General Motors will launch its next generation of full-sized Chevrolet trucks over about 15 months beginning early next year.

A successful launch is critical to GM's turnaround. GM's full-sized trucks will be re-engineered and restyled for the 2007 model year. GM pushed the launch forward to get fresh versions of its most-profitable vehicles to market quickly.

Sales of the 2007 Tahoe SUV will begin in the first quarter of 2006. GM will follow with the Suburban and Avalanche SUVs and the Silverado 1500, 2500 and 3500 pickups.

Cadillac and GMC truck models that share components and chassis with the Chevrolet vehicles are expected to follow a similar schedule. The 2007 GMC Yukon and Cadillac Escalade SUVs are expected to debut about the same time as the Tahoe, for example.

Chevrolet's top dealers got a chane to view the 2007 full-sized truck lines at a meeting late last month in Palm Springs, Calif. Many who attended said dealers saw the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban and Avalanche, "and pictures of the Silverado."

The Tahoe's styling is softer and is evolutionary rather than radically different, an industry source says. All sheet metal is new.

GM told dealers that the Chevrolet trucks would debut on the following timetable:

>>> Tahoe, first quarter 2006

>>> Suburban, second quarter 2006

>>> Avalanche, third quarter 2006

>>> Silverado 1500, fourth quarter 2006

>>> Silverado 2500, 3500, first quarter 2007

The Tahoe is expected to arrive in February or March.





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

wonder what the new avalanche will look like.


-Borsty

Dang it Mr.Goodwrench!!

LowFire wrote:Dang it Mr.Goodwrench!!

ummmm exactly... we already new GM was going to make trucks in 2006/7

Hell, if they are going to bring out the 2007 in Feburary of 2006, we will probably be getting the 2008s by the end of 2006. Wasn't there a time when cars actually came out in the model year they were labeled as??

idiots. no wonder their sales and revenues are hitting a low. how about more production and marketing for smaller/high MPG cars...

today i saw a commercial for the envoy EXTRA LARGE DENALI version, and an even bigger version. was laughing my ass off

I guess GM still hasn't learned anything yet.. Maybe when they loose another billion dollars they'll clue in? Probably not.




Dark blue 2002 Z24, 2.4 Ltr.

its hard for them, i think that they have invested so much in engineering in these larger truck platforms that they need to use them somehow now.

tough luck, they should have diversified their portfolio

dammit

smaller car sales slipped more than other markets
while trucks and suvs continue to grow

why would you push something that is losing market share???

theL61 wrote:dammit

smaller car sales slipped more than other markets
while trucks and suvs continue to grow

why would you push something that is losing market share???

Good point. As soon as gas prices stabilize, prolly by June, I bet SUV sales will start going up. If truck/SUV sales weren't a big market, there wouldn't be so much investment by Nissan, Honda and Toyota. Not to mention that even Mercedes-Benz is rumored to be working on an American style pickup truck!

Nissan and Honda both have released big new trucks in the last year. The Ridgeline is a little strange for a truck, but it's a truck nonetheless... Toyota, the savior of the world , the greenest of the green automakers is preparing to release a new....TRUCK! to better compete with the F150 in the US.

I'm not a huge fan of them, but trucks/SUV's are far from dead in the US. The only way that would happen is if gas shot up to $3-4/gallon. But Dubya wouldn't let that happen on his watch, right?



George (geozinger)
'95 Sunfire GT-my second Pontiac from Hell!
'97 Cavy Beater-still running like a champ!
'04 Sunfire - my kid's car, but I get the bills...
'09 Pontiac G6 - Sport Package 1

First, these trucks ARE NOT "all new" they are just "heavily revamped." They still retain the platform what you see today. Albeit a little reinforcement here and there, new interior (which GM is touting best interior in its class) and new GM V8 based on GEN-IV, new trannies.

GM is working with DOD Displacement-On-Demand ie cylinder deactivation. Because GM recognizes that that fuel price will not get any lower any time soon. They are also working on a better Hybrid then the one found in the Silverado today.

