Yesterday Inside Line and Straightline reported that the nex-gen full-size SUV from the General had been canceled. The news originated from a story first published in The New York Times. It turns out this may not be entirely accurate (surprise!).
Now Green Car Advisor has a follow-up story on this, and it sounds like GM will offer "something" in the future that will address the needs of full-size SUV owners.
GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson wouldn't say whether or not they [full-size SUVs] will stay in production until 2011 as originally planned. For competitive reasons, he said, GM doesn't like "to give numbers."
But "we don't think the full-size truck market is going to go away. We think it'll get smaller and probably more focused on people who really need the capability of a truck, but we don't expect it to go away. Certainly as long as there's a market for those vehicles, we don't see that market going away."
My guess? I suspect that the Suburban, Tahoe, etc. will drop the BOF construction, and will adopt a HD unit body construction of some sort. It will likely be a frame-reenforced unit body, much like what the Jeep Cherokee and others have used for years, but taken to a new level of strength capability. It would not surprise me if they take the Traverse/Acadia/Outlook/Enclave platform and just reenforce it as needed in order to get the towing capability up where it needs to be. I think that would be the most cost-effective way of meeting this objective, especially since the market for these vehicles will likely be much smaller than it has been in the past.
GM Says Full-Size SUVs, Its Most Profitable Products Ever, Aren't Going Away
roar02ram says:
08:42 AM, 10/28/08
Seems to me that as long as there's a BOF pickup, there should be a BOF SUV...both could probably stand to be smaller, and I don't see the point in offering two lengths anymore.
bbechtel16 says:
08:59 AM, 10/28/08
"we don't think the full-size truck market is going to go away. We think it'll get smaller and probably more focused on people who really need the capability of a truck, but we don't expect it to go away. Certainly as long as there's a market for those vehicles, we don't see that market going away."
Exactly...though I'm not so sure the last sentence was worth breathing. When I heard this news yesterday I declared it a stupid overreaction on GM's part; glad it isn't so true.
Bob I think I'm going to have to disagree with your speculation. I think it will soldier on in pretty much the same fashion, but with less frequent updates. I think that will be cheaper and keep the BOF diehards happier.
billt9 says:
10:04 AM, 10/28/08
Probably cost effective in designing. But sure wouldn't save gas.
Unit body with a frame, like the Jeeps and the Honda Pilot certainly don't save any gas over body on frame SUVs. If you need the strength, you'll get the weight and hefty drivetrain bits.
arumage says:
10:19 AM, 10/28/08
The Lambda triplets are already overweight. They're within 600 lbs of weighing as much as a Tahoe. I'm on the fence whether they can up towing by 3000 lbs and add less than 600 lbs on that chassis.
brn says:
12:17 PM, 10/28/08
Bob, what are you doing to us? First it's one way and then it's the other. I feel like a ping pong ball.
Blogs, I tell ya!
albook says:
01:32 PM, 10/28/08
Now that makes more sense. My guess is the Tahoe will be dropped, and when the Acadia and Outlook are dropped, the Traverse can shrink in length to that of the Outlook (that will probably shave some lbs, even though interior volume would stay the same). Then, they could make a frame reinforced unitbody SUV a little longer than the current Traverse and call it the Suburban. Probably make a Honda move and give it some boxy bold (but not ugly) styling. The interior volume would be HUGE, probably bigger than the current Suburban.
the_big_al says:
05:10 PM, 10/28/08
Here's my thought - The Tahoe was created to meet the needs of the "image" buyer. It has only been around for about 10-12 years or so. (I think '96-97 was the first year for it??) That was right when the SUV craze was starting to take off.
It used to be that all you could get was a Suburban or a Blazer but nothing in between and so GM created the Tahoe to fill that gap, then dropped the Blazer shortly thereafter. The Blazer was a "fun utility toy" and the Suburban a definite utility/family hauler type of vehicle, but too big for image conscientious who wanted to look cool while driving. I think the Tahoe even cost more than the Suburban when introduced. I remember my uncle saying he could get a Suburban (and he did) for less than a Tahoe and still get more room. WHY, he asked himself would anyone pay more for less utility??
Apparently a lot of people did and have since then, but now we see what those people are trying to jump ship to the next "coolest" thing which is your hybrids. So I see the Tahoe being dropped as it really does offer much less utility than the Suburban, gets the same gas mileage and is still BIG. The Lambda platform vehicles on the other hand offer more space, more functionality, better mileage and while they are just about the same footprint as a Tahoe, drive a lot smaller. They make so much more sense than a Tahoe, other than they can't tow as much. They will however tow enough to satisfy most of their owners.
The Suburban on the other hand has been and still is based on function and need, not image. Why do you think it is still as big as it is?? It offers the towing capability, people hauling capability, cargo hauling capability that someone who buys one is probably going to use at least on a semi-regular basis. You don't buy a Suburban to be "cool". You buy the blinged out Tahoe to be cool. Since you already have the truck platform that you are using for your fullsize trucks, it's not that big of a deal to throw a Suburban body onto that same frame.
In a nutshell, after writing all that, I see the Tahoe going away as it really isn't all that utilitous, but the Suburban will stay as there is and always will be a market for it.
bbechtel16 says:
08:47 AM, 10/29/08
I tend to agree with Al here. Though I will say that this Chad guy I used to work with in 2004 was pretty popular for the fact that he drove such a ridiculously huge SUV (Suburban). He was in a band though so it did get used to its potential on occasion.
ateixeira says:
08:02 AM, 10/30/08
The Lambdas can already tow 5200 lbs, they can start there and beef them up.
Thing is, they'll still have a pickup platform, so I'm not sure how much they'll really save.
jerrywimer says:
09:47 AM, 10/31/08
Only one point- the_big_al, the Tahoe *was* the Blazer (K-5 series, maybe also a C-5?), the S-10 Blazer was the smaller runt runabout fun-toy of the litter. But the Tahoe's origins as the original Blazer goes much further back than the name change. My father had an early 70's model 2 door 4x4 Blazer that shared the same general platform as the then-Suburbans.
Otherwise I agree with your points. The existance of the Lambdas pretty much defeats 80% of the need for a Tahoe now. The other 20% is really for those who don't need to carry as many folks as the Suburban is capable of, and so don't want the extra length, but still want quite a bit better towing capability than the Lambdas (currently) have.
I also don't see a unibody / frame vehicle being any better, since as was stated above for the Jeeps and Hondas, they don't really gain any efficiency over the current BOF trucks in the same class.