GM is freezing work on 2012 large pickups.

[battyr]

GM is freezing work on 2012 large pickups. BNN reports engineers being shifted to small car design.

 

I don't think sales for full sized trucks are dead. They are still needed for farm and construction. Does this mean Ford gets the monopoly in this market?

[igor]

GM has been running around like a chicken without a head for the bast 8 months - I am VERY worried.

 

the new 2010/2011 Cobalt looks great, but they are going back and forth on RWD sedans, now shifting engineers to small cars, killing the mid engine corvette etc ...

 

NOT GOOD

 

Ford in the meant time is going full steam ahead for their lighter, more efficient 2013/2014 F150

 

Igor

[chevys]

Everybody complains on how long it takes Ford to get a product to market and the camaro may be DOA to some degree. They screwed this thing up using the zeta platform. Sources say it will be 2 tons of fun. 3900 lbs has been kicked around a lot by the GM insiders. I love the LSX engines but that is too heavy. GM seems really worried about this project as they have leaked tons of photos around. They will have the upper hand for a while but when the 5.0 hits the streets it will be game on. I pray to Jesus that Ford can lighten up the Stang some because I will be ready for a new one in a few years. I think the camaro interior is hideous!

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Look at it from GMs point of view. Currently, they hold the lead in full sized pickup fuel economy among the three largest nameplates in the biz. Their biggest competitor is playing catchup in that department and has already announced a lineup for the next two calendar years that will not change that. In that time period, they have already engineered a high efficiency Diesel engine that, from preliminary leaked specs, leads its upcoming class in both power and fuel economy. So, unless Ford or Chrysler pull something amazing out of their hat to improve their fuel efficiency by over 15% across the board (20% for Chrysler) GM will basically have the market leadership on the one aspect of a truck that will likely make the biggest difference in a casual truck buyer's mind (as well as the fleet buyer looking at fuel as a growing portion of TCO).

 

While ecoboost is all well and good, fleet buyers likely will shy away from it for a while due to its untested nature. That will leave GM with a virtual lead in the market for a few years after they may have lost the technical lead. Casual buyers might pick it up more, but, that market is shrinking more and more each day that gas prices stay at or above $4 a gallon.

 

In the fleet market, base capabilities are what tends to sell a truck. Brand loyalty is there for some shops, but, for the ones that are trying to reduce their TCO, then fuel usage will be a big concern. If I was GM, I'd likely plan for the next update to the GMTX000 series to be modest in scope, focusing more on integrating new infotainment and work flow technology into the vehicle as well as focusing on ways to increase operating efficiency. Trucks aren't going to be alternates to SUVs like they once were. That can be done by reduced dedicated resources to the truck itself and more in the cross-platform teams that develop systems that can be used in multiple vehicles and powertrain engineering, which is also cross platform. For GM, this is really, on the surface, a no-brainer. Especially when you consider that, in the half-ton market, when you combine the Sierra and silverado volumes together, they have a comfortable lead over their closest competitor and already plan to reduce production capacity anyway.

[NickF1011]

I pray to Jesus that Ford can lighten up the Stang some because I will be ready for a new one in a few years.

 

Lighten it where? There's really only so much weight to be stripped out of it, which they are rumored to be doing with the '10. It's already the lightest of the 3 pony cars by a substantial amount as it is. To expect much more, significant compromises would have to be made.

[grbeck]

Even more interesting is this sentence in The Wall Street Journal story:

 

"People briefed on the matter say the auto maker also has discussed killing off at least one future Hummer SUV product, and potentially axing another brand. (emphasis added)

 

I assume that this would be a brand in addition to Hummer.

 

Pontiac? Saab? Saturn?

[RichardJensen]

I think this move is as stupid as Detroit slashing budgets for small cars during the 90s.

 

Everything moves in cycles. People think that gas prices are never going to go down again and they think that no one is ever going to buy a new half-ton again.

 

Fact is, neither conclusion is likely correct, and (therefore) GM is foolish to start acting like the end of trucks is upon us.

 

The US is not Europe and it will take a lot more than high gas prices to turn the US into Europe.

 

GM's decision is a classic example of the pendulum swinging too far the opposite direction.

 

From the company that stuck us with the J-body from 1981 to 2006, we get the decision to stick us with the GMT900s for up to 10 years or more.

[Ovaltine]

GM is freezing work on 2012 large pickups. BNN reports engineers being shifted to small car design.

 

I don't think sales for full sized trucks are dead. They are still needed for farm and construction. Does this mean Ford gets the monopoly in this market?