GM is also working with DaimelerChrysler on a tranny as well. It is a torque blending planetary gearset that offers infinite range of ratios. The "hybradized" tranny is so efficient and robust that it will be introduced in November 2007 Tahoe/ Yukon.

Secondly, just because other companies are coming out with more trucks, does not nessersarlly mean that trucks has a long future.
It is the cheapest and and the quickest way to make large profits, that is all. Think about it, what is cutting edge in a truck? Look at a truck underpinnings and there is nothing high tech, hence low research money is used. Then building one; since mostly all the parts in a truck is inexpensive the cost to build one is low again. But look at the sticker, $20K,$30K, $40K, etc so there we see high profits the car companies love. More so on the luxury nameplates, Caddy, Lincoln Lexus, Infinity, etc where they get a $25-30K SUV add a little chrome, leather, wood and resell them $60K. $30+K instant profit right there.

Sales of trucks are falling slightly this year and more so as the prices of fuel goes up. If the big three (mainly GM) do not see the future forecast and invest on hybrid, fuel efficient 4cyls, diesel, the same thing that happened to Chrysler will happen to GM.
If you know your history, Chrysler did not have cars that were efficient during the gas crisis and people headed off to the imports. Heck the Aveo should be doing 35 city & 45 Highway for its size, and Cobalt is less fuel efficient then then the car it replaces. Wrong move already!

Ya putting "new" trucks is a short term solution, but the long term solution is to invest in cars again.
The only thing I can hope is, the tons of money GM earns on these trucks will be put into cars again. Hey I know Europe's Opel has great efficient engines, start there.





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Quote:

Next-Gen GM trucks to be launched in... .

Space????

i agree about the small cars=good gas millage=future sales

but what i think would be better for GM....start putting a ton of money into developing fuel efficient full size trucks and SUVS.....to have a Tahoe or fullsize silverado that can get mid-high 20's in MPG in mixed driving and 30's on all highway.... and yet still have the same towing capacity would be HUGE in a couple years if they are able to pull it off

except
companies will need trucks
and people want trucks just to have

if they could get great mileage and power that would be great
but they have aerodynamics of bricks and weigh a ton

97cavy22 wrote:i agree about the small cars=good gas millage=future sales

but what i think would be better for GM....start putting a ton of money into developing fuel efficient full size trucks and SUVS.....to have a Tahoe or fullsize silverado that can get mid-high 20's in MPG in mixed driving and 30's on all highway.... and yet still have the same towing capacity would be HUGE in a couple years if they are able to pull it off

Yes
But...
It is very difficult to get good fuel economy and still be able to tow. One way is use the same concept as a locomotive train. Where a diesel engine powers up the batteries to run electric motors to each wheel.
Another way to save fuel is to make engines smaller with less cylinders, but doing so the tow rating shrinks.
Or they can run a hybrid system like in the Lexus RX440H. But the cost will be passed on to the consumers at the MSRP, more so the price will be higher as the efficiency level goes higher.

The thing is not only fuel efficiency. But more importantly their gas tank size. Have you seen the amount of fuel these beasts require?
26 gallons on a Silverado to 42 gallons on a Excursion. If you pay 2.30 for 87 octane, you will shell out $59.80 on the Silverado and $96.60 for the Excursion just for a fill up. And the Escalade and LX450 run on premium! That is the real problem. Sometimes you have to do this every week, if you use it daily which many soccer moms do. You are looking at close to $400 a month on fuel alone.
This is why I embrace cars like Malibu Maxx, Dodge Magnum and any other station wagon car.

If towing is a must, auto industries should offer more diesels with smaller displacements for their pick-ups. That will help tremendously on the level of efficiency.





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:First, these trucks ARE NOT "all new" they are just "heavily revamped." They still retain the platform what you see today. Albeit a little reinforcement here and there, new interior (which GM is touting best interior in its class) and new GM V8 based on GEN-IV, new trannies.

GM is working with DOD Displacement-On-Demand ie cylinder deactivation. Because GM recognizes that that fuel price will not get any lower any time soon. They are also working on a better Hybrid then the one found in the Silverado today.

GM is also working with DaimelerChrysler on a tranny as well. It is a torque blending planetary gearset that offers infinite range of ratios. The "hybradized" tranny is so efficient and robust that it will be introduced in November 2007 Tahoe/ Yukon.

