degree you would want to do that with a truck weighing over 8,500-lbs. Even at these weights, shedding 400-lbs does make a noticeable difference in driving dynamics.
Speaking of the tires, the RST comes standard with attractive-looking, but large 24-inch alloy wheels shod with 275/50R24 Michelin Primacy all-season tires. Given its weight and torque output, it’s no surprise that the Silverado uses eight-lug wheels similar to those on heavy duty pickups.
We noticed another dynamic anomaly as well. Part of the drive route from Detroit included a stop at the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti, where we would have the opportunity to try out the WOW mode in a safe environment. After lowering the air suspension to the entry level and engaging WOW, we did sprint down the ACM test strip.
As expected, there was some squat with that much torque. But on the slightly uneven pavement, the RST seemed to be constantly twitching back and forth as though the slip control system was applying brakes on one side and the other to try to grab grip where it could.
It wasn’t a particularly confidence-inspiring experience and demonstrated why automakers need to end this absurd race to put more and more power in EVs that aren’t performance vehicles.
Another use case the RST isn’t suited for is going off-road. With those big wheels and low-profile street tires this is absolutely an on-road truck, more like the Lightning than the Rivian or Tesla. The off-road mode adds 2-inches of ground clearance, but realistically this should only be used on an unpaved trail to a cabin, not for a trip to Moab. For next year, Chevrolet is promising a Trail Boss variant that should provide even more ground clearance, taller tires with significantly more sidewall and tread suited to working on dirt and rocks and some additional underbody armor.
Setting aside the suitability of a 4.5-ton truck as a sports car or trail hound, the Silverado was otherwise quite pleasant to drive. Aside from its large frontal area, GM has done a lot of work on the aerodynamics to help maximize the opportunity for regenerative braking and maximizing the range. The front end is very much the opposite of a Cybertruck with relatively smooth, rounded contours. The absence of a gap between the cab and bed and sail panels behind the cab all work to manage the airflow and keep wind noise to a minimum.
Along a stretch of M-14 across the north side of Ann Arbor that is paved in grooved concrete, there was a significant amount of road noise transmitted to the cabin. With very low profile tires inflated to 61 psi on the front and 68 psi on the rear, it shouldn’t be surprising that they didn’t do much to damp out that surface. Presumably when other trim levels arrive later this year and in 2025 they will have smaller diameter wheels with more rubber that should help.
Despite the rolling stock, ride quality was overall quite good even on Michigan roads that are far less than ideal. There was surprisingly good steering feedback as well. The combination of big friction brakes and lots of regenerative braking help to ensure confident deceleration capability. GM has worked hard on regenerative braking since it introduced its two-mode hybrid trucks in 2007 it really shows on its BEVs.
The one-pedal mode can be toggled by tapping an icon on the infotainment screen that is permanently displayed. The amount of regen is selectable between normal and high and for most driving, normal is sufficient to almost never have to touch the brake. I would only use the high regen for stop and go traffic where gaps are small. GM does a great job managing regen and friction braking so that one-pedal is always available and predictable regardless of the state of charge of the battery and it will bring the vehicle to a full stop just by modulating the accelerator.
What About Replenishing The Battery?
GM describes its full-size trucks and SUVs as having an 800V architecture, which is actually only partly true. These big vehicles with a dual layer battery can charge at 800V and 350-kW. But the overall electrical architecture is only 400V for current Ultium EVs. The 800V is split, with 400V being fed to each of the two layers of the battery, effectively treating it like 2 batteries being charged simultaneously at 175-kW each. It’s a clever solution that avoided some of the expense of going to 800V across the entire vehicle.
On the way from ACM to our lunch stop in Chelsea, Michigan, my drive partner and I took a detour to a Meijer store in Ypsilanti that has Tesla Superchargers that were recently upgraded with Magic Docks. These Magic Docks provide an integrated CCS adapter for charging non-Tesla EVs. GM still hasn’t rolled out the software update that will enable Plug&Charge capability on Superchargers or even provided a date for when it will make NACS/J3400 adapters available to customers. But using the Tesla app and the Magic Dock we were able to get the Silverado to charge. Despite the battery being at 75% state of charge and the Superchargers only support 400V, the Silverado still pulled an impressive 130-kW — far higher than any Tesla will do at that charge level. From a 350-kW charger beginning at a relatively low state of charge, the Silverado will add 100 miles of range in about 10 minutes.
We didn’t have time for a proper range test, but some independent tests of the 4WT with the same battery done last fall showed it could easily match or exceed its 450-mile range estimate so the RST will likely be able to do 440 miles. Towing tests with the work truck also showed that it can haul a trailer for more than 200 miles.
The Silverado is also the first GM EV with bidirectional capability that will allow you to power your house in the case of an outage. This is similar to the Ford Intelligent Power Backup system. There are also 120 and 240V outlets with 10-kW of exportable power available to do anything from powering a work site to charging a stranded EV.
