GM May Break SUV-Truck Marriage to Cut Fuel Use, Emissions

[racy]

Full Article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...PjU&refer=home


May 8 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. may be forced to break up a seven-decade marriage of pickups and large sport- utility vehicles as Americans restrict the fossil-fuel diet of their transportation.

Under pressure to produce a more fuel-efficient and cleaner- running line of vehicles, GM is investigating ways to design a lighter replacement for its biggest SUVs, such as the Chevrolet Tahoe, without relying on a heavier pickup-truck frame, according to people familiar with the effort.

The Tahoe and its predecessors have shared the design of the Chevy Silverado pickups since the model was introduced in 1965. While no decision has been made, GM engineers are considering a shift in 2012 to a car-like construction for successors to the Tahoe and other large SUVs, including the GMC Yukon and Cadillac Escalade, said the people, who asked not to be named because the talks are confidential.

``It's a sea change in the type of vehicle that Americans are going to be driving,'' said Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at consulting firm Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. ``This is a big thing. For a long time, GM has been able to rely mostly on profits from trucks. That's changing.''

GM, the world's largest automaker, may also cut annual production capacity for these larger SUVs and pickups by 40 percent to 1 million vehicles from 1.7 million, the people said. Detroit-based GM announced April 28 that it will cut one shift each at three truck plants and one making SUVs starting in July because of sales declines this year.

GM has no comment on design or production changes for future SUVs, spokeswoman Sherrie Childers Arb said.

Shift Away

A shift away from a 72-year history of building an SUV off a large pickup-truck chassis would echo other moves by Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner as he tries to meet a government requirement to cut fuel use 40 percent by 2020. Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are also making fewer heavy-duty trucks to reduce their fleets' fuel consumption and meet the future mandate of a national average of 35 miles a gallon.

Lighter vehicles would not only reduce emissions and dependence on gasoline amid record fuel prices, they may also help GM sell more vehicles. Seeking to draw fuel-conscious buyers and end three years of losses, the automaker has already begun to eliminate larger eight-cylinder engines and is developing more models that use electric power and burn fuels from plant waste.

[jkr2106]

Hmm...replace Tahoes with lighter non-truck based suv...

Traverse?...I'm not sure I get this announcement. The minute an SUV isn't based on a truck, it's a crossover and GM already has an excellent crossover platform that's the same size as a Tahoe with better FE.

Can someone break this down for me?

[steinravnik]

This is proof that CAFE standards aren't all bad. Would GM be even considering this if CAFE standards weren't being revised? I think not. It would be business as usual. The fact of the matter is that a lot of things can be done to increase efficiency, but automakers won't implement them if they are not pushed to do so.

I suppose one could argue that the free market has pushed gas prices to their current levels, which is pushing automakers to increase efficiency despite CAFE. While this might be true, government regulations like CAFE help to grease the skids for issues like this.

[K-1]

Originally Posted by steinravnik

This is proof that CAFE standards aren't all bad. Would GM be even considering this if CAFE standards weren't being revised? I think not. It would be business as usual. The fact of the matter is that a lot of things can be done to increase efficiency, but automakers won't implement them if they are not pushed to do so.

I suppose one could argue that the free market has pushed gas prices to their current levels, which is pushing automakers to increase efficiency despite CAFE. While this might be true, government regulations like CAFE help to grease the skids for issues like this.

The Lambdas were under development long before the new CAFE standard was passed. Similar size, better fuel economy, less towing.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by jkr2106

Hmm...replace Tahoes with lighter non-truck based suv...

Traverse?...I'm not sure I get this announcement. The minute an SUV isn't based on a truck, it's a crossover and GM already has an excellent crossover platform that's the same size as a Tahoe with better FE.

Can someone break this down for me?

This was my first thought, as well. I was under the impression that the Lamda vehicles came close to the standard Tahoe in interior capacity.

[solman98]

Originally Posted by K-1

less towing.

But how many actually tow to the max of their ratings with a Tahoe (or similiar). Sounds like a good move to me.

[Elk]

Originally Posted by steinravnik

This is proof that CAFE standards aren't all bad. Would GM be even considering this if CAFE standards weren't being revised? I think not. It would be business as usual. The fact of the matter is that a lot of things can be done to increase efficiency, but automakers won't implement them if they are not pushed to do so.

I suppose one could argue that the free market has pushed gas prices to their current levels, which is pushing automakers to increase efficiency despite CAFE. While this might be true, government regulations like CAFE help to grease the skids for issues like this.

This story is written by someone that doesn’t know what they are talking about.

GM already has a crossover replacement for their full-size SUVs it’s the Lambdas (and they were built before the new CAFE standards). CAFE isn’t going to result in GM build a more efficient Tahoe, it’s just going to kill the Tahoe.

I can’t believe I’m still having the argument. For the thousand time: CAFE doesn’t make vehicles more efficient, there is no 30 mpg Tahoe sitting in some secret GM building that GM will bring out because of CAFE. All CAFE does is create a defacto ban on vehicles with low fuel economy.

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by Elk

This story is written by someone that doesn’t know what they are talking about.

That's what I was thinking. There are far too many pieces written by uninformed individuals like this.

The Lambda's are already on the market and are doing what this article claims GM will do in it' epiphany.