Secondly, just because other companies are coming out with more trucks, does not nessersarlly mean that trucks has a long future.
It is the cheapest and and the quickest way to make large profits, that is all. Think about it, what is cutting edge in a truck? Look at a truck underpinnings and there is nothing high tech, hence low research money is used. Then building one; since mostly all the parts in a truck is inexpensive the cost to build one is low again. But look at the sticker, $20K,$30K, $40K, etc so there we see high profits the car companies love. More so on the luxury nameplates, Caddy, Lincoln Lexus, Infinity, etc where they get a $25-30K SUV add a little chrome, leather, wood and resell them $60K. $30+K instant profit right there.

Sales of trucks are falling slightly this year and more so as the prices of fuel goes up. If the big three (mainly GM) do not see the future forecast and invest on hybrid, fuel efficient 4cyls, diesel, the same thing that happened to Chrysler will happen to GM.
If you know your history, Chrysler did not have cars that were efficient during the gas crisis and people headed off to the imports. Heck the Aveo should be doing 35 city & 45 Highway for its size, and Cobalt is less fuel efficient then then the car it replaces. Wrong move already!

Ya putting "new" trucks is a short term solution, but the long term solution is to invest in cars again.
The only thing I can hope is, the tons of money GM earns on these trucks will be put into cars again. Hey I know Europe's Opel has great efficient engines, start there.

Your post shows that GM is working on a number of issues related to fuel economy. Displacement on Demand, a better hybrid system and working with DC on truck trannies and Ford on car trannies shows investment in product.

However, I would point out that the current fascination with trucks started about 25-30 years ago, not too long after all of the heavy safety and emissions controls were laid on to cars. At that time, trucks and vans were exempt from some gas mileage and safety legislation. Detroit and others started pushing the low-investment high-profit trucks soon after. The SUV craze is just the latest manifestation of the same trend that started out in the 1970's.

I beg to differ that the future is dim for trucks, even with the recent dip in sales, they're still being driven off the lot. Your mentioning the easy profits made on trucks and SUV's is exactly the reason why Honda, Toyota and Nissan have come out with big trucks of their own. Why shouldn't they take the low-hanging fruit like Detroit?

Beside that fact, aren't companies in business to make money? I would naturally like to see more investment in cars, but I'm a car guy. (Trucks & SUV's, they're just tow vehicles...) But if they don't make a profit, or at least break even, then everyone gets a really long vacation. And, no investment in anything, except for litigation.

What I want to know also, is why nobody beats up the Japanese and the German manufacturers for their gas hog vehicles? All of those big trucks & SUV's from Nissan, Toyota, VW, Porsche and Mercedes suck up dino-juice just as fast as a Chevy, GMC or Lincoln. What's up with this? I don't see a diesel option for the Toyota Tundra. Gasoline only. Does Toyota get to skate because of the Prius? How many Prius' do they have to sell to make up for one Sequoia? I don't have time to research now, but I bet there are more Sequoias on the road than Priuses.

I remember the oil crises in the 1970's. What happened to Chrysler was huge amount of shortsightedness and mis-management, which we really don't have the space to chronicle here. Besides, it wasn't just Chrysler that was putting crap on the streets. Everyone had junk, GM included. Everyone lost sales to the imports. If you're referring to the infamous loans of the late 70's, that could be a possiblity. How probable that would be, given the current political and social climate is anyone's guess. If you're referring to Chrysler being bought (by Daimler-Benz), I can't imagine that happening. Worldwide, I read, there's too much capacity, although oddly enough, there's not enough in China... A more likely scenario, is US auto producers are left to rot like the British auto industry, eventually becoming a cottage industry with foreign companies doing all of the real engineering and production.

Overall, I think that GM is investing in the future. The recent reports from Japan indicate that Wagoner is talking to Toyota about fuel cells and hydrogen technology. Unfortunately, GM (Ford or DC) doesn't have anything 'showy' to parade out in front of a bunch of pool reporters, so they can turn to the camera and go 'wow!'