First-Drive Verdict
So would I recommend the 2024 Chevrolet Silverado RST First Edition? If you absolutely must have the first of anything regardless of the cost, sure go ahead and get one. It offers a lot of interesting features and capabilities, and it does work at doing the stuff that truck buyers actually expect of a full-size truck, including towing. The Silverado also offers far and away the most range available in an electric truck and the fastest charging capability. Its ability to tow is also unrivaled for an electric truck, at least until the Ram 1500 REV and Ramcharger arrive at the end of this year.
But for most customers who need a full-size truck, the price tag of the RST probably isn’t worth it. I would recommend waiting for the LT later in the year or the Trail Boss in 2025 if you need some actual off-road capability. The price of at least the LT will probably be a lot more palatable and you’ll be able to select which features you actually need or want. .
My thoughts looking at this truck: This looks like a pretty cool truck. Nice midgate. I can get sheet goods and some 2x4s. Wait a minute… FOUR and a HALF TONS… EMPTY. That’s going to leave wheel ruts on the interstate. A new Chevy Avalanche should retail around $45K. Add $15k for batteries, yeah, price this thing at $60K, that’s about right. What? it’s $97K?! No way!
That pack is humongous. It’s $30,000 minimum.
Not that I disagree with any of your points.
Funny, I was thinking $7,500 and doubled it. 🙂
Per the numbers in the article, it should be $25,000-$38,000. Considering how fancy(specialized and unique) the Ultium pouch cell batteries are, I would assume the upper half of the range.
The old Avalanche probably retailed for $45k or more.
WTF is going on at GM product planning? This barge (which is actually pretty attractive as an Avalanche style rig) will grow roots sitting on dealer lots until the total rebates (corporate, state, and federal) knock off 40 grand or so.
Or until the REV comes out, sells better, and they shoehorn the little Turbo Max motor back in to Charge just one of the 2 batteries.
Oh but come on, THE TURBO MAX ENGINE 430lbs of torque!!!! on top of 310hp.. Doesn’t matter that it’s an over boosted POS that eats timing belts and chokes on its own carbon. Just asking too much of too little. I never understand why we can’t just use something like Liquid Piston’s single rotary for a range extender or something tiny. I don’t get why you need more then a little single to run a generator. Something like those quiet little Honda generators
There is a reason why they are using the 3.6 pentastar in the rev over say a pukey little sub 2 liter out of say the Jeep compass. it takes a lot of gas power to convert into usable electical power.
WTF is that interior? Those seats look like they came out of a Trax! You should not be getting that in a $97K vehicle!
Yes! the interior is an embarrassment. My buddy just got a new top end Ram and the contrast between the 2 are amazing. This thing makes the Cybrgarbage look luxurious
Comments here point the irony of the heavy weight even though it’s electric. I totally agree. However you have to ask the people who will buy these: Why did you buy this? Did you buy it to get more efficient, less poluting transportation? Did you buy it because you want to give the appearance that you value electric vehicles? Or did you buy because you like the looks/gadgetry/etc? Or something else? Because clearly this is not an efficient means of transportation. Ultimately buy what you want, but don’t try to pass me any greenwashing garbage.
Yeah I don’t understand how anyone will say that this thing is green it weighs almost double what my truck weighs so I would hate to see how fast these heavy EVs go through tires and more wear and tear on the roads.
It’ll be fun for people when these need new tires after not many miles because of the vehicle weight. And the cost per tire will be really pricey because of the tire size.
Yeah I just got new mud tires for my FJ and they were 250 a tire the Falkens I used to have are now over 300 a tire so I would really hate to see what the tires cost on these a quick. Google search said the stock size on these is 275/50/r24 and the only tire discount tire carried was $580 a tire so yeah get out of here with that noise haha
Oh man, I remember when Falkens were cheap. Now they’re priced like BFG. Also, WHY ARE THEY SO HEAVY??!!
I think I’m going with the M/T Baja Boss AT for the next tire on my 4Runner.
Haha yeah that was the reason why Falkens were my go to brand they were cheaper but as good as bfg or Goodyear now they cost the same. I went with some Yokohama this time they were bigger and cheaper by like 70 bucks a tire then my old Falkens cost now.
It is a hulking truck, no one is buying it because it is “green”. It is a truck that has a ridiculous amount of power and speed for its size. It is huge and will check the “badass truck” column for the people with $100k burning a hole in their pocket and a desire to have the latest tech. Think the Cybertruck is too ugly? Silverado EV for you!
It won’t go through tires any faster than any one ton pickup, which is a similar weight.
Increased wear and tear on roads due to vehicles increasing from 6,000 to 9,000lb is….. a myth. The fact is, both a 6,000lb vehicle and a 9,000lb vehicle create negligible wear on any road that sees even occasional semi traffic.