 

What they're proposing is actually not too bad of an idea... especially if pickups start being used in the same fashion as they were in the past: to-do-work. The current generations of ALL of the pickups are sufficiently advanced enough (other than changes for mpg perhaps) to accomplish just about ANY task thrown at them for the next decade.

 

 

To support this concept, I present to you Exhibit 1 - GM's previous "15 Year Design" life cycle

 

1973 Chevrolet pickup

 

1987 Chevrolet pickup

 

 

A LOT of stuff got hauled around by that "15 years" of what was essentially the same vehicle.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited June 19, 2008 by Ovaltine

[NickF1011]

A LOT of stuff got hauled around by that "15 years" of what was essentially the same vehicle.

 

-Ovaltine

 

They weren't hauling around any "best-selling pickup" awards though.

[RichardJensen]

What they're proposing is actually not too bad of an idea... especially if pickups start being used in the same fashion as they were in the past: to-do-work. The current generations of ALL of the pickups are sufficiently advanced enough (other than changes for mpg perhaps) to accomplish just about ANY task thrown at them for the next decade.

-Ovaltine

If I may offer a similar argument:

 

"People that buy compact cars are interested in value, not features. Compact car buyers can't afford fancy options so they shouldn't be offered. Our current small car lineup is sufficient for the value-conscious buyer. Why invest money in something that our customer won't appreciate or pay extra for?"

 

The pickup market is very very competitive, just like the small car market. Do not think that ONLY personal-use customers drove the ongoing improvements to pickups.

 

One of the most demanding segments of the pickup customer base is the sole-prop customer who uses his truck for work AND rec.

 

GM cannot keep those customers satisfied without CONTINUALLY improving their truck.

Edited June 19, 2008 by RichardJensen

[NickF1011]

If I may offer a similar argument:

 

"People that buy compact cars are interested in value, not features. Compact car buyers can't afford fancy options so they shouldn't be offered. Our current small car lineup is sufficient for the value-conscious buyer. Why invest money in something that our customer won't appreciate or pay extra for?"

 

The pickup market is very very competitive, just like the small car market. Do not think that ONLY personal-use customers drove the ongoing improvements to pickups.

 

One of the most demanding segments of the pickup customer base is the sole-prop customer who uses his truck for work AND rec.

 

GM cannot keep those customers satisfied without CONTINUALLY improving their truck.

 

And it's not like the personal use customer is going to disappear. I bet if we saw an analysis of which models of trucks were being hit hardest by the dropoff in sales, it would likely be the lower-end low-cost models. Considering how many mid-size trucks go for far north of $30K, with several well over $40K, these buyers weren't exactly the blue collar type to begin with, so they aren't going to be as hard hit by a rise in fuel costs as some may be predicting.

[blazerdude20]

they aren't completely moving from trucks and suvs. they are simply going to invest more in cars. with sales decreasing and a likely leveling off coming it makes sense to stretch the life cycle of the current vehicles another year or maybe even two. ford and toyota will likely do the same.

[Critic]

The pickup market is very very competitive, just like the small car market. Do not think that ONLY personal-use customers drove the ongoing improvements to pickups.

 

One of the most demanding segments of the pickup customer base is the sole-prop customer who uses his truck for work AND rec.

Hey,, side note. I just spent about 30 min's crawling all over an '09 F150. Short bed, Lariet. %.4L 3V engine. Also had that new black plastic bed extender gate on the rear.

 

It wasn't something I would write home to Mom about. I'm not too much of a pick-em up type of guy that knows everything about them, but. When you pop the hood, the grill goes up with the hood. like a Ram. I don't see a problem with the bed being too high. It looked very normal (4 Ft. highish) to me and I'm no giant, only in my own mind.

 

And you can store a small piece of luggage behind that grill now, almost like they made a pocket for it there.

 

Interior was ok in my book, nice blend of a wood look and fabric/plastic. Not a good idea of a light colour on a truck interior for me. I tend to think of dirty jobs type of people wanting to use a truck. Sun roof and both rear door opened. Can seat 5/6 total and good leg room in the rear, but don't do that cross-country unless your hauling people up from below the border.

[Extreme4x4]

In this competitive market, ignoring ANY segment is as stupid as stupid can be. It harkens back to EVERYTHING that was wrong with the Domestics.

 

Like Igor, I'm getting very concerned for GM. They truly act like they have no plan for the future, what-so-ever. Starting and stopping, or working on and cancelling. It is all a huge waste of money, and extra money is something that GM is sorely lacking. Hell, Ford has more cash, and they are almost half the size.

