# Gm Scrapping Next New Tahoe/suburban Model



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Believe it or not here is the tale we all thought we would never see.

Click

Tahoe will be replaced by the next smaller model. No more new money will be invested into the suburban..

Man where are we going here..? Who'd ever a thunk it?

Carey


----------



## battalionchief3 (Jun 27, 2006)

So much for big campers....teardrop campers here we come. At least trucks will stay around, hopefully. Ok so no more money into the suburbans is ok, just reduce the number produced. I have driven a suburban at work for the last 13 years, I would hate to loose it.


----------



## Justman (Jul 22, 2006)

I wouldn't have had to use a crystal ball to see that one coming... Folks are scared, and when they're afraid for their well being, they go smaller and cheaper. I don't think we've seen the end of the impact of the spike in oil prices.


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

It sure would be nice if they through a Diesel in one before they stop making them..............

Go Out With A Bang - Special Addition.

I would be happy!!! As i would get one for sure..............i have been crossing my fingers hoping they would come out with one.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Never say never.....

The automakers will build what the customers buy. If no one is buying, they'll stop building. I'm not ready to write full size suv's off entirely, but they will likely at least become a shell of the product they once were, and could disappear entirely if gas becomes too expensive to be able to take the trips they were really designed for.

Everyone hold on, it's going to be a rough ride...


----------



## bigdisneydaddy (Oct 26, 2007)

GM is notorious for not predicting demand correctly. Dont write off the Sub just yet, lots of buyers need a truck that big and the commercial market isnt dead yet. We have been through this cycle before.


----------



## mswalt (Sep 14, 2004)

Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?

Mark


----------



## Y-Guy (Jan 30, 2004)

For now it makes sense, the Burb is well proven so they can build it as is for a while. The Tahoe never was a great rig for towing, with a shorter wheelbase.

I can see why they would save their cash and get going on some smaller vehicles. GM/Ford both need to get back to work on some smaller trucks, about the only decent small SUV is the Escape. I suppose you could put the TraileBlazer in that class, but I wasn't overly impressed with ours and the mileage was nothing to brag about. None of the US automakers makes a decent small truck, about the best is the Dodge but who wants a V8 right now. I've been in the market for a while now, my only decent choices are foreign. The US auto industry rested all of its businesses on the sales of big trucks and SUVs while the other builders were making smaller vehicles. Now its time to spin on a dime.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

mswalt said:


> Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?
> 
> Mark


I'm sure they do, but right now the numbers that have their focus are the ones that tell them they don't have the cash. They need to worry about surviving to 2010 before worrying about details like a new suv.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

You know, I have loved the automobile since I was old enough to know what one was.. I seen my parents struggle thru the 70's with there auto choices of domestic or foriegn because of the scares our govt put them thru with the of lack of gasoline. They loved to camp, but thru the early 70's my dad sold it all cause he was scared he couldnt by fuel.. Bought a toyota pickup and a very tiny fold down.. Us 3 kids rode in the bed with a topper. I remember listening to that lil 20r engine screaming for help, lol But he got 20mpg towing with that overloaded lil truck.. I grew up in so. ILL. so within about 3 years that lil toy pu had rusted out.. Fuel supplies mellowed after that and he bought a 1975 Olds 98 with 455 engine and a 30 foot Jayco.. Oh how us kids thanked our daddy..

I have always ask'd why have the domestic automakers allowed the foriegn automakers to flat whip them in every catagory except mass..

Why didnt the domestic automakers invest into 2 design teams.. One for america, and one for the rest of the world. If they would have done that there would have never been a foriegn automaker to worry about.

Why the foriegn makers have been so successful is they have never fully bought into the bigger is better idea of the USA. They sell as many vehicles around the world as the USA.. The rest of the world has always had a tight economy, and a shortage of gasoline. So they have always catered to that as building efficient cars will always make money reguardless of where..

The big 3 have never looked at really pushin there stuff thruout the world cause knowone wanted them.. They didnt offer anything that was really efficiant.

If only they decided in back in the early 70's to build for the USA and also build for the world, there would be few foriegn automakers. We would have jobs out our ears. Our economy would be the rock like a chevy truck. We would have a choice from a 10mpg suburban to a 60 mpg honda civic like car.. We would OWN the world!

Our RV manufactures should be doin same.. The european's and chinease want to go camping to.. Build for us, and build for the rest of the world.. Thats all it takes to become untouchable with profits every year in all economies..