The one I’ve seen in the wild was a Duke Energy truck. That’s who will buy it, apparently.
I feel like this is to take up the spot of the on road trucks like the Sante Cruz, Pilot. The occasional “put something heavy in the back” usage that they often have, but primarily people movers.
I’ll start by saying that this is an awesome, extremely detailed review. Seriously, read the whole thing despite the fact…
That I hate this product, sooooo much, it it it flames, flames on the side of my face…
Look, I get that this thing isn’t actually going to sell in meaningful numbers, and that it’s a gen 1 exercise in making the EV truck concept work. But Christ. 9,000 lbs? NINE-THOUSAND POUNDS? Dear freaking lord.
In attempting to prove that a no-compromises EV truck can be made, GM managed to prove how stupid it is to even bother. I’m not a big fan of trucks and this country’s obsession with all things truck. But hey, they exist. And hey, clearly based on this attempt, they make sense being powered by gasoline. You can’t tell me that this thing, despite being an EV, is a rolling man-made environmental disaster. What a tremendous waste of resources to make something that’s so obviously worse than a typical ICE half-ton truck.
Alright, now that I have purged that out of me, the mid-gate is very cool. Love a mid-gate.
Thank you for the Clue aside, I could hear Mrs. White lol! On the vehicle, I’m right here with y’all that 9k pounds is absurd for a consumer vehicle and these make no sense. Regardless of the increased threat to pedestrians, these will be an absolute disaster in collisions involving lighter cars or even striking previously immovable barriers.
There is no increased threat to pedestrians due to the weight. It doesn’t matter if a 2,000lb Miata hits you or a 9,000lb Silverado EV hits you: neither vehicle is slowing down significantly upon impact with a 150lb meat bag.
Newton’s second law does not agree with this.
Newton’s second law states that an object accelerates if you push on it. Not sure what that has to do with the situation of a car crashing into a pedestrian.
The fact is, the force transfer from a big heavy object to a squishy meat bag is not limited by the weight of the car. You will absorb basically the same force if hit by a semi truck at 15mph or a Miata at 15mph, assuming they have the same geometry on the front. Either way, the pedestrian will go flying and the car won’t appreciably slow down.
It’s very easy to understand that the momentum transfer is very inefficient. First, a 2000lb car going 15mph does not stop when it hits a pedestrian, which tells you the efficiency is less than 100%.
Secondly, a 2000lb car going 15mph has a kinetic energy of about 22,000 joules, or equivalent to about 31 shots from a 9mm handgun. It is obvious that being hit by a car at 15mph, although injurious, inflicts much less energy on a person than being shot 31 times with a handgun. This illustrates how little of the car’s energy is transferred to the pedestrian in the real world.
This becomes even more obvious when you remember that injuries to pedestrians struck by cars(at relatively moderate speeds) are usually caused by impact with the hard ground, or by getting run over and smushed. The impact with the car is not typically what causes injuries and deaths, even though a lightweight car going just 15mph carries enough energy to kill a person several times over.
What would transfer 100% of a car’s energy to a pedestrian is if that pedestrian was standing against a flat brick wall and were hit by a car with a large flat front. It should be abundantly clear that, no matter the weight of the car, a situation like this would completely cream any mammalian meat bag.
And that is the real reason that a Silverado EV is more injurious than a Miata: because it much more closely approximates a car with a large and perfectly flat front.
This may be true, though I imagine it’d be hard to build a 9,000lb vehicle with the geometry of a Miata. But based on this, if someone could, I’d bet it’d be GM.
You do mention how some injuries are caused by being, for lack of a better term, smushed. Here we can probably agree, a 9,000lb truck rolling itself over your now flattened corpse… poses a potential issue for the pedestrian relative to the mass of the brodozer. Even worse, I’m doubtful that the driver would even notice.
That’s true, it hurts more to get run over with a quarter of 9000lb than a quarter of 2000lb. The pickup also has much better ground clearance and approach angle, so it is massively more likely to go up and over a person than a Miata.
I am but a squirrel to the heft of a Silverado EV.
Sir Isaac would disagree with you.
And I am more concerned with people like me who drive human sized cars.
The thing about the price, you can easily spec out a Silverado 1500 to $80k, so trucks in general are just too damn expensive.
I don’t know how people afford $80k+ trucks.
>_>
*_*
>_>
they don’t…
They’re not just buying a truck, they’re buying a loan. A big one. When you restrict yourself to saving cash to buy a used car, most people aren’t buying vehicles at 80 grand. $15,000 is a far better value.
Most of them are trading in their last truck.
Since trucks have good resale, the loan is actually reasonable, although if you keep trading you’re paying it off in perpetuity.
I imagine vanishingly few people are walking in and buying an $80,000 truck without a big trade in.