George (geozinger)
'95 Sunfire GT-my second Pontiac from Hell!
'97 Cavy Beater-still running like a champ!
'04 Sunfire - my kid's car, but I get the bills...
'09 Pontiac G6 - Sport Package 1

^^^First and foremost, we have to look at why fuel prices are higher? One word; "Demand."
What does SUVs and Pick-ups do to "demand?" Increase it.
Make a "fuel efficient" SUV or P-U (which it will not be comparable to a car) then you have to deal with the amount required (capacity) for a fill up. It is almost oxymoron.

I will say this again; pick-ups and truck are the short-term solution for instant profit in today's time. If we were living in 1990's where fuel could be had for as low 89 cents a gallon I can see your theory that trucks is a good investment. But with rising fuel prices, trucks will not be norm for soccer moms to run around as we see today. Yes, trucks will sell, but expect it for buyers to buy it for their real purpose, i.e. construction, tow, recreational, etc. Expect the "truck trend" to diminish as prices rise. "Fuel-efficient" or not.

Quote:

Your post shows that GM is working on a number of issues related to fuel economy. Displacement on Demand, a better hybrid system and working with DC on truck trannies and Ford on car trannies shows investment in product.

Yes, you are right. These improvements will slightly help for less demand but it will not cure the problem. Call it a "Band-Aid fix," persey.

Quote:

However, I would point out that the current fascination with trucks started about 25-30 years ago, not too long after all of the heavy safety and emissions controls were laid on to cars. At that time, trucks and vans were exempt from some gas mileage and safety legislation. Detroit and others started pushing the low-investment high-profit trucks soon after. The SUV craze is just the latest manifestation of the same trend that started out in the 1970's.

^Yes, more so it is just a trend. It is the "in thing."

Quote:

I beg to differ that the future is dim for trucks, even with the recent dip in sales, they're still being driven off the lot. Your mentioning the easy profits made on trucks and SUV's is exactly the reason why Honda, Toyota and Nissan have come out with big trucks of their own. Why shouldn't they take the low-hanging fruit like Detroit?

First we have to see who is buying them? Most are fleet sales, I am willing to bet that families are not buying Excursions and Rams quad-cabs just to commute to the local mall. Sales are slipping on these beasts because of this. Which is why you see such heavy incentives and very small incentives on cars and no incentives on small cars?
Secondly, I did mention that Detroit is doing the truck thing, which I said is not a good idea for the long term.

Quote:

Beside that fact, aren't companies in business to make money? I would naturally like to see more investment in cars, but I'm a car guy. (Trucks & SUV's, they're just tow vehicles...) But if they don't make a profit, or at least break even, then everyone gets a really long vacation. And, no investment in anything, except for litigation.

Very true, but what happens when all your money was invested in trucks and the "truck trend" goes south? Now you have to scramble to invest on efficient cars and you are late and your cars are old tech, because the imports are in the game 5 years ahead. Sound familiar? I will pinpoint that GM/Ford/DC mostly is looking at quick buck and not for seeing the future. If they don't invest as of now, the long vacation will come soon. U.S. car manufacturers should learn from their history.

Quote:

What I want to know also, is why nobody beats up the Japanese and the German manufacturers for their gas hog vehicles? All of those big trucks & SUV's from Nissan, Toyota, VW, Porsche and Mercedes suck up dino-juice just as fast as a Chevy, GMC or Lincoln. What's up with this? I don't see a diesel option for the Toyota Tundra. Gasoline only. Does Toyota get to skate because of the Prius? How many Prius' do they have to sell to make up for one Sequoia? I don't have time to research now, but I bet there are more Sequoias on the road than Priuses.

