1996 Gmc Sierra 1500 4x4 *6.5 Turbo Diesel* Low Miles *very Rare* Lifted on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2014 GMC Sierra [w/video]

Big And Boxy Might Be Best
As immense fans of the Back to the Future trilogy, we sometimes like to envision an alternate timeline in which General Motors had killed off GMC and kept Pontiac instead. The G8 GXP would still be on the road handily beating German sport sedans costing twice as much, while the lowly G3 would morph into a true subcompact-killer based on what is now the Chevrolet Sonic RS. While we're at it, let's go ahead and imagine the G6 has become the best-selling car in the US and the Torrent crossover is selling 20,000+ units per month. Far-fetched, we know.
The thing is, these fanciful statements would have to be true to make the case against keeping GMC. Pontiac may have offered more excitement than GMC, but money talks, and a full line of trucks, crossovers and SUVs have made a lot more money for GM than the arrowhead brand ever did. How much? As we learned last month, about two-thirds of GM's global profits came from its fullsize trucks, and GMC's trucks typically have thicker margins than their Chevrolet counterparts.

Should heavy-duty pickup trucks have window stickers with fuel mileage estimates?

If you were to stroll into your nearest Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Nissan, or Ram dealership, you'd find a bunch of pickup trucks. Most of those would have proper window stickers labeled with things like base prices, options prices, location of manufacture, and, crucially, fuel economy estimates. But you'd also run across a number of heavy-duty trucks with no such fuel mileage data from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA doesn't require automakers to publish the valuable miles-per-gallon measurement for vehicles with gross weight ratings that exceed 8,500 pounds. That makes it difficult for consumers to compare behemoths powered by turbocharged diesel engines – between one another, and between smaller, gasoline-fueled trucks. Consumer Reports doesn't think it should be this way, and it's spearheading an effort (PDF link) to get the government to require manufacturers to publish fuel economy estimates. In its own testing, CR found that heavy-duty pickups powered by Ford's Power Stroke, GM's Duramax, and FCA's Cummins diesel engines (which doesn't include the Ram's EcoDiesel) get worse fuel mileage than their lighter-duty gas-powered siblings. We're not so sure HD-truck buyers are unaware of this fact – big diesels don't really come into their own until big loads are placed in their beds or attached to their trailer hitches. Under heavy workloads, the diesel trucks will almost certainly return greater efficiency than a similar gas-powered truck. What's more, HD trucks with lumbering diesels in general make the driver feel more confident while towing due to greater torque at low engine RPM than gas trucks. They also offer greater max-weight limits. Still, we agree EPA fuel mileage estimates should be offered for heavy-duty pickups. And we think the comparisons provided by Consumer Reports might be interesting to potential buyers. Click here to see the results of CR's tests, and let us know what you think using the poll below. Related Video: Featured Gallery 2017 Ford F-Series Super Duty: First Drive View 22 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Read This Chevrolet Ford GMC Nissan RAM Fuel Efficiency Truck Commercial Vehicles Diesel Vehicles poll gmc sierra hd chevy silverado hd

2018 GMC Canyon Denali isn't worth the money

In the GMC lineup, Denali is the top dog. It's the trim with all the bells and whistles, and often provides an experience comparable to Cadillac. Unfortunately that's not the case in the GMC Canyon Denali we drove recently. In the Canyon's case, the Denali trim isn't worth the price premium because it isn't luxurious enough and doesn't distinguish itself from the midlevel SLT trim. While the outside maintains the Denali look with a unique chrome grille, chrome door handles, 20-inch wheels, and big Denali badges (which a guy at a car wash immediately noticed when this editor drove past), the interior and feature set don't rise to meet the borderline Cadillac image of Denali. All GMC did to spruce up the already drab, gray, plasticky interior of the Canyon was give it black leather, some real aluminum trim, some fake wood trim, and stitched soft-touch surfaces. The aluminum and leather are nice touches, but they don't look much different from the black and aluminum-look plastic in lower trim models. The fake wood also looks really fake. They're also exactly the same upgrades as what you'll find in an SLT. But the SLT offers a dark brown color scheme as an option, which would help alleviate the dinginess, and the SLT, equipped exactly like a base Denali, costs $2,690 less at $41,575. The same issue comes up with equipment. The Denali has heated seats and steering wheel, navigation, automatic climate and navigation, but so does the SLT. The big problem here is that Denali is supposed to indicate the best, most luxurious vehicle GMC has to offer, but there's not enough differentiation — or specialness, even — to separate it from a well-optioned SLT. GMC needs to give the Denali something more. It needs some real wood trim, or perhaps some interior schemes with contrasting materials you can't find in other Canyons. It should have some other special luxury features included that can't be added to lower trim GMCs such as a heads-up display, automatic windshield wipers, push-button keyless entry and starting, things like that. The real reason to buy the Canyon Denali is really to get the prestige that the Denali badge brings, rather than the specific equipment it has — the Denali name has some value, after all. But if you can look past the badge and focus on practicality, the SLT is the runaway winner, offering the exact same experience for a notably lower price.