[Joevette]

will the suburban stay on the truck frame?

[WishIhadatruck]

Originally Posted by steinravnik

This is proof that CAFE standards aren't all bad. Would GM be even considering this if CAFE standards weren't being revised? I think not. It would be business as usual. The fact of the matter is that a lot of things can be done to increase efficiency, but automakers won't implement them if they are not pushed to do so.

I suppose one could argue that the free market has pushed gas prices to their current levels, which is pushing automakers to increase efficiency despite CAFE. While this might be true, government regulations like CAFE help to grease the skids for issues like this.

So GM is currently selling a higher ratio of cars to trucks because CAFE has pressured them? No, it is because of fuel prices and customer demand. It would be easy to argue that customer demand will have a much larger impact on what vehicles GM makes than CAFE. The fleet has already started to shift towards more fuel efficient vehicles so you really don't need to "suppose" to hard.

I agree the article doesn't make a lot of sense since the Traverse will easily replace the Tahoe for most people. Perhaps GM has a trick up their sleeve (not counting on it) to give us a full size SUV with more towing capacity and better off road capability but the fuel efficiency of the Traverse. I see plenty of people use their Tahoe/Suburbans/Expeditions hauling boats, RV's, etc. that would not be possible with a Traverse. With the price of gas I think RV's will become less popular and the light weight models will become more popular. It seemed in the late 90's light weight camping trailers became more popular and the last 5 years or so many of the trailers labeled "light" aren't so light anymore.

[GM-10]

Originally Posted by megeebee

This was my first thought, as well. I was under the impression that the Lamda vehicles came close to the standard Tahoe in interior capacity.

Just imagine Lambda times 1.25 or 1.33. Truthfully a unitized vehicle with the exterior dimensions of a Tahoe would be dramatically lighter, accelerate better, handle better, get better fuel economy and would exploit space efficiencies that would render a cavernous interior when compared to the current Tahoe.

[WishIhadatruck]

Wasn't there a lot of discussion about doing a full size SUV based on the GMC Denali XT concept? Maybe that is where this could be going? Of course the Lambda's have higher towing limits than the stated 3500 lb towing capacity of the Denali XT. I still think the Denali XT concept is foolish if they can't even match the towing capacity of the Ridgeline. Hopefully GM was just joking about the payload and towing numbers.

Originally Posted by GM-10

Just imagine Lambda times 1.25 or 1.33. Truthfully a unitized vehicle with the exterior dimensions of a Tahoe would be dramatically lighter, accelerate better, handle better, get better fuel economy and would exploit space efficiencies that would render a cavernous interior when compared to the current Tahoe.

This would make for a nice Suburban replacement if you didn't need the towing or off road capabilities of a Suburban. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

[megeebee]

Originally Posted by GM-10

Just imagine Lambda times 1.25 or 1.33. Truthfully a unitized vehicle with the exterior dimensions of a Tahoe would be dramatically lighter, accelerate better, handle better, get better fuel economy and would exploit space efficiencies that would render a cavernous interior when compared to the current Tahoe.

Could a unitized platform also offer RWD, or is FWD w/ AWD optional the best we could hope for? I realize RWD adds weight, and weight is now the new enemy. But AWD has to be at least as heavy as a drivetrain. Am I way off?

[t-rex]

Originally Posted by jkr2106

Hmm...replace Tahoes with lighter non-truck based suv...

Traverse?...I'm not sure I get this announcement. The minute an SUV isn't based on a truck, it's a crossover and GM already has an excellent crossover platform that's the same size as a Tahoe with better FE.

Can someone break this down for me?

I think it's likely that the Tahoe will be dead in less than a decade. It's a product of the 4-door family SUV craze that started in the early 90s, a craze that's clearly dying out. Even if fuel prices weren't rising, there still was the likelihood that this segment, like many things "fashionable", would have simply died out on its own.

Regarding the Suburban... it's been around since 1935 and serves a purpose as a truck-based vehicles. Granted that purpose shouldn't be to shuttle Skippy and Princess to school, but the Suburban's had countless other uses over the past 70 years that didn't involve being the family wagon. Even with high fuel prices, there'll always be a need somewhere out there for a rugged, truck-based wagon. The Suburban needs to stay a wagonized Chevy pickup. Airstream owners need something to tow their rigs with!

And of course I can't resist the "coulda-woulda-shoulda"....

GM should have launched the first Lambda as a Chevy, and named it "Tahoe", capitalising on the strength of the model name and its appeal to families. The GMT900 Tahoe should have been the "Suburban", and the big Suburban the "Suburban EXT". Hey the Yukon and Yukon XL follow this formula, so it's not like the idea doesn't already work. That way, when sales of the SWB model take a dive, Chevy could drop it, and simply rename the LWB model "Suburban" again.

It's just an idea...

[Uzzy]

Originally Posted by WishIhadatruck

Wasn't there a lot of discussion about doing a full size SUV based on the GMC Denali XT concept? Maybe that is where this could be going? Of course the Lambda's have higher towing limits than the stated 3500 lb towing capacity of the Denali XT. I still think the Denali XT concept is foolish if they can't even match the towing capacity of the Ridgeline. Hopefully GM was just joking about the payload and towing numbers.

I want a Denali XT sooooo bad But I hope you're right about the towing. It was pathetic.