 

For every "Malibu," there is something like the Zeta platform, or now this truck thing. One step forward, two steps back. Maybe this is the reason that the Kirk is investing in Ford, and sold all of his GM. He didn't get to be so rich by being completely stupid.

[NickF1011]

they aren't completely moving from trucks and suvs. they are simply going to invest more in cars. with sales decreasing and a likely leveling off coming it makes sense to stretch the life cycle of the current vehicles another year or maybe even two. ford and toyota will likely do the same.

 

Mistake in my opinion. I can see Toyota delaying, but that's because they didn't sell many Tundras to begin with, and even fewer now. 1/2 ton pickup sales to GM are still going to represent several hundred thousand sales a year. More importantly, they will still likely be the most profitable sales GM makes. Why the heck would you ignore that, even for a year or two?

 

If Ford delays the new truck, it would be a huge mistake. With new globalized engineering, it appears they have more than enough resources to keep it on track, even while pushing up development on small cars.

[Ford-150]

In this competitive market, ignoring ANY segment is as stupid as stupid can be. It harkens back to EVERYTHING that was wrong with the Domestics.

 

Like Igor, I'm getting very concerned for GM. They truly act like they have no plan for the future, what-so-ever. Starting and stopping, or working on and cancelling. It is all a huge waste of money, and extra money is something that GM is sorely lacking. Hell, Ford has more cash, and they are almost half the size.

 

For every "Malibu," there is something like the Zeta platform, or now this truck thing. One step forward, two steps back. Maybe this is the reason that the Kirk is investing in Ford, and sold all of his GM. He didn't get to be so rich by being completely stupid.

i hope they get their act together.....the world will not be the same without them

[blazerdude20]

Mistake in my opinion. I can see Toyota delaying, but that's because they didn't sell many Tundras to begin with, and even fewer now. 1/2 ton pickup sales to GM are still going to represent several hundred thousand sales a year. More importantly, they will still likely be the most profitable sales GM makes. Why the heck would you ignore that, even for a year or two?

 

If Ford delays the new truck, it would be a huge mistake. With new globalized engineering, it appears they have more than enough resources to keep it on track, even while pushing up development on small cars.

 

agreed but im thinking what will likely happen. even toyota was caught off guard by the shift in buyers. i would say this life cycle will get stretched another year to free up money but life cycles will go back to 4-5 years like normal.

[NickF1011]

agreed but im thinking what will likely happen. even toyota was caught off guard by the shift in buyers. i would say this life cycle will get stretched another year to free up money but life cycles will go back to 4-5 years like normal.

 

You could look at it the opposite way too: Builders of 1/2 tons are going to have to try harder than ever to lure buyers away from the competition, as the pool is getting smaller to draw from. Being competitive and up to date in the segment may be more important than ever.

[Unknown25]

DETROIT -- General Motors is evaluating future platforms and life cycles for its full-sized trucks and SUVs, sources have told Automotive News.

 

The full-sized SUVs are currently built on the GMT900 architecture. But those familiar with GM's plans say it's likely that at some point those vehicles will be shifted to smaller and lighter architectures, most likely a form of the Lambda platform.

 

In its June 9 issue, Automotive News reported that GM would move its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs to a more fuel-efficient platform. The vehicles will eventually "fade away" in their current form, a GM source told the publication.

 

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said today that the carmaker was looking at the GMT900 portfolio and how if fit within efforts to supply the U.S. market with more fuel-efficient cars.

 

GM plans to extend the life cycle of its entire lineup of pickup trucks and SUVs. The lineup includes the Chevrolet Silverado, Tahoe, Suburban and Avalanche; the GMC Sierra; and the Cadillac Escalade.

 

New designs of GM trucks and SUVs had not been expected to be released until at least 2012. That program has been postponed indefinitely until GM better understands the future of the market for full-sized trucks.

 

Wilkinson said he suspects that process should be complete within the next six months. By then, GM will have decided how long the program will be postponed.

 

The delay does not mean GM is abandoning the market segment, Wilkinson said.

 

"We're not giving up on the full-size truck market," he said. "We have every intention of leading it in the future, even if it's a smaller-sized market than it is today."

 

The redesigned Ford F series and Dodge Ram pickup trucks launch later this year. GM can remain competitive without a complete redesign in the near future, Wilkinson said. That doesn't mean GM won't make "major changes" to improve fuel efficiency on its full-sized trucks and SUVs.