I will tell you why M-B, Nissan, Toyota, Porche and all these German and Japanese trucks does not come into this mess. Low sales volume. M-B trucks do not reach 50K a year, What does Explorer sell; 400K a year? Toyota Tundra reaches about 100K per year, while GM's pick-up and Ford sell close a million a year as of 2004. This is the reason, why American trucks get flak. Multiply the sales volume to their gas tank capacity, suddenly you’ll see what is all the commotion is about. You won't see a diesel option on Tundra, because they are using their resources on hybrids, they know very well that Tundra should not be expanded any further as is. You have to also know, the Tundra is designed, engineered, and made here solely for this market, no other market there is Tundra and the same goes for the Sequoia, Titan, Armada and Ridgeline. Just because here there is a market, with our current relative cheap fuel (compared to Europe and Asia, S-America). But as soon as the price hike goes north, expect Tundra and all these trucks sales to dip. But Toyota and Honda altleast has hybrids to back the Toyota/Honda truck's future shortfalls. Besides, Toyota as of now can not keep up the demand of Prius. That is saying something right there. Honda is not doing to bad either, with their Civic& Accord hybrids.

Quote:

I remember the oil crises in the 1970's. What happened to Chrysler was huge amount of shortsightedness and mis-management, which we really don't have the space to chronicle here. Besides, it wasn't just Chrysler that was putting crap on the streets. Everyone had junk, GM included. Everyone lost sales to the imports. If you're referring to the infamous loans of the late 70's, that could be a possibility. How probable that would be, given the current political and social climate is anyone's guess. If you're referring to Chrysler being bought (by Daimler-Benz), I can't imagine that happening. Worldwide, I read, there's too much capacity, although oddly enough, there's not enough in China... A more likely scenario, is US auto producers are left to rot like the British auto industry, eventually becoming a cottage industry with foreign companies doing all of the real engineering and production.

Yes shortsightness is correct, their portfolio, did not have efficient cars, most of their cars were based on the gas guzzling Dodge Diplomat. Soon after they had to call on Renault to help bring out FWD compacts and minivans for our N-A America, at the time Chrysler got lucky that the Carter administration came to the rescue, because it would have not survived. GM was not too much better, but here GM was a little better then Chrysler as at least the Vega and Chevette was dealing with import's fuel efficiency.
As for other companies, buying our companies out... It could happen GM, Ford does not learn from their mistakes and foresee the future and not just 6-months from now.
We also have to put politics in this, but that is another topic all together.

Quote:

Overall, I think that GM is investing in the future. The recent reports from Japan indicate that Wagoner is talking to Toyota about fuel cells and hydrogen technology. Unfortunately, GM (Ford or DC) doesn't have anything 'showy' to parade out in front of a bunch of pool reporters, so they can turn to the camera and go 'wow!'

Yes I reported on that not to long ago, as for you thinking that GM is investing into the future, yes about 6-12months into the future, it should be 5-10 years into future to save GM.





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:^^^First and foremost, we have to look at why fuel prices are higher? One word; "Demand."
What does SUVs and Pick-ups do to "demand?" Increase it.
Make a "fuel efficient" SUV or P-U (which it will not be comparable to a car) then you have to deal with the amount required (capacity) for a fill up. It is almost oxymoron.

I will say this again; pick-ups and truck are the short-term solution for instant profit in today's time. If we were living in 1990's where fuel could be had for as low 89 cents a gallon I can see your theory that trucks is a good investment. But with rising fuel prices, trucks will not be norm for soccer moms to run around as we see today. Yes, trucks will sell, but expect it for buyers to buy it for their real purpose, i.e. construction, tow, recreational, etc. Expect the "truck trend" to diminish as prices rise. "Fuel-efficient" or not.

I understand your point in regards to the long term picture. I'm not really saying that trucks are the answer to GM (or any domestics) problems. But I really don't think they're going to go away any time soon. They still have a lot of value for a lot of people. The company I work for just replaced a Chevy Express cargo van for one of those Freightliner Sprinter cargo vans. Yes, it came with a diesel, it will get better fuel mileage, but it also holds almost twice as much cargo as the Chevy. Either way, we're fueling a heavy vehicle that does a lot of work for us. Plus, the Chevy van will be sold to someone who needs the utility it offers.
Besides, if fuel prices were ever a reason for folks not to buy trucks/SUV's, they would have died off in the 1970's. Cost for fuel in the 1979 gas 'crisis' was approx. 14% of GDP. in 2005, even with our recent price hikes, the cost is more like 8% according to recent government figures, that I saw in an article in Newsweek recently.