Yeah, I would suspect that one would go in and buy a low spec model (or a nicer used one), then keep working your way up each time you trade. Hell, that’s basically how I’ve done with cars: trade in for something a little nicer and more expensive each time.
Fair point. I would prefer to drive a 15 to 20 year old vehicle and save cash to buy its replacement in a decade instead of continuually paying for auto loans. The average car payment lately is around $750 per month. That is crazy.
Longer loans than ever,
This is the 2025 Avalanche. I have no need or want for an electric truck. But I’ll take one with the 6.2
The 6.2 (L87) isn’t doing too hot right now, main bearings, and the ’23’s had lifter bore problems. No recalls, just Chevy giving those affected free engines.
Overheard in a GM strategy session.
Flunky 1: We don’t want to build EVs but we can’t piss off the government.
Flunky 2: But the market might go in that direction so we should probably do some R&D.
Flunky 1: But we can’t make them profitably.
CFO: If we build only expensive and ridiculous vehicles, people won’t buy them. Then we don’t lose money and we’ve proven they won’t sell.
Barra: It’s a plan!
$97k for the privilege of spending an additional $2500-3000 in tires every 8000 miles or so. Sounds fantastic. Where do I sign up?
This is where my mind went. This is one of the few vehicles where 24″ wheels don’t look ridiculous, but the price of 24″ tires are absurd. Given how EVs tend to chew through tires, I struggle to see how this thing will have lower operating costs than an ICE vehicle unless you are comparing it to an Escalade V.
Hopefully future versions are cheaper and come with more reasonably-sized wheels.
At the moment the only 275/50R24 tires on Tire Rack are Michelin Defenders at $580 each. Yikes.
I wish we could use gifs here so I could post one of someone’s eyes bulging with shock.
What’s not to love?
H U M M E R
I mean, this is the closest EV to being able to do truck stuff and get close to matching current ICE on range. And with a Midgate it can do some truck stuff better than the ICE that’s out there.
Nice option.
You would think a highly optimized EV-first structure would have significant weight savings, no? Yet somehow the vehicle on its own without the battery weighs nearly 1000 pounds more than its competitors. Absolutely baffling.
That’s because competitors like the Cybertruck have effectively a half ton pickup GVWR, while this has effectively a one ton pickup GVWR. And that really does account for like 1,000lb worth of chassis and suspension.
When I first saw the pics I said “Avalanche reborn!” seriously its like they just took that design “silveradofied” it and said ok there we go.
Also 9k pounds us just crazy talk!
Also 97K Price point is just crazy talk! (☉̃ₒ☉)
yeah that too lol
I love the look and the return of the Avalanche concept, but I’d rather see it as something more the size of the Colorado/Canyon.
I like the long range, but does it really need 750HP and a 10K tow rating? Nobody is buying these to do truck things as long as there are still ICE or hybrid trucks.
A smaller truck with a smaller battery that could potentially give the same range with a smaller price would prob be a hit.
At least the Hummers have a little prestige and offroad chops, OTOH I don’t think people are going to be lining up to buy a 90K Chevy “truck”.
If people bought cars with their brains instead of their hearts, we’d all be driving small diesel hatchbacks and renting uhauls for truck stuff. I agree, a small electric pickup with less of everything makes far more sense and is more appealing to me, but the middle aged dentists and IT Team Leads want the tow rating even if they have no plans to tow anything ever.
I used to love big, dumb trucks, but even I have to say they’re just getting unnecessarily large. I think there’s no reason for fullsize trucks to be any larger than a mid 90’s GMT400 or OBS F150. The width is fine, those were wide too, but why are the hood heights so incredibly high? The grille opening on a new Silverado is like 2X of the GMT400 trucks, some of which were available with a damn 7.4L big block.
It really is crazy. I have a mid-60’s 4×4 F250 (actually an F26, but nobody knows what that is) and it sits way up in the air. Hood height is close to a modern 3/4 ton 4×4 but it also has way, way more ground clearance and is dwarfed by modern pickups in every dimension except height. Since those early 4×4’s were so tall and hard to get in the bed/under the hood/in the cab, it sort of became a selling point to have a lower, more easily accessible 4×4. Oh how the times have changed.
Yes! When I was a kid I had a squarebody Chevy K10 on a 4″ lift and 35″ tires. LOADS of ground clearance, but today a stock Silverado that would scrape it’s airdam on a curb has a taller hood and roof height.
It is not dwarfed by comparable newer pickups in width or length, so I don’t know what you mean………
The shortest new f250 has over a foot more wheelbase than the old one and is 5 or so inches wider. If I could post pictures here I’d post the one I have of it sitting next to a ~2018 RCLB 3/4 ton.
I really wish they’d just call it the Avalanche because that’s what it clearly is.
