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

[Michael_S]

The Ridgeline is unibody, and Honda's first attempt at a pickup in the US, and it can tow 5000 pounds.

I am sure GM can make a unibody SUV the size of a Tahoe or Suburban that can still tow as much as the current body on frame models.

[Elk]

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.

You’re not seeing the forest for the trees. What makes the Lambdas light and big on the inside is the fact that they are FWD based. A unibody RWD Tahoe that’s the same size and can do just as much as the body on frame Tahoe would be about as big on the inside and just as heavy.

All that would be gained by making the Tahoe a unibody vehicle would be a small increase in handling.

[Slideways]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

The Ridgeline is unibody, and Honda's first attempt at a pickup in the US, and it can tow 5000 pounds.

I am sure GM can make a unibody SUV the size of a Tahoe or Suburban that can still tow as much as the current body on frame models.

But that's not a very good example, the Ridgeline gets the same fuel economy as a BOF truck. A lot of people get 15-16mpg in them. My friend gets that in his 5.3L 4-speed crew cab Silverado 4x4 with 33-inch tires. (Go ahead, call me a liar, but he did the math, and he's an accountant.)
Sure, the ride in a Ridgeline will be better than a 3/4-ton truck, but most 1/2-ton trucks don't really leave a lot of room to complain, and they have more capability. Ridgelines are also $30-35K vehicles, right up there with well-equipped crew cab 1/2-tons.
Honda may have been the first to market, but it's nothing to brag about because the product sucks. When a unibody truck can replace what people need, and, more importantly, what people want, then I will get behind it.

(I didn't even mention that they're ugly, unpopular, or actually a minivan missing part of its roof)

[drew630]

Well there goes my shot at owning a Suburban.

[I-Love-Pontiac]

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.

You think this is a good thing? A lot of people love their full size trucks and suvs. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean its a good thing when they stop making them.

[GM-10]

Originally Posted by Elk

You’re not seeing the forest for the trees. What makes the Lambdas light and big on the inside is the fact that they are FWD based. A unibody RWD Tahoe that’s the same size and can do just as much as the body on frame Tahoe would be about as big on the inside and just as heavy.

All that would be gained by making the Tahoe a unibody vehicle would be a small increase in handling.

That's not true...a body on frame's rails are much heavier. Yes RWD would make it heavier in comparison to a unibody with fwd...but that's only one piece in the puzzle.

Unibody is lighter on its own merits...no matter the drivetrain. Body on frame requires redundancies. Additionally Body on frame does not use space efficiently. That is precisely why a smaller unibody vehicle can yield proportionally higher interior space in comparison to a larger body on frame vehicle.

Forest spotted.

[member12]

NOOOO


The Suburban and Tahoe MUST remain on on an off road capable chassis that can tow.

THE TRAVERSE ALREADY COVERS THE FULL SIZED CROSSOVER MARKET.

I think the Suburban and all full sized trucks should grow in size to the point of being excempt from EPA status. I'd rather that happen than see the Tahoe and Suburban become the laughing stock of full sized trucks.

These trucks are going to sell in fewer and fewer numbers, so they have to be ready to fall back on their real SUV merits. The Tahoe and Suburban are going to have to compete with trucks like the Land Cruiser on the world market. I don't care about CAFE- these trucks will always have an audience.

The people who won't be buying Tahoes and Suburbans anymore will be the people who don't need an SUV in the first place....soccer moms. There will still be that core audience who has no choice but to buy a real full sized SUV. America has toys. These toys must be towed by something...and it shouldn't be a Toyota Sequoia.

[give_it_all_]

I think that it should remain as is. My town's Chev dealer is still selling tons of Tahoes. I want Tahoe next. But if it was not BOF then I see no point to a vehicle like that. I like BOF.

[GM-10]

Originally Posted by member12

NOOOO .

My favorite argument used on GMI.

[GMusa]

This may be a good idea.. only if they can keep them RWD with of course an AWD option.. and make them still able to tow the same amount as the current Silverado/Sierra based SUV's.

[jcgable]

Even if built under the same basic platform and being mechanically similar, I see a place for both the Traverse (should have been called Trailblazer) and a Unibody Tahoe. They could market each vehicle to different markets and make the two key differentiators towing capacity and styling. They could easily stretch the lambda's a bit and style it to look very similar to the current Tahoe. As long as they kept towing capacity up to 70-80% of what it is currently (lets face it, most Tahoe owners don't need it's current towing capacity) and equipped it with a fuel efficient V8, they could have a hit. Add a 2Mode and it will do very very well on the image front too.

[FenwickHockey65]

Uhhh...I'll still take my Yukon XL Denali on a truck frame please...

[Elk]

Originally Posted by GM-10

That's not true...a body on frame's rails are much heavier. Yes RWD would make it heavier in comparison to a unibody with fwd...but that's only one piece in the puzzle.

