GM scraps plans for unibody pickup, Denali XT

[Perian]

Link: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dl...73352857437812

Rick Kranz - Automotive News - September 21, 2009

DETROIT -- General Motors Co. has dropped plans to develop a unibody pickup similar to the Honda Ridgeline, the automaker's top product development executive said.

As gasoline prices rose and pickup sales fell, GM sought an alternative to the standard body-on-frame pickup.

A mid-sized unibody pickup on GM's mid-sized, front-drive platform had been intended for buyers who do not need the hauling and towing capabilities of full-sized models. Honda's mid-sized Ridgeline is the only unibody pickup sold in the United States.

Full article at link.

General Motors wowed crowds at the 2008 Chicago Auto Show with the exotic styling of its GMC Denali XT unibody pickup truck concept. More than a year and a half later, GM has confirmed it has cancelled plans for a production unibody pickup.

It was never clear if the Denali XT was actually intended for production, but GM was definitely considering producing a truck in the same vein as the concept. But after carefully studying the subject, the automaker has decided against building a rival to the Honda Ridgeline, reports trade journal Automotive News.

Tom Stephens, vice chairman of GM’s global product development said a unibody architecture was being considered as a way of reducing fuel consumption by virtue of lower weight. However, Stephens says it turned out there “wasn’t that much additional fuel economy to be gained.”
Another motivation was reduced manufacturing cost. Again, the improvement was marginal at best. Such an architecture wouldn’t lead to a meaningful reduction in price, he said

http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-scrap...denali-xt.html

[derrado]

Probably a wise move. Realistically, how well would it have sold? The Ridgeline hasn't exactly been lighting up the sales charts and the Silverado is very popular, inexpensive, reliable and well-respected. The development money is best spent elsewhere.

[civilzues]

I wonder what the actual fuel ecomony gain was. This also now brings up questions about the 900's and what the future holds for them.

[Ambalanche]

So does that mean GMC's Concept truck from last year is out? Sounds like it.

[TheWraith]

i think this is a good call - in regards to a FWD unibody pickup. RWD, i could still see a potential market for - there was definite hype about the G8 ST, and the GMC Denali XT concept had a some features people were interested in.

but either way, they're trying to fix the wrong problem...it's absolutely possible to get far better gas mileage out of a body on frame vehicle.

even with the GMT900's, the 6 speed transmissions were a good move, but they didn't change axle ratios so they aren't squeezing the most out of it.

[Masospaghetti]

They need to update the Colorado, not devise some sick Ridgeline poser (which is already a disgusting vehicle).

Updated interior and 6-speed autos would go a long way to make the Colorado more competitive. They should also replace the Atlas family altogether - too costly, especially since the GMT-360's are gone. The 2.4 DI could work as the base engine, and the 3.9 V6/5.3 V8 as optional motors. Of course the 2.4 and 3.9 would have to be truck certified and I'm not familiar how much work that is.

[driver]

The fullsize pickups are TOO big for some people regardless of what the fuel economy is. Garages and parking spaces seem to get smaller every year and you just can't fit a fullsize truck.

[Nasty_SS]

Originally Posted by Masospaghetti

They need to update the Colorado, not devise some sick Ridgeline poser (which is already a disgusting vehicle).

Updated interior and 6-speed autos would go a long way to make the Colorado more competitive. They should also replace the Atlas family altogether - too costly, especially since the GMT-360's are gone. The 2.4 DI could work as the base engine, and the 3.9 V6/5.3 V8 as optional motors. Of course the 2.4 and 3.9 would have to be truck certified and I'm not familiar how much work that is.

They need to back an S-10 size truck .

[prototype66]

S 10 was (and still is ) a great truck. I see them all over the place and the 4.3 is a great motor. Add a 6 speed and add AFM with VVT and it would be fine. Do not make it any bigger either, that is a good size for a small truck IMO.

[prowlerjc]

Originally Posted by Nasty_SS

They need to back an S-10 size truck .

I agree. I think there is a gigantic untapped market for 80s sized mini pickups. It seems the smallest you can get now are midsized.