But separately, I know that jumbo SUVs are always where the desirable price margins are and this is how automakers make money….but if we’re seriously about moving towards EVs, someone needs to truly make the Corolla of EVs. Small, affordable, efficient, trouble-free. I know they can’t charge $100k for that and the fact that currently the vast majority of people buy EVs as a status symbol negates there being true interest in a Corolla (or CR-V) equivalent EV…but as I said, if the goal was actually to get away from ICE vehicles and move towards EVs, this would be the way to do it. Not $100k+, four+ ton trucks.
No, no. Call it the EValanche!
That interior looks from a $35K Chevy, not $97K! Insane pricing but its all on the things you don’t see I guess.
I was thinking the same thing like the interior in my fiances Tourx is nicer then what is in this.
These smack of lazy engineering and poor executive direction for the goals and timelines on this project. The knock-on effect cycle of upsizing everything is extremely real, and it was clear that the simplest approach of “add 10-20% margin” to every single component was taken because “hey look at how quick and cheap that was to engineer!”
GM knows this is a first gen EV platform, and that it won’t sell anywhere near well enough to justify development costs, so they designed it cheaply and easily by just beefing the ever-loving hell out of every single specification to get a remotely acceptable product.
There are really only two upsides to this approach. One is that development can theoretically be cheaper and faster, at least getting the truck out the door of engineering quicker than doing it well. Second is towing should have a lesser hit on range than rivals because the truck is so damn inefficient that the added losses from towing will be a far lesser percentage of power consumption than on rivals.
All of this to say, I’m sure it’s a decent vehicle if you can afford to burn money on the level of a new S-Class, and Sam’s writeup here was exceptional, but GM phoned in the engineering on this so hard its laughable. GM’s corporate leadership is a clear mess with changes in direction coming whenever the PR winds blow from one buzzword to another.
GM has made some great cars over the years, but I really do hate GM for this reason. Other than maybe the Corvette, everything they do seems half baked for some reason or another. This is what happens when investor returns are the #1 priority and actually producing product is just a necessary evil.
And the real irony of that is that the stock price hasn’t seen a meaningful net change since Mary Barra took over as CEO, within $4 (<10% gains) of the price in early 2014 when she took over, well below the pace of inflation in a decade. It’s clear they don’t invest properly in their products, or I think more likely, they have an extremely inefficient corporate system with serious issues to commitments, causing an awful lot of waste.
Emphasis on poor executive direction. If the objective was to build a first gen EV that won’t sell in huge numbers, so R&D needs to be cheap, the only move would be to convert an existing pickup chassis. You know, what Ford did.
One point about GM not using Apple’s CarPlay. I was always a huge fan of CarPlay and continue to use it. But I have a Volvo XC60 Recharge, which uses the Android software but still allows CarPlay. I almost never use CarPlay in it because the Android apps are actually better. It allows apps far more freedom, so The Weather Channel app shows active radar, and as Sam noted, it has Waze (although it will only show in the center console, and not the drivers). It would be smart for GM to allow CarPlay, but it shouldn’t be a decision killer (unlike the 9k weight) for anyone thinking about a GM car.
It sounds like Ford made the right call in designing the battery to fit the truck instead of the truck to fit the battery. We will have to see what happens with their next generation trucks.
Enjoyed the thoughtful review – thanks! This could lead to another interesting article about the physics of these super heavy EVs. If force = mass * acceleration, then these super heavy and supercar fast EVs get to be pretty scary. But Newton didn’t seem to understand that in America precieved coolness of trucks also = mass * acceleration.
how many EV pickups accelerating at once will be enough to change earth’s orbit? Good XKCD What If?
Sam, I was never interested in the Silverado EV, but I read almost ever word of your review and thoroughly enjoyed it. Loads of easily digested information with just enough opinion to get why this truck isn’t for most people (any people?). Thanks for the article and I look forward to more with your byline.
Almst every word?
The sacrifices required in the design of this vehicle just to bring it to a fraction of the capability of any ICE-powered truck lay bare the fallacy that EV trucks are ready for prime time.
2035 is coming. Tick tock, tick tock….
Most people don’t tow let alone use the bed 90% of the time. It would service the majority of truck buyers without issue. It’s also not much more expensive than the comparable gas versions of the trucks they sell. They sell Silverado 1500s for $84k already.
Source?
“I made it up”
Even this pessimistic study shows 70% haul with their trucks and 36% tow. And this survey was limited to F-150 owners; HD owners presumably do both much more.
https://www.powernationtv.com/post/most-pickup-truck-owners-use-them
There are stats that go both ways:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
You can haul with this Silverado EV.
Most Pickup Truck Owners Don’t Actually Do Any Truck Stuff (motorbiscuit.com)
“According to Axios, most people who buy trucks like the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, Toyota Tacoma, or Ram 1500 don’t do truck stuff.
Only 7.0% of truck buyers frequently use their trucks to tow. About 2% of people use their trucks to tow occasionally, while 63% of owners rarely or never tow.