Unibody is lighter on its own merits...no matter the drivetrain. Body on frame requires redundancies. Additionally Body on frame does not use space efficiently. That is precisely why a smaller unibody vehicle can yield proportionally higher interior space in comparison to a larger body on frame vehicle.

Forest spotted.

VW Touareg length: 187" width: 75" curb weight: 5,086 lbs.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...ouareg-2-3.htm
TrailBlazer length: 191" width: 74" curb weight: 4,523 lbs.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...ilblazer-3.htm

If you don’t know the Touareg is unibody. And as you can see it has less head, leg and cargo room.

Unibodys are only lighter and more roomy when they are FWD. When you build a RWD unibody you end-up with a vehicle that’s just as heavy. The only up side is better handling. I dare you to find a RWD unibody SUV that’s lighter then it’s body on frame equivalent.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Slideways

But that's not a very good example, the Ridgeline gets the same fuel economy as a BOF truck. A lot of people get 15-16mpg in them. My friend gets that in his 5.3L 4-speed crew cab Silverado 4x4 with 33-inch tires. (Go ahead, call me a liar, but he did the math, and he's an accountant.)
Sure, the ride in a Ridgeline will be better than a 3/4-ton truck, but most 1/2-ton trucks don't really leave a lot of room to complain, and they have more capability. Ridgelines are also $30-35K vehicles, right up there with well-equipped crew cab 1/2-tons.
Honda may have been the first to market, but it's nothing to brag about because the product sucks. When a unibody truck can replace what people need, and, more importantly, what people want, then I will get behind it.

(I didn't even mention that they're ugly, unpopular, or actually a minivan missing part of its roof)

It was Honda's first attempt at a unibody pickup, and as you said it's based on a front wheel drive platform shared with their Odyssey minivan, Pilot, and MDX (although the new MDX may have a different platform, I don't remember). I'm pretty sure I read that the total development cost was less than $250 million, which is really low for a new model. But the guy who designed it could only get the Japanese executives to approve it exactly because it was so close to their minivan.

So it's at least possible that a dedicated, clean sheet unibody design can do much better in terms of weight and economy.

I think I can make a more fair evaluation of the Ridgeline, than you:
- Yes, it's ugly.
- It uses the minivan platform, but they've strengthened the transmission and added frame rails to it. There are not, to my knowledge, any reports of it failing to handle the listed 1100 pound bed capacity or 5000 pound tow rating. The Honda haters on this site (and that's most of us) would be posting about it all day if there were any.
- Base price is $28,000, many dealers offer discounts, and it comes equipped with power windows, 4WD with locking rear differential, stability control, side curtain airbags, remote keyless entry, power rear window, rear HVAC ducts, and cruise control. In order to get those features in a Silverado Crew Cab 4x4, you have to pick the LT1 trim and add $1000 in options. That stickers for $32,500 right now in my area with current discounts.
- The Ridgeline has reasonable cabin space, comfortable seats, and a turning radius 5 feet shorter than the Silverado. The four wheel independent suspension also give it a pleasant driving experience. Many reviewers assert that the Silverado has the nicest ride of any body on frame half ton pickup, but the same solid rear axle that improves capability and ruggedness hinders ride quality and handling.

Now, there is no question in my mind that the Silverado is a more capable truck than the Ridgeline. None. But if someone doesn't need the extra capability $4,500 is a big difference. And while 245 pound feet and 247 horsepower with a five speed auto isn't exciting on a 4500 pound truck, 320 horsepower and 340 pound feet with a four speed auto isn't exciting on a 5350 pound truck either. No matter how you slice it, neither one is going to pace a Malibu V6.

[PhishPhood]

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.

Actually I think that CAFE 35 is way way behind the curve of what is actually occuring. This statement by GM is the formal recognition of what has been happening since the end of 2003 when fuel began its upward slope. For 4+ years now the vehicle makers have seen their heavy vehicles decline and decline and decline month after month.

'Well let's wait and see if fuel comes back under $2 a gallon.'

Sometime in the recent several months the analysts inside and outside of GM have come to the conclusion that fuel is never ever going back to $2 a gallon thus keeping BOF-based vehicles on the menu is simply wasting resources. When the CEO announces such a step it's well after they have already decided to take action in a new direction.

IOW GM has decided to concentrate on Crossovers and Autos and try to maintain trucks as much as possible in this economic environment. Reading between the lines of the monthly sales stats....
Goodbye Hummer
Goodbye TrailBlazer/Envoy..
Hello Lambdas

Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade need new technologies fast.

Concentrate resources on the trucks to make them as fuel efficient as possible.

Oh, plan on $5 and $6 and $8 prices for fuel for the 2012-2016 time period.