[skylark68]

I'm glad GM dropped this plan. It would have been an abomination which the Fridgeline already is.

I agree that GM should invest the money into making the Colorado into a world beater or develop a renewed S-10.

I get tempted every now and then to order a Canyon extended cab with the 5.3 V-8, but then I remember the crummy interior. If it had a Sierra SLT type interior I'd already have one.

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by prowlerjc

I agree. I think there is a gigantic untapped market for 80s sized mini pickups. It seems the smallest you can get now are midsized.

All true. Its one reason that Ford seems to not know what to do with the Ranger.

The Ranger was seen as unfashionable as more and more entry-level trucks has moved to the mid-sized category. But in the last 5 years, they haven't been able to pull the plug since it remains popular enough and offers a realistic alternative to those who DO NOT want a mid-sized truck.

Then, of course, Ford doesn't mind having an entry level truck in the mid-teens that is both affordable to consumers AND puts up respectable MPG numbers (for a truck).

So what's to do?

GM has the same issue here.

Certainly they can offer a revised Colorado, but they could also offer something smaller-than-Colorado to those who want an affordable truck.

Honestly, this is where a Zeta application may have made sense -- but we'll probably never know now...

[hrcslam]

Originally Posted by civilzues

I wonder what the actual fuel ecomony gain was. This also now brings up questions about the 900's and what the future holds for them.

This brings up an interesting comparison.

Let's take a V-6 powered Uni-Body midsized truck and pit it against a fullsized Body-on-Frame truck.

For the middle weight we introduce the Honda Ridgeline. $28450 base price.
Weighing in at 4545 lbs powered by a 3.5L 247hp V-6.
This little guy is rated at 15city/20hwy and 17 combined according to the EPA. Keep in mind this is for an AWD vehicle as 2WD is not available.
5 seating capability and towing up to 5000lbs. Impressive, I guess, until you meet the next contender.....

For the heavy weight we introduce the Chevy Silverado K1500 (4X4). $29465 Base price (for the 4X4).
Weighing in at 5348 lbs powered by a 5.3L 310hp V-8.
This lard ass is rated at 14city/20hwy and 16 combined according to the EPA. But this is also a 4X4, and the available 2WD is rated up to 15city/21hwy and 17 combined according to the EPA.
5 seating capability and towing up to 10,700lbs.

So, more space, power, capability, and safety for less than 1mpg sacrifice and $115 increase in purchase price. Hmmm, could've had a lot to do with the decision not to pursue the Ridgeline route.

Now I must say, with the new Equinox and Terrain V-6 and 3500lbs towing rating, you should be able to achieve a payload capability of at least 1000lbs. It'd be a good mid sized truck. Even an I-4 with a 1000lb payload rating would sell for city/suburban driving and such. The I-4 would be close to the 29mpg rating while the V-6 would be around 24-25, but it'd meet the needs of many people who don't need something that tows more than 4000lbs and would also like to benefit from increased fuel economy. An Equinox/Terrain based truck would be handsome and very capable with minimal effort and great fuel economy.

[rsbaker]

Originally Posted by Masospaghetti

They need to update the Colorado, not devise some sick Ridgeline poser (which is already a disgusting vehicle).

Updated interior and 6-speed autos would go a long way to make the Colorado more competitive. They should also replace the Atlas family altogether - too costly, especially since the GMT-360's are gone. The 2.4 DI could work as the base engine, and the 3.9 V6/5.3 V8 as optional motors. Of course the 2.4 and 3.9 would have to be truck certified and I'm not familiar how much work that is.

Absolutely! They've allowed the Colorado/Canyon to languish for far to long. They need a completely modern fuel efficient midsized pick-up that is as attractive as Silverado/Sierra bretheren.

Here's my suggestion: Start with somthing that looks like this!

[bone]

A very smart decision. Now get serious about bringing the Colorado/Canyon up to at least Tacoma standards. A mild skin refreshening, a 6-speed manual and auto, and a new v-6 should do it. Those commenting on how many S-10s/Sonomas that are still on the road must be living in New England. I see them everywhere here and most are in meticulous shape. The 4-door crewcab model is my favourite.