But at least 28% of owners frequently use their trucks for personal hauling, while 47% of owners occasionally haul. Nearly 32% of owners rarely or never haul personal items. ”
As I said, this will work for the majority of truck owners. The 2035 transition includes
As for 2035, California’s ZEV mandate will allow plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to account for up to 20% of the sales mix. California’s new rules specify at least 50 miles of battery-only range for these vehicles.
You literally quoted the same study I did.
Leaving aside any questions about capability or usage whatsoever, $100,000 does not work for “the majority” of truck owners, even if a single digit percentage of ICE trucks sell for almost that much.
You did not mention cost as the factor in your original post, just capability. Yes, it’s expensive. You said EV trucks are not ready for prime time when they are for the majority of truck buyers and even more people who bought the Avalanche before they made this electric version.
The price is one of the required sacrifices. To get semi-acceptable range, you need a huge battery, which drives the cost to six figures.
Your opinion of whether this truck meets buyers’ needs and desires is about to be tested. I predict slow sales; perhaps you feel differently.
This will sell to people that bought the Cadillac Escalade EXT. It’s not meant to be a work truck. I agree it’s going to be pretty slow selling.
What is “hauling”? Personally, I would consider hauling something that couldn’t be done with a sedan, minivan, or other traditional vehicle. And yet, I’d wager lots of people claim they “hauled” the bag of soccer balls as coach of their kid’s soccer team, or “hauled” two flats of annuals home from Home Depot. All stuff that could have easily been done with a Honda Civic.
I’d also point to the the fact that the sales leaders are the variants with the smallest beds as being further proof.
I do not know the methodology of the survey.
I do know the standard practice here is to always assume the worst about full size truck owners. So I have no doubt that commenters will continue to seize on the soccer coach they saw once putting a bag of balls in the bed rather than the millions of people towing a boat or camper this holiday weekend, for example.
I’m not against trucks, I just tend to agree with the sentiment that most people don’t actually need them. I agree they are probably the best vehicle all around, but I also think people underestimate what they’d actually be able to “get away with”.
My folks have had pick ups for years. I borrow occasionally. My brother had a Tacoma I also borrowed a lot. He’s also got a ’69 C10 that I borrow some times.
But I still manage to do a hell of a lot more with my Outback than any of my truck-owning co-workers do with their trucks. Of the 8 in the parking lot, only one has a hitch that looks like it ever had a ball mount inserted. Their trucks are always clean. All of them live on suburban lots; maybe a maximum of an acre.
And then they made fun of me for putting ~1.2 yards of mulch (bagged in my Outback. Would a truck have been easier? Yep. But not enough that I’m willing to park one every day or take the gas mileage hit.
Oh, the guy that actually uses the hitch? He tows a small utility trailer with his motorcycle in it. Something that even my Outback can do.
What a ridiculous definition, considering it’s basically impossible to haul anything with a half ton pickup that couldn’t be hauled with a minivan(which is legitimately close to a half ton pickup in weight capacity and cargo area dimensions).
That’s the point though. If these people are “hauling” 10 bags a groceries, is that really hauling?
I understand your point. You made a definition which defines carrying groceries as not hauling. The problem is, your definition also defines my carrying 1300lb of rock as Not Hauling. And 100′ of fence pickets, posts, and concrete totaling about 1300lb would be Not Hauling. And my four kayaks+3 days of camping gear for 4 people would be Not Hauling. And the 2000lb shed I towed 400mi a few months ago would be Not Hauling. I have hauled all of these things with my f150. I could have hauled any of these things with a minivan with increased difficulty.
Your point is that you don’t like that people buy pickups and don’t work them. But you (badly) illustrated that point by coming up with an obviously dumb definition of hauling.
You don’t have to take things so literally. It’s an online comment. Of course it’s going going to fully define “hauling” as well as an actual white paper should.
Calm down buddy.
I don’t really care if people buy pick ups. I just disagree with the claim that people buy them because they need them. People are free to buy what they want; that’s fine. But don’t try to convince me you needed it because you “haul” groceries or you rebuilt part of your fence once four years ago with it.
They do sell some Silverados for $84k, I’m sure, but the majority are going to be sold for much less than that. This stupid thing also weighs almost 5 fucking tons, too. That and the pricing are its main issues.
It doesn’t matter. I’m going to quote my article “EVs Are Just The Wrong Tool For Serious Towing In 2024″:
True but lots of people buy trucks for the bed and not for towing. In this regard the truck is suited for those people. I would argue that most light duty truck buyers do not even consider towing capabilities in their decision. Especially someone shopping at this price for a light duty pickup. Claiming an EV can’t do truck stuff because it can’t haul a massive trailer is a bad faith argument.
This kind of reply really makes me wonder about the psyche and behavior of people who claim not to understand the very simple truth that normal people buy their vehicle for edge cases.