Quote:

Your post shows that GM is working on a number of issues related to fuel economy. Displacement on Demand, a better hybrid system and working with DC on truck trannies and Ford on car trannies shows investment in product.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yes, you are right. These improvements will slightly help for less demand but it will not cure the problem. Call it a "Band-Aid fix," persey.

Agreed.

Quote:

However, I would point out that the current fascination with trucks started about 25-30 years ago, not too long after all of the heavy safety and emissions controls were laid on to cars. At that time, trucks and vans were exempt from some gas mileage and safety legislation. Detroit and others started pushing the low-investment high-profit trucks soon after. The SUV craze is just the latest manifestation of the same trend that started out in the 1970's.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:^Yes, more so it is just a trend. It is the "in thing."

Agreed.

Quote:

I beg to differ that the future is dim for trucks, even with the recent dip in sales, they're still being driven off the lot. Your mentioning the easy profits made on trucks and SUV's is exactly the reason why Honda, Toyota and Nissan have come out with big trucks of their own. Why shouldn't they take the low-hanging fruit like Detroit?

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:First we have to see who is buying them? Most are fleet sales, I am willing to bet that families are not buying Excursions and Rams quad-cabs just to commute to the local mall. Sales are slipping on these beasts because of this. Which is why you see such heavy incentives and very small incentives on cars and no incentives on small cars?
Secondly, I did mention that Detroit is doing the truck thing, which I said is not a good idea for the long term.

Myself, I know a lot of folks who drive those monsters. In their defense, they point out that some have big families, and boats and campers. I don't know of too many folks who can afford to buy and park a vehicle just for the occasional trip to the lake. And you really cannot tow with most cars anymore.(They don't have the motors or the drive wheels in the right places for towing. The exception being the Crown Vic, or Chrysler 300's, of course.) They bought the trucks/SUV's for towing, but still use them everyday.
I'm an AYSO soccer coach in my spare time. I live in a suburb of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Come to a practice or a game day and see how many folks show up in a SUV. They outnumber all of the cars and the minivans put together
Sales are slipping now. If the gasoline prices stabilize or go lower, folks go right back to their old habits. Sometimes these car companies are like drug dealers... come on now, it's cheap again, use some more... (I've seen this happen several times in the last 30 or so years...) Then you will see the small cars 'incentivized' again.

Quote:

Beside that fact, aren't companies in business to make money? I would naturally like to see more investment in cars, but I'm a car guy. (Trucks & SUV's, they're just tow vehicles...) But if they don't make a profit, or at least break even, then everyone gets a really long vacation. And, no investment in anything, except for litigation.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Very true, but what happens when all your money was invested in trucks and the "truck trend" goes south? Now you have to scramble to invest on efficient cars and you are late and your cars are old tech, because the imports are in the game 5 years ahead. Sound familiar? I will pinpoint that GM/Ford/DC mostly is looking at quick buck and not for seeing the future. If they don't invest as of now, the long vacation will come soon. U.S. car manufacturers should learn from their history.

I guess if you're going to insist that the truck trend will go south, it will hit everyone invested in truck production, but of course the domestics harder because they have more trucks, period. The domestics have all released fairly efficient new (car and some truck) designs in the last several years. Like I've said before, no WOW! stuff, but you can see the progress. I will agree that some of the progress seems incredibly slow, especially when you consider the stuff that (GM) has in Europe for example. I'd love to get some Opels over here, but it's not real likely that will happen. Another way to look at this is, check and see how many pushrod engines GM offers today. Compare that to 10-15 years ago. I agree it took way too long to complete the investment, but it is happening.

Besides, companies like GM, Ford and DC have enough 'global partners', they could put a lot of new hardware on the sales floors pretty quickly if they wanted to. But it wouldn't be politically feasible to ship in Neons from Malaysia for example, while DC closes down one of the Michigan production facilities. Let's talk backlash... Do you remember what happened when VW shuttered it's plant near Pittsburgh, PA and moved production to Mexico? That was ugly.