That way when fuel situations and economies change, there are always vehicles the automakers have in there hip pockets ready to sell to the public troughout the world..

We would be the icon of automakers.. Not freaking Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, and all those other names I will NEVER be a part of..

WHY GM, Why Ford, Why Dodge? You guys should be no.1 not them! Makes me sad to see this happening.. Does anyone realize how many jobs are provided from just one US autoworker?

When are we gonna start taking care of our selves...?

Carey


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

bigdisneydaddy said:


> GM is notorious for not predicting demand correctly. Dont write off the Sub just yet, lots of buyers need a truck that big and the commercial market isnt dead yet. We have been through this cycle before.


Ford dropped the Excursion.........................


----------



## California Jim (Dec 11, 2003)

Wow, very troubling.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

The Excursion had few sales to the Tahoe/Suburban and was sized just a little too big.. Ford went a little overboard with the Ex.. Most new it would have few sales when it was intro'd.. The Ex was a niche vehicle. The Suburban is an icon to the US. The oldest nameplate. The Suburban has been with us since the 1930's.... Intro'd when? The great depression!

click

Again, no reason to drop it if you have other vehicles ready to sell for people wanting fuel economy..

Thats what I'm mad about... If the big 3 were smart they'd have cars for everyone in the world in all sizes shapes and forms.. Not having to scrap further development into large vehicles and trying to scramble to keep up.... How stupid!

Carey


----------



## Scoutr2 (Aug 21, 2006)

mswalt said:


> Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?
> 
> Mark


Yup! They sure do - the number of sales. You cannot keep building what ain't selling - and still stay in business. They must build what people want to buy. And let's face it - we RV owners are NOT the majority of auto buyers.

Sad, but true.

Mike


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Y-Guy said:


> The Tahoe never was a great rig for towing, with a shorter wheelbase.


Here we go again someone has to slam a TV that a lot of people use. I for one think the Tahoe is a great TV and that short wheel base thing is a bunch of crap. Because the distance from the hitch to the back wheels is so short it more than makes up for the simi short wheel base. I have towed with my Tahoe and have never experienced any of the tow issues that people say they have with their long wheel base TV's. I have never felt any sway not even any movement when passed by a large 18 wheeler, I can drive in 40mph cross winds with one arm, no white knuckle driving with a Tahoe. Why do people feel a need to slam a TV that a lot of people use? Have you ever towed with one? Maybe I need to just get with the program and start slamming things like maybe Motor homes.


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Scoutr2 said:


> Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?
> 
> Mark


Yup! They sure do - the number of sales. You cannot keep building what ain't selling - and still stay in business. They must build what people want to buy. And let's face it - we RV owners are NOT the majority of auto buyers.

Sad, but true.

Mike
[/quote]

I wonder how they come up with that fact, when they are not selling a lot of anything small or large. I just bought a truck and had the dealer to myself and they had lots of small good gas mileage cars. I wonder if retooling to small cars will help either.


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

N7OQ said:


> The Tahoe never was a great rig for towing, with a shorter wheelbase.


Here we go again someone has to slam a TV that a lot of people use. I for one think the Tahoe is a great TV and that short wheel base thing is a bunch of crap. Because the distance from the hitch to the back wheels is so short it more than makes up for the simi short wheel base. I have towed with my Tahoe and have never experienced any of the tow issues that people say they have with their long wheel base TV's. I have never felt any sway not even any movement when passed by a large 18 wheeler, I can drive in 40mph cross winds with one arm, no white knuckle driving with a Tahoe. Why do people feel a need to slam a TV that a lot of people use? Have you ever towed with one? Maybe I need to just get with the program and start slamming things like maybe Motor homes.
[/quote]


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Scoutr2 said:


> Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?
> 
> Mark


Yup! They sure do - the number of sales. You cannot keep building what ain't selling - and still stay in business. They must build what people want to buy. And let's face it - we RV owners are NOT the majority of auto buyers.

Sad, but true.

Mike
[/quote]

Maybe were not the majority, but if someone would like to buy a 4x4 9 passenger SUV there should be one available..

The Chevy van is what generation, 3rd.. Its been out since the early 60's with just 3 model changes.. People dont buy chevy vans to make statements with, they use a chevy van for the utilitarian aspect. They feel they dont need to make many changes to the chevy van because they dont sell all that many for one, and people are using the chevy van as a tool not a statement.