Like, what good does it do to say that it snows only 3 months a year, therefore it’s irrational to own a snow shovel? Or that I probably won’t get sick, so why bother getting a vaccine?
Do these people really and honestly think that someone is going to rent a truck to tow twice a year, or to haul things home from the big box store? Does anyone actually do that?
You don’t need to tow every weekend for it to make sense to buy something with towing capability.
Lots of people do not buy pickups to buy things from a big box store and get by just fine. Most drivers never tow anything and seem to be just fine. Lots of people rent trucks at Home Depot to bring stuff home, its why they offer that service. Its why delivery is a thing. Crossovers are popular because they offer that kind of flexibility of having room for some bulkier options. Not many people base their purchase decision on whether a refrigerator fits in the back or if they can pull a house.
“Or that I probably won’t get sick, so why bother getting a vaccine?” The last 5 years have clearly shown that people do make decisions this way.
I am also only referring to light duty trucks. People looking at larger trucks like a 2500 for F250 are going to have different requirements.
With each reply I’ve become more convinced you’ve never met an actual truck buyer in your life.
What you observe people doing with their trucks is not the extent of what they actually do with them. And people buy for their worst cases, not for their average case. Every one of those people in the survey who answered that they “occasionally” tow or haul is making a purchase that covers their bases. You can call that irrational if you want, but it’s reality.
I am one of the people who questions why people buy xyz when they could have just bought zyx. But funny thing is the older I get I am starting to understand that people will buy things based on something they may or may never actually do. Like I have my truck do I haul with it on a daily or even weekly basis? No not really but there are those times where it is I am really glad I have a truck with an 8ft bed that can haul 14 ft deck boards no problem or be filled with gravel or yard work rocks. Even now when looking for a new car to get myself in the future for a daily sure I could just get something cheap and reliable like a Corolla or Camry but I would much prefer something much more fun like a Miata or a quick electric car.
Add this to the list of vehicles that can’t legally cross the Brooklyn Bridge.
I can’t wait to see the videos of people losing their shit because the 150 year old bridge wasn’t built with their light duty truck that weighs 9,000lb in mind.
Ironically, the 150 year old Brooklyn Bridge wasn’t built to hold a 9,000lb pickup. It was built to hold trains weighing up to 18,700 tons, which it did from 1883 to 1948.
I wonder if the GPS will route you around it like big rig GPS can.
To be fair, 6,000lb is a very very low limit, and passenger vehicles weighing over 6,000lb are neither rare nor only recently common. If the limit was 8,000lb then this would be much more notable. But this is a heavy electric vehicle replacing a gas vehicle that is………. also too heavy for the bridge.
6000lb is fairly low limit, but it’s not unreasonable and whilst you state it’s not rare, it’s also not a weight that “average” vehicles approach – necessitating heavy duty trucks, or unusual builds (such as the old LandRover Discovery with unibody on a full frame).
Arguably heavy duty trucks should be routed with heavier vehicles anyway (why would anyone want to drive an F350 into NYC if they didn’t need to is beyond me)
It’s absolutely a weight that normal vehicles approach and exceed. My Expedition weighs about 6,600lb empty(7500+ loaded), as would any other vehicle that could carry all 8 members of my family. My single cab f150 also weighs over 6,000lb when it is loaded. Neither of these are heavy duty trucks(they’re class 2 light trucks, and half tons too) or unusual or abnormal in any way. This is a normal weight for large family cars to weigh.
I really don’t understand GM they had the EV Hummer come out first and now this? And for the price of these things why would anyone buy these over a gas or diesel truck? And as pointed out the weight of these is just ridiculous and the range drops to nothing when towing heavy loads so please make it make sense haha.
GM sells boat loads of trucks and during the COVID pricing insanity/Inflation Boogaloo like pretty much every corporation they pushed things to their absolute limit when it came to pricing and how much they could get away with charging for ridiculous shit.
This disgusting abomination might have sold in 2021 or 2022, but the bubble has popped. People that can afford six figure cars already bought them. People that want an EV have already bought one, and are likely underwater on it to boot…so they’re not in a rush to stick their collective dicks in a hornet’s nest again.
The Rivian also undercuts this on price and is exponentially cooler. This is just such a fucking useless product and waste of resources. They could probably make double digit hybrids for every one of these monstrosities…
It’s funny that a Rivian, with basically zero capability to do truck work, is so well received, when the usual refrain against trucks is that people buy them to be “poseurs” and never use them. In the case of Rivian, that is undoubtedly true!
I think it’s because the Rivian isn’t trying to be something it isn’t. It’s an overtly quirky, cheerful product that doesn’t take itself too seriously. As a result it appeals to a lot of folks who aren’t the traditional truck crowd. Are they generally sitting in Whole Foods parking lots? Sure, but let’s not act like the average $80,000 full sized ICE truck ever sees more than a dirt road.