 

"We've got the most fuel-efficient vehicles in the segment, and we don't intend on giving that up to anybody," Wilkinson said.

 

GM also has considered canceling one future Hummer SUV product and shutting down another brand, The Wall Street Journal reported today, citing people briefed on the automaker's strategy.

 

Wilkinson said GM would not confirm the report, saying only that the automaker is "continuing to look at all options for the Hummer brand."

[NickF1011]

The full-sized SUVs are currently built on the GMT900 architecture. But those familiar with GM's plans say it's likely that at some point those vehicles will be shifted to smaller and lighter architectures, most likely a form of the Lambda platform.

 

In its June 9 issue, Automotive News reported that GM would move its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon SUVs to a more fuel-efficient platform. The vehicles will eventually "fade away" in their current form, a GM source told the publication.

 

Unit body Tahoe and Yukon? Isn't that basically what the Traverse and Acadia already are?

[mlhm5]

<br />I think this move is as stupid as Detroit slashing budgets for small cars during the 90s.<br /><br />Everything moves in cycles. People think that gas prices are never going to go down again and they think that no one is ever going to buy a new half-ton again.<br /><br />Fact is, neither conclusion is likely correct, and (therefore) GM is foolish to start acting like the end of trucks is upon us.<br /><br />The US is not Europe and it will take a lot more than high gas prices to turn the US into Europe.<br /><br />GM's decision is a classic example of the pendulum swinging too far the opposite direction.<br /><br />From the company that stuck us with the J-body from 1981 to 2006, we get the decision to stick us with the GMT900s for up to 10 years or more.<br />

 

I don't know if you have been watching but the sheer cliff that SUVs and pickups have fallen off is too steep to ever come back again. I'm talking sales and values of both new and used. SUVs and pickups are right in the crosshairs of the American car buyer and the fuel efficiency tradeoff is so powerful that SUVs and pickups currently don't have any demand.

 

When gas went above $3.50 that was the end of SUVs and pickups and consumers are only interested in buying cars that get 30mpg combined. Think I am wrong, look at the sales and for more proof, listen to the commercials. They all say 30 mpg on the highway if they can.

 

So, despite the endless divestitures/restructurings and countless layoffs/buyouts, in the end the Ford has the wrong product for $5 gallon gas, way too much debt, and makes too little profit on smaller cars.

Edited June 19, 2008 by mlhm5

[NickF1011]

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

 

Do you ever have anything original to say? I would reply more in depth with everything that is wrong with your response, but it wouldn't be anything that a hundred people haven't already told you before so....

 

[mlhm5]

<br />Do you ever have anything original to say? I would reply more in depth with everything that is wrong with your response, but it wouldn't be anything that a hundred people haven't already told you before so....<br /><br /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/finger.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="finger.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

Ford is not an investment stock.

[NickF1011]

<br /><br /><br />

 

Ford is not an investment stock.

 

The vast majority of all automotive stocks are pretty piss-poor historic performers when it comes to investing.

 

Hell, look at Toyota's 1-year performance: http://www.investorguide.com/stock-charts....ma=0&maval=

 

Not exactly what I would call a winner.

Edited June 19, 2008 by NickF1011

[Ralph Greene]

I believe one of the things $4 gas is doing is making folks look at vehicles as just that....vehicles. Not status symbols. I suspect more and more people will just look at a car the way a business looks at a truck. You buy what you need to do the job you need done. It doesn't have anything to do with how much money you have (or don't have).

 

If I'm right, and this becomes a trend, then who buys the rolling technology platforms being developed, like the MKS etc? I'm noticing more and more of my friends, who can buy anything with cash, are more and more choosing vehicles for what they will do with it. Need a city car?, buy a Civic or Focus (and they don't buy a fancy Civic either). Need a long distance cruiser, buy a larger sedan or similar. Need to haul or tow, then buy a diesel pickup or Suburban. It's not about money, it's that they have lost some interest in buying the new cars and trucks.

 

More and more, they just buy to fit their needs, and luxury cars are no where on their list. Even my brother recently said, "anyone can buy an expensive car who is stupid about their money, but not everyone can buy an airplane". So if the wealthy no longer consider fancy cars as status symbols, and those wanna be's can't afford them anymore or get financing, where does that leave the car makers? As noted above....how is a new pick up better than an older good condition pickup? I see this as the auto makers greatest long tem problem. How to generate interest in their products. Very few people buy a vehicle because they really need one or their old one is worn out and beyond repair.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Ralph Greene