Since the burb is made on a pick up chassis it coincides with pick up model changes. The last one only lasted what 6 years, 2000-2006.. Since the 60's we are in the 6th model change for the suburban.. They are changing models as soon as the tooling is paid for.. Like it or not, they need to run the model a few years after the tooling has been paid for and use that money to pay for the next model change, not float the change in hopes that it will sell.

They need to go to events, sports, camping shows, car shows, and shopping malls etc. with the current model year, interact with the people, and have them fill out questionairs and such to gain what the people want in the next model they intend to build for them. Give the people a forum to also chat about what they would like in the next model.. For that, give a special redemption coupon to buy the next vehicle or something that makes the people feel like they were invloved with the new transformation.... They would find that many still want and need a vehicle not just to make a statement with, but to use as the vehicle was intended to be used for.

If GM could at least build the Suburban for those that wants the vehicle, go ahead and put the 4.5 Duramax in for model year 2010 so people who need the vehicle can get some better mileage with it.. If they cant afford the next model change in 2011 than fine.. Run this model to 2014-2015 and continue to upgrade the powertrain for optimum mileage.. We would be happy. This would again force the people to buy the vehicle for its use rather than a statement.

The mfr's have feed into building vehicles so people can make a statement more than the utilitarian aspect, and have lost focus trying to keep up.. They make drastic changes such as this because the next big statement people want is economy.. Many people still need the large suv type vehicle but since they are now broke trying to keep up, they just want to scrap the whole vehicle.

We dont need this many model changes so quick, especially on utility vehicles like suv's and pick ups.. After all of the statement making people have went broke from trying to keep up with the Jones'es there are still a fair sized group of people and companies who need these large vehicles for the utility of it..

The mfrs made money in the 50's and 60's, and we still had large suv's and pickups.. If they would have focused on the foreign up rising of economy vehicles in the 70's they could have destroyed them rather easy.. remember having a friend with a 40mpg Datsun B210... What a piece of $&&^. but the Pinto/Chevette was even worse.

Just because someone feels a Tahoe wasnt good for towing there trailer, doesnt mean someone else feels that way.. We tend to make fun of people who use a vehicle for something other than its meant to be used for.. That is part of the problem..

A Tahoe is a true sport ute. It will work to haul people, fit into a tight garage, or a tight parking place. AND can be used for towing any trailer up to 25 feet no problem.. It is actually more versitile than a Suburban, and that is why it was the No.1 selling SUV all thru the 90's.. It was the perfect vehicle and made a hefty statement with the suburbanites.. Yes more people used a Tahoe to make a statement than they used the Tahoe for its utiliitarian aspects.. The mfrs feed right into that.

But again if your not buying the biggest vehicle to use for towing your camper, people tend to make fun of them ... That is much of our problem..

The automakers need to go back to the basics, and build cars with 40mpg and up. I know that can be done as we all remember the foriegn cars of the 70's and 80's.. But also build large suv's and trucks for those that need them such as us.. They have totally lost focus with the economy and trends forthcoming..

This will cost many jobs. I feel for all involved... US!

Carey


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Again, I'm willing to bet they won't disappear altogether, but the focus right now is on survival. Once accomplished, the focus can turn more to the luxuries.


----------



## Collinsfam_WY (Nov 9, 2006)

Nathan said:


> Again, I'm willing to bet they won't disappear altogether, but the focus right now is on survival. Once accomplished, the focus can turn more to the luxuries.


Agree with Nathan. Article said that the Arlington GM plant will continue to produce the Suburbans etc.. Sounded like to me that GM is reducing capacity to match substantially reduced demand. I think that there are only 2 Ford plants now producing the new '09 F150. Kansas City and DTP. My F150 was built at KCAP.

I sure am interested to know what that "secret" GM CXX program was all about though!!!

-CC


----------



## Scoutr2 (Aug 21, 2006)

Colorado~DirtBikers said:


> Anybody ever notice how many Burbs and Tahoes are actually out there????? Doesn't GM even look at their numbers?
> 
> Mark


Yup! They sure do - the number of sales. You cannot keep building what ain't selling - and still stay in business. They must build what people want to buy. And let's face it - we RV owners are NOT the majority of auto buyers.

Sad, but true.

Mike
[/quote]

Maybe were not the majority, but if someone would like to buy a 4x4 9 passenger SUV there should be one available..