Quote:

What I want to know also, is why nobody beats up the Japanese and the German manufacturers for their gas hog vehicles? All of those big trucks & SUV's from Nissan, Toyota, VW, Porsche and Mercedes suck up dino-juice just as fast as a Chevy, GMC or Lincoln. What's up with this? I don't see a diesel option for the Toyota Tundra. Gasoline only. Does Toyota get to skate because of the Prius? How many Prius' do they have to sell to make up for one Sequoia? I don't have time to research now, but I bet there are more Sequoias on the road than Priuses.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I will tell you why M-B, Nissan, Toyota, Porche and all these German and Japanese trucks does not come into this mess. Low sales volume. M-B trucks do not reach 50K a year, What does Explorer sell; 400K a year? Toyota Tundra reaches about 100K per year, while GM's pick-up and Ford sell close a million a year as of 2004. This is the reason, why American trucks get flak. Multiply the sales volume to their gas tank capacity, suddenly you’ll see what is all the commotion is about. You won't see a diesel option on Tundra, because they are using their resources on hybrids, they know very well that Tundra should not be expanded any further as is. You have to also know, the Tundra is designed, engineered, and made here solely for this market, no other market there is Tundra and the same goes for the Sequoia, Titan, Armada and Ridgeline. Just because here there is a market, with our current relative cheap fuel (compared to Europe and Asia, S-America). But as soon as the price hike goes north, expect Tundra and all these trucks sales to dip. But Toyota and Honda altleast has hybrids to back the Toyota/Honda truck's future shortfalls. Besides, Toyota as of now can not keep up the demand of Prius. That is saying something right there. Honda is not doing to bad either, with their Civic& Accord hybrids.

Not to pick on Toyota, but I read recently in AutoWeek that Toyota is apparently developing a bigger Tundra to better compete with the F150. If they weren't out to get that part of the market share, why would they develop a larger Tundra? Of course, what I read in AW is a rumor, so take it with a grain of salt. But, then again, why put all of your development resources in one basket? Toyota and all of the others, have diesels available (how else would they sell anything in Europe?). They could push those here just as easily as the (really complex) hybrids. Take that back. Our dino-diesel has too much sulfur in it, it would kill the injectors. But then again, they could help with the effort for biodiesel, like GM and Daimler Chrysler...
Yes, the Prius is hot right now. I personally think it's a fad, but I can't argue that people are in line to buy them. Go for it!

Quote:

I remember the oil crises in the 1970's. What happened to Chrysler was huge amount of shortsightedness and mis-management, which we really don't have the space to chronicle here. Besides, it wasn't just Chrysler that was putting crap on the streets. Everyone had junk, GM included. Everyone lost sales to the imports. If you're referring to the infamous loans of the late 70's, that could be a possibility. How probable that would be, given the current political and social climate is anyone's guess. If you're referring to Chrysler being bought (by Daimler-Benz), I can't imagine that happening. Worldwide, I read, there's too much capacity, although oddly enough, there's not enough in China... A more likely scenario, is US auto producers are left to rot like the British auto industry, eventually becoming a cottage industry with foreign companies doing all of the real engineering and production.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yes shortsightness is correct, their portfolio, did not have efficient cars, most of their cars were based on the gas guzzling Dodge Diplomat. Soon after they had to call on Renault to help bring out FWD compacts and minivans for our N-A America, at the time Chrysler got lucky that the Carter administration came to the rescue, because it would have not survived. GM was not too much better, but here GM was a little better then Chrysler as at least the Vega and Chevette was dealing with import's fuel efficiency.
As for other companies, buying our companies out... It could happen GM, Ford does not learn from their mistakes and foresee the future and not just 6-months from now.
We also have to put politics in this, but that is another topic all together.

Yes, the Vega's and Chevettes were the junk that GM put out in the 70's that I was referring to earlier. But at least they were pretty good on gas.

Quote:

Overall, I think that GM is investing in the future. The recent reports from Japan indicate that Wagoner is talking to Toyota about fuel cells and hydrogen technology. Unfortunately, GM (Ford or DC) doesn't have anything 'showy' to parade out in front of a bunch of pool reporters, so they can turn to the camera and go 'wow!'

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Yes I reported on that not to long ago, as for you thinking that GM is investing into the future, yes about 6-12months into the future, it should be 5-10 years into future to save GM.