EVs also aren’t good at truck stuff. We both know this. People that actually need trucks to do truck stuff with are still buying ICE ones, and for good reason. I think in an attempt to make an EV that’s capable of doing truck stuff GM wound up with a confused product that will appeal to neither the truck crowd nor the EV crowd.
I think Rivian understood the assignment better. And you just know there are a bunch of cringe ads that are about to be airing during hockey, baseball, and football games about how this EV Silverado is EXTREMELY MANLY and can BEAT A GRIZZLY BEAR IN A FIGHT or some shit.
I agree with your assessment of the Silverado, but I just laugh at the idea of people’s thought processes being something like:
“Heavy, inefficient vehicle that is capable of doing work, but I don’t think enough people do work with them?” BOOOOOO, BUY ONLY WHAT YOU NEED
“Heavy, inefficient vehicle that is not capable of doing work, and no one does work with them?” AWESOME, SO WHIMSICAL AND CHEERFUL
No one has ever been accused of having insufficient genitalia for buying a Rivian. Sadly, I think it’s mostly due to the perceived political affiliations of the Rivian buyer vs the diesel HD truck buyer.
You are missing the target audience- Rivian is very explicit, and very smart about what their ads show, and they are not going after the same people GMC is. Every one of their ads shows a diverse crowd of clean-cut mostly young people, all of whom are clad in immaculate outdoor gear of only the most fashionable brands, doing outdoorsy things like camping, kayaking, or mountain biking. The same people who bought 4Runners, Outbacks, and high end Wranglers to show their outdoorsy lifestyle (and who incidentally usually have high-paying remote-working laptop class jobs) now buy Rivians. It’s a great demographic if you can corner the market.
GMC loves to show manly men doing manly things like loading gravel and towing logs on a flatbed with lots of mud spraying everywhere. Very different images on display.
Also, I am 100% on board with the cheerful front face on Rivians. The GRRRR ANGRY SQUINT front face on pretty much all modern vehicles is a trend that needs to go away as soon as possible.
My comment is directed not at the respective buyers, but at the commenters here. To wit:
I agree that Rivian has done a great job marketing to the correct audience. I strongly suspect that more of their target audience comments here than GMC’s, which helps explain why no one seems to care that they can’t do “truck stuff” and are the embodiment of what so many here claim to hate, the truck that is a lifestyle vehicle only.
Outside of towing, what makes the Rivian have “zero capability to do truck work”? Even according to the study you posted, 63% of buyers rarely/never tow.
Zero is a bit of hyperbole and I should have chosen a better word, but with a 4.5 foot bed it’s not hauling much.
A short bed crew cab gas truck can at least pull a trailer to augment its meager capacity (which is still 25% larger than the Rivian’s), but range drops catastrophically if you try that with the R1.
And for some reason, crew-cab short-bed pick-ups are the best sellers.
I get the inkling that the 4.5 ft bed in actuality is just fine for the majority of pick-up buyers. Just like the fact it’s not any good for towing.
A 4.5′ bed is impressively useless. I own two three wheeler ATVs. They are just over 6′ long, but because they’re shaped like triangles, if I’m careful, I can fit both of them in my 8′ bed with the tailgate up. The Rivian could fit 0 three wheelers with the tailgate up. This is especially comical because the Rivian is approximately double the weight of my f150, while being considerably longer and taller.
And I’m not even talking about real work! This is the kind of outdoorsy leisure activities that the Rivian is meant for!
The cost to recharge this at the house ($0.13/kwh for me in Michigan) would only buy 7 gallons of gas. How far can you tow on 7 gallons? Something like 70 miles, and 210 miles is a lot more than 70 for the same price. That is probably still not enough savings to make up for the higher purchase price, but if gas prices double it would make more financial sense.
For me depends what I am towing I have had my Cummins loaded up with about 3k rocks and stuff in the bed and drove from VA and back to Indiana and even with thsh much weight I was still getting 18-19mpg from my calculations (I normally get 20-22 when unloaded) so that 7 gallons could get me almost 140 miles. The thing is though I can still stop at gas stations and prices won’t be that much of a change when driving cross country unlike charging and EV which is going to cost much more when not charging at home. So yeah I just cannot see getting one of these because you want to save money even if you only charge at home and it cost half or even 1/3 what the gas would these trucks prices compared to the gas/diesel counter parts it seems it would take a whole to get to a break even point on the cost.
It would only buy 6.5 gallons of diesel so you would get around 120 miles with that load. It would be great to know the range of the silverado with the same 3k lb load in the bed, but it is likely between 320-360 miles.
If gas prices actually double, it will be impossible to buy a Silverado EV because they will be all sold out. Placing your bet that gas prices will stay the same or go down may turn out to be correct, but the break even point will come a lot sooner if we use the all time high price from a few years ago instead of the current price.
Nine. Thousand. Goddamn. Pounds.
That is the issue. The mid gate is cool though.