The Chevy van is what generation, 3rd.. Its been out since the early 60's with just 3 model changes.. People dont buy chevy vans to make statements with, they use a chevy van for the utilitarian aspect. They feel they dont need to make many changes to the chevy van because they dont sell all that many for one, and people are using the chevy van as a tool not a statement.

Since the burb is made on a pick up chassis it coincides with pick up model changes. The last one only lasted what 6 years, 2000-2006.. Since the 60's we are in the 6th model change for the suburban.. They are changing models as soon as the tooling is paid for.. Like it or not, they need to run the model a few years after the tooling has been paid for and use that money to pay for the next model change, not float the change in hopes that it will sell.

They need to go to events, sports, camping shows, car shows, and shopping malls etc. with the current model year, interact with the people, and have them fill out questionairs and such to gain what the people want in the next model they intend to build for them. Give the people a forum to also chat about what they would like in the next model.. For that, give a special redemption coupon to buy the next vehicle or something that makes the people feel like they were invloved with the new transformation.... They would find that many still want and need a vehicle not just to make a statement with, but to use as the vehicle was intended to be used for.

If GM could at least build the Suburban for those that wants the vehicle, go ahead and put the 4.5 Duramax in for model year 2010 so people who need the vehicle can get some better mileage with it.. If they cant afford the next model change in 2011 than fine.. Run this model to 2014-2015 and continue to upgrade the powertrain for optimum mileage.. We would be happy. This would again force the people to buy the vehicle for its use rather than a statement.

The mfr's have feed into building vehicles so people can make a statement more than the utilitarian aspect, and have lost focus trying to keep up.. They make drastic changes such as this because the next big statement people want is economy.. Many people still need the large suv type vehicle but since they are now broke trying to keep up, they just want to scrap the whole vehicle.

We dont need this many model changes so quick, especially on utility vehicles like suv's and pick ups.. After all of the statement making people have went broke from trying to keep up with the Jones'es there are still a fair sized group of people and companies who need these large vehicles for the utility of it..

The mfrs made money in the 50's and 60's, and we still had large suv's and pickups.. If they would have focused on the foreign up rising of economy vehicles in the 70's they could have destroyed them rather easy.. remember having a friend with a 40mpg Datsun B210... What a piece of $&&^. but the Pinto/Chevette was even worse.

Just because someone feels a Tahoe wasnt good for towing there trailer, doesnt mean someone else feels that way.. We tend to make fun of people who use a vehicle for something other than its meant to be used for.. That is part of the problem..

A Tahoe is a true sport ute. It will work to haul people, fit into a tight garage, or a tight parking place. AND can be used for towing any trailer up to 25 feet no problem.. It is actually more versitile than a Suburban, and that is why it was the No.1 selling SUV all thru the 90's.. It was the perfect vehicle and made a hefty statement with the suburbanites.. Yes more people used a Tahoe to make a statement than they used the Tahoe for its utiliitarian aspects.. The mfrs feed right into that.

But again if your not buying the biggest vehicle to use for towing your camper, people tend to make fun of them ... That is much of our problem..

The automakers need to go back to the basics, and build cars with 40mpg and up. I know that can be done as we all remember the foriegn cars of the 70's and 80's.. But also build large suv's and trucks for those that need them such as us.. They have totally lost focus with the economy and trends forthcoming..

This will cost many jobs. I feel for all involved... US!

Carey
[/quote]

You said it well, and I could not agree more. I believe there is still a plant down south (Texas?) that is making Suburbans and Tahoes, but not many right now. The NY Times article stated that they are not going to invest in the next generation of large SUV. I'm sure there is something on the back burner, though, because there is a market out there for folks with 4+ kids. I will say, though, that having been to several countries in Europe, you don't see many of those large vehicles there - and those folks have large families, too. We just spent two weeks in Finland this past summer and I saw only ONE Suburban (in Helsinki) and only a handful of small pickup trucks - and one Avalanche. Gas was $9.55/gallon when we were there - a lot of it taxes to fund emissions technology development. (1.57 Euro/litre X 3.8 L/US gallon X $1.60/1 Euro = $9.55/gallon - in July)

Almost every car there (BMW, Volvo, Saab, etc) has a forged steel, U-shaped trailer hitch w/ball on the back. Contractors pull around small clam-shell trailers for their tools and to haul things. I saw many travel trailers, also, but they were VERY LIGHTWEIGHT, much shorter, and not nearly as long as what we normally see around here. I would say the average length of their trailers was about 16 feet - no slideouts. (Only saw a couple motorhomes - smallish, though.)

We in the USA are used to everything being "Texas sized," from our food portions to travel trailers and cars. If our car manufacturers are to continue to stay in business, we will have to rethink our "portion sizes" for cars, trucks, and everything else. I am sure that the recent dip in fuel prices is only a sign of the economy and as soon as the rebound starts, fuel prices will rebound, as well. The car manufacturers know that and must make plans, accordingly. Just wait until the Tier IV emissions regulations hit in 2010. We are going to see some big changes in everything that has a fossil-fuel engine. Tier IV is HUGE! (RE the announcement that Caterpillar is getting out of the on-highway truck engine business at the end of 2009 - no more motorhomes with 300-350 HP Cat engines!).

Just some food for thought. I am lamenting the future with you, though. Things will NEVER be the same from here on out, I am afraid. Think about how the world changed after 1929. In some ways - we're there again. The full impact has yet to hit.

Mike


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Yea they will still make limited numbers, but are not planning future monies for new models, which is fine if they continue drivetrain development.. That is my question.. If they dont continue drivetrain development the burb will be gone after 2010.. Gone!

I read an article this morning that GM is dropping all new vehicle development till after 2009.. I think that could be there demise... Now is the time to take all the designers and engineers and try to reform the company with all they have... I feel this is there last chance.. Instead they feel that saving 1.5 billion will be better.. If they are that broke, they may as well give up now..

Yes right now they arent selling nothing and that goes for them all.. Not much they can do about it as what is happening this time is over there heads..

The big 3 have had chance after chance at making a better auto than there competition, and continue to fail with the lack of models to equal all economies at any time.. Its either now or never..

The rest of the world is stuck with 8-10 buck a gallon gas, but also live in small countries and travel few miles to there destinations. Also many are powered with tiny diesels which really limits what they can pull.. North America is a huge country and people love traveling long distances for there vacations.. Hence larger vehicles and larger RV's.. Larger RV's will never go away, so we will continue to need larger vehicles than the rest of the worlds autos for them.. They will get lighter so we may be able to pull them will smaller V8's but a large vehicle is still needed..

Our country and our mfr's have become obcessed with fads, which has helped to the demise of what is happening with our vehicles.

Toyota has fallen into the larger autos too, but have many 35+mpg autos a person can pick from.. Still not good mpg but decent.

When I met my wife in 1992 she had a new honda civic. I couldnt believe the mileage of that little car.. 1.5 litre 100hp, 45mpg in town and high 50's and low 60's mpg highway.. I think the smallest engine they offer now is 1.8 litre. That car had all the standards of 2008 cars... Where are they at? Why did they let that go? That same car could be 70mpg with 2008 technology.. GM should have had models such as that in production now for years fo those that wanted them.. But nope, they still dont and it will be the next decade before we get a car that gets over 35-40mpg from GM... Thats terrible!

Carey


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Colorado~DirtBikers said:


> ...
> When I met my wife in 1992 she had a new honda civic. I couldnt believe the mileage of that little car.. 1.5 litre 100hp, 45mpg in town and high 50's and low 60's mpg highway.. I think the smallest engine they offer now is 1.8 litre. That car had all the standards of 2008 cars... Where are they at? Why did they let that go? That same car could be 70mpg with 2008 technology.. GM should have had models such as that in production now for years fo those that wanted them.. But nope, they still dont and it will be the next decade before we get a car that gets over 35-40mpg from GM... Thats terrible!
> 
> Carey


That car could not be sold today. Emission regs are much too tight in the US. 
Also be very careful about comparing to European models for 2 reasons: 1. they won't meet US emission regs either; 2. The fuel economy when converted to mpg is often Imperial gallons, not US gallons, and the drive cycle is different as well (The news media fails to mention this because the headlines would be much less impressive







).

Now the automakers are guilty of focusing on HP and Torque rather than fuel economy, but that is what people were shopping for as little as a year or two ago. Hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## Scoutr2 (Aug 21, 2006)

Nathan said:


> ...
> When I met my wife in 1992 she had a new honda civic. I couldnt believe the mileage of that little car.. 1.5 litre 100hp, 45mpg in town and high 50's and low 60's mpg highway.. I think the smallest engine they offer now is 1.8 litre. That car had all the standards of 2008 cars... Where are they at? Why did they let that go? That same car could be 70mpg with 2008 technology.. GM should have had models such as that in production now for years fo those that wanted them.. But nope, they still dont and it will be the next decade before we get a car that gets over 35-40mpg from GM... Thats terrible!
> 
> Carey


That car could not be sold today. Emission regs are much too tight in the US. 
Also be very careful about comparing to European models for 2 reasons: 1. they won't meet US emission regs either; 2. The fuel economy when converted to mpg is often Imperial gallons, not US gallons, and the drive cycle is different as well (The news media fails to mention this because the headlines would be much less impressive







).

Now the automakers are guilty of focusing on HP and Torque rather than fuel economy, but that is what people were shopping for as little as a year or two ago. Hindsight is 20/20.








[/quote]

Actually - the emissions regulations are tighter in the EU than they are here. And the ratcheting up of tighter regs is accelerated there, compared to here. I know this for a fact, because as a Service Trainer I have to go to Europe from time to time in order to teach this stuff to our EU dealer's trainers and technicians. This is also why Bush has caused the US to get such a bad rap by other countries around the world - for his refusal to meet the accelerated regulations here, in the US. (Kyoto Agreement that he refused to sign.)

But you are right. The Big 3 have had many years to prepare for the days of fuel economy. But instead, they continued to invest in huge vehicles that guzzle gas even more than the cars and trucks from a couple decades before. They chose profits over their future, just like a kid in a candy store. While I realize that they catered to the public's desires, they ignored the doomsday clock completely. Yeah, they came out with some fuel efficient cars - but have you driven a Chevy Cavalier? Good gas mileage - but definately not a BMW or a Saab. The Ford Focus is a very popular car in the EU - and it's on on the "large" side - but still much more fuel efficient than the same model here in the US. They use small diesel engines with turbos, and they are plenty peppy!

And the foriegn car companies have not given up those small engine cars - they just don't market and sell them here. They are all over Europe. (A Chevy Impala is a HUGE car there and would not be able to park in most spots or in underground parking lots - which are very prevalent in many centuries-old towns and cities). Gas is sold by the litre, so the camparisons are easy to make. They measure fuel economy as litres/km. About the only place that uses Imperial Gallons is England, and, well, it's England. (They don't do things like us OR the EU.)

Just some random thoughts. Good discussion!

Mike


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Yes, I know that the comparison is easy. However a lot of articles quote the fuel economy of the cars sold in England (Hey it's easier to read the English websites unless you speak french, german, etc.







). Anyway, many just pull the fuel economy number and don't get the details that it's Imperial gallons.

As for emissions, perhaps I should say they are different.... Europeans are not as tight on nox and particulates....


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Really good stuff, Nathan and Mike..

The green type people have been pushing for a super economical car since the mid 90's.. They were made fun of.. I'm not into the green stuff that much, but always agreed with them when they lobbied the automakers to develop super high mpg cars..

If they(mfr's) would have done that back in the 90's, 70's even better.. We would have a fair sized car sold from american mfr's that gets 45 city and 60-70 highway on the car lots today.

The only reason Honda quit producing the 1.5 litre lean burn engine was to appease the competition.... Who was that competiton? THE BIG 3!! They even forced the foriegn makers to go big, with more hp.. The american public still to this day buys more domestic than foriegn as a whole.. So the foriegn has to try and equal the domestic with more gas guzzling power..

Quote by Nathan:Now the automakers are guilty of focusing on HP and Torque rather than fuel economy, but that is what people were shopping for as little as a year or two ago. Hindsight is 20/20.

No Nathan, this is what your company made us purchase.. Many people including myself would have been interested in a small around town vehicle that got 40mpg city and 60 highway.. You guys just wouldnt build it for us..

I dont feel any of the so called Hybrids are getting good mileage.. Thats why I dont own one.. If I buy a Hybrid, I want 50 city and 80 highway... Yes it can be done..

IF the Big 3 would have tried to really compete with what the world needed back in the 70's and started building cars in the USA for all of the world.. There would be less competition today for them.. They could have destroyed the big 3 from japan if they had tried...

Today 75% of the worlds cars could have been made here, but NAFTA ruined that too. The big 3 would have money like the shieks in Saudi.. We could have big suvs, and high mileage cars for our kids.. They wouldnt be scrambling like they are today.. They'd been filty rich.. People have told this to the big 3 for years.... THEY WONT LISTEN..

Our domestic auto makers would not be delaying further development to cars and trucks becasue they are broke today when they need it most... Sadly they'd had there chance. I hate to see em fall to where they are today... Makes us look like a bunch of fools to the rest of the world...

Carey


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

I don't pretend to agree with ignoring fuel economy over the past 25 years. It was a bad decision and is definetly partly why the domestics are in the shape they are. That being said, the people making these decisions were human beings, trying to figure out what people wanted, and for a while, they were dead on, and made a LOT of money. Times change, and now they are losing a LOT of money. That's life.

Now that said, no one forced you to buy a 1/2 ton truck, you chose to.








I bet half of the members that routinely post own 3/4 or 1 ton trucks. Again, this is a choice. It is also the reason why Toyota has taken several runs at the truck market. In the end, their timing was bad, but they did finally build a full size 1/2 ton that gets the same fuel economy as everyone else. Sure, they are in a better position because of the cars they have, but they really aren't that much different. BTW, Honda still makes an improved 1.5L lean burn engine, and no one in America has to stop selling something to "appease the competition"

This is an interesting discussion, especially to see people's passion for the subject. I also think it is interesting that the first page was complaining that GM isn't updating one of their biggest gas guzzlers, and page 2 transitioned into why can't they improve fuel economy. It really shows everyones state of mind right now: We are scared of what the future is brining, and simultaneously longing for what we had.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Has nothing to do with being scared... They(mfr's) would not be scrambling if they took this platform and built upon it.. Click make a prius look like a gas guzzler, uh?

They would have cars that already would satisfy the needs of the public in these times... They wouldnt have to be dropping all future develpment for the next year or so.. They would already had a 25 mpg full size suburban. People would still be buying them, but the present mileage they get doesnt cut it. Knowone wants them.

If you look at honda civc history you will see that engine size went up along with everyone else to appease what the competition had.. Click

Sorry Nathan, the reason they have to drop development on the suburban is noted in my posts above... I'm embarrassed for our country, I'm sad for all the job loss, I'm sad because we had cars that got good mileage, but were dropped from the foriegn makers because the big 3 pushed hp over mileage.. The public will always take hp when gas is cheap.. But the public will need economy when the gas is high... A true car maker has all models to sell in all economies.. Even in low fuel prices, kids, and the poor need 50 and up mpg.. They have horribly failed here..

They should be making a 1/2 ton 300+hp v8 capable of 25mpg in these modern times..

Yea I bought a 1/2 truck.. Do I know it could get 20% better mileage had they tried 20 years ago and still have good hp.... YES.. Does it make me mad everytime I fill it up... Yep!

Carey


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Quote Nathan, We are scared of what the future is brining, and simultaneously longing for what we had.

Nope... The mfr's feel this way...

We are mad cause they had there chance 20+ years ago... Didnt jump on it.. We as a public made fun of the big 3 for trying to compete with the foriegn makers with Pintos, Chevettes, Omni's and such.. They werent even in the same ball park.. Had they really tried to take out the foriegn then, they could have easy.. Nope bigger money in a bigger car..

Now they are in trouble and look what they are having to do... makes em look like a bunch of fools to the world.. We could have owned em... Now they own us.. We'll never get that chance again..

I'm much more embaressed than scared..

Sad for the people because I know what we could have had from our big 3.. The public would be looking up to the big 3 about right now.. Instead they look down on the big 3..

Carey


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Efficiencies will increase. Physics does start getting in the way eventually though.









Everyone is starting to make progress on FE, just be patient. Here's the type of news I would expect to hear more of in the next year: Hybrids


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Now Nathan, you have me talking about mileage..

Yep Nathan, the electric technology is coming pretty good.. 10 years late though.. Cost is still a problem for the masses with these hybrids... Still the answer to selling to the masses are gas engines with excellent economy.. The masses cannot afford the hybrids just yet.. Your getting closer and I aplaude the mfrs for that!

One question? which automaker will start lowering engine cubic inch 1st?

Why did they go from 2.3 litre this year to 2.5 next year? Why the jump of 14 bhp?

Why not drop from a 2.3 to a 2.1, with hp in the 130-140 hp range instead of 175hp with the 2.5?

A 2.1 engine with the 2.5 technolgy could up the fuel mileage by 20% over the 2.3.. I want that!

Why equal the 2.3 fuel mileage of this year with a 2.5 with more hp and new technology of next year?

Better the 2.3 fuel mileage with a 2.1 with 2.5 technolgy... This is the big 3's problem!

Ford says if they sell enough of these Fuzion hybrids, just maybe it will raise the avg fuel economy across the line for them... Why reley on that? Why not build a gas engine that will raise the fuel economy without question? Why reley on expensive hybrids to do that?

One thing ive well learned from trucking involving physics.. Physics can be overcome in big ways with gears.. Semis still amaze me.. 1000 cubic inches pulling 80000lbs, 6-7 mpg... Thats still incredible!

When will they make a differential with an economy ratio and a power/town ratio? Yes a 2 speed differential to go along with that 6 speed tranny.. You guys could do this.. Make a vehicle that changes the differntial gear to a taller one after it senses that its in cruise mode.. maybe make that differntial have 3 speeds so it couldnt be felt.. Yes 12-18 forward gears.. This would work awesome with the new CVT technology!

With that technology, you could power your Fuzion with a 1.8 liter 125 hp motor like what has been the mainstream engine in the Toyota Corolla for years.. They get 30 city and 40 highway which is dismal for a Corolla... Then your Fuzion would get the same in gas engine form as it does in Hybrid form.. The masses would aplaude you! A midsize car for 20k that gets 40 hwy.... The customers would be standing in line for your product Nathan.. Myself included!

Take that same 2-3 speed differential technolgy and apply to your Focus.. 1.4 litre with 70mpg.... You guys would have me standing in line to buy one for my daughter in college!

Maybe this is why they arent making new gas powered cars that get above 40 hwy... The Hybrids only get in that range.. Would make the hybrids look bad.. lol

You guys have a long ways to go.. What GREAT economy to Ford is 30-40mpg.. What GOOD economy to the public is 60-70mpg... We feel that way cause we know you can do it..

The mfr's keep saying give us time... Sorry dudes, time has pased!

Carey


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

This is actually more good news than what Hybrids are giving us.Click

They are admitedly lacking the transmission to make full use of this technology in front wheel drive cars. They say a rwd/4wd platform will allow them to fully take advantage of the potentials of ecoboost engines.

Its way overdue time to set down and build a tranny.. Gearing and powertrain distribution is the secret to our future more so than engines..

Gearing overcomes physics in many ways... We need to go back to the basics and start over..

This takes billions.. They had that in the 90's when they had money....... Now you and I have to give these characters our money so they can build us economical cars that we have to have..









Carey


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

Back from page #1. That is really sad to read. I love the Burb. I better hang into the 09 Denali I just bought. I got white to match the Ouback

Thor


----------



## Collinsfam_WY (Nov 9, 2006)

Colorado~DirtBikers said:


> This is actually more good news than what Hybrids are giving us.Click
> 
> They are admitedly lacking the transmission to make full use of this technology in front wheel drive cars. They say a rwd/4wd platform will allow them to fully take advantage of the potentials of ecoboost engines.
> 
> ...


I had high hopes for the dual clutch trans that Chrysler was to develop in concert with Getrag. Supposedly another 20% powertrain efficiency for that. Contract is cancelled and the future is mighty dim for Ma Mopar.

-CC


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

Thor said:


> Back from page #1. That is really sad to read. I love the Burb. I better hang into the 09 Denali I just bought. I got white to match the Ouback
> 
> Thor


Hey thanks Thor for getting back on track. Funny... The DW and I were looking at the 09 Denalis...white too!


----------



## NJMikeC (Mar 29, 2006)

I for one am absolutely convinced that the US Automakers jammed the large SUV's down our throats and the reasoning is simple. More profit per unit sold. They absolutely ignored the small car market and to prove it take note that the best selling vehicles were the Camry and Accord and I suppose the Taurus so no doubt the market was there. GM, Ford and Chrysler gave the marketplace to Toyota and Honda on a silver platter and greed always ruled the roost. Greedy enough to put out the Pinto, Vega, Chevette, etc. All pure junk! I'm also throughly convinced that they know that there is a large portion of folks out there who will refuse to buy foreign and that there was a concerted effort to market the large profit SUVs to that "captive marketplace".

The early Toyotas and Hondas may have rusted to death but at least they didn't burn a quart of oil every 2 weeks like the Vega did. Asian companies use a hydraulic clutch and Detroit used a stupid cheap cable that stretched , wouldn't adjust correctly and tore up clutches at twice the rate that the Asian cars did. Greed pure greed and screw them!

Certainly there are those in the American public who just had to have the large SUV because it was a status symbol but actually I kind of pity them. I always get a chucle out of a 5ft tall women trying to