I hate to disagree with you, but I really think there's more going on all over Detroit than what we're seeing. I think there's a perception in the popular press that GM is going to meltdown into a of hole in the ground next week. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not playing devil's advocate just to p*ss you off, but take a look around and try to see through the stuff we're seeing/hearing right now. You apparently spend some time gleaning information off of the 'net and other sources, and the stuff is really good. I was pleasantly surprised to see that GM is doing better in initial quality surveys by Total Vision. I think that's good news, it shows some committment to a better product. I have bought 2 new GM products in the last 4 years myself. Both have exceeded my expectatons, and I'm especially critical because I'm from a FORD family!

You've been a great sport to suffer through all of my BS, thanks for keeping this thread adult and respectful. Let's agree to disagree about the future of the truck thing, and have a nice evening.


George (geozinger)
'95 Sunfire GT-my second Pontiac from Hell!
'97 Cavy Beater-still running like a champ!
'04 Sunfire - my kid's car, but I get the bills...
'09 Pontiac G6 - Sport Package 1

Geo,
Just coming home and I appreciate that we had a mature dialogue here, because lately you'll find some nasty immature attitudes lately when it comes to some interaction. Sometimes a good thread can turn into poo-poo.

We can honestly say we are both looking for the best interest for our American manufacturers and that is what matters.

Oh, I retract that GM is not working on more effective hybrids. I forgot completely that the Saturn Vue will release on in 2007, the other is the link on the bottom.

Long term quality

Initial Quality

Chevy hybrid

Enjoy!





>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

LowFire wrote:Dang it Mr.Goodwrench!!

Here ya go!




>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----

lol
thats one we want more

but as for gas prices
there is more than just demand for the prices going up granted thats part of the problem
more people can afford cars worldwide, there is a war in the middle east, i know humvees and powerwagons dont run on water sooo that is alot of extra demand right there

im sure the multi billion dollar profits of exxon and other oil companies of the years and their desire to increase profits has nothing to do w/ it


a prime example of why people prefer trucks is the ssr @!#$ty gas mileage but no gas guzzler tax because its a truck

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Geo,
Just coming home and I appreciate that we had a mature dialogue here, because lately you'll find some nasty immature attitudes lately when it comes to some interaction. Sometimes a good thread can turn into poo-poo.

We can honestly say we are both looking for the best interest for our American manufacturers and that is what matters.

Oh, I retract that GM is not working on more effective hybrids. I forgot completely that the Saturn Vue will release on in 2007, the other is the link on the bottom.

Long term quality

Initial Quality

Chevy hybrid

Enjoy!

Thanks for the links! I was not aware of the Malibu hybrids. I think we're both on the same path, we're both concerned about a big part of our (collective) lives. Let's hope for the best!



George (geozinger)
'95 Sunfire GT-my second Pontiac from Hell!
'97 Cavy Beater-still running like a champ!
'04 Sunfire - my kid's car, but I get the bills...
'09 Pontiac G6 - Sport Package 1

ehhhh drop the argument about the large gas tanks. When you get next to nothing gas mileage you have to have a decent size tank to keep from fueling up every day.

And as far as the hybrids, its nice that they are becoming more available but if they don't out weight the cost of gas its not helping other then maybe the ozone. And the farmers and such who actually use there trucks for towing, hauling, etc aren't gonna give two @!#$s about hybrids, unless its cost worthy to them.







2006 Cobalt SS 2.4L 9.6 @74mph 1/8th mile w/2.28 60ft

just was reading this article....figured id post it in here since thats where the discussion ended up....

but yea it looks like hybrids are doing reallllllll well

here

uhlgreenz wrote:ehhhh drop the argument about the large gas tanks. When you get next to nothing gas mileage you have to have a decent size tank to keep from fueling up every day.

That is "demand." Demand is what driving prices up. If you can make a vehicle that can run 250 city miles on a 20 gallon tank as oppose to 40 gallon tank, there you lower demand. When demand goes down eventually price will have to go down aswell. if you really want the price to go down, alternative fuels. Namely Gasohol.
Corn baby!!! That should be the future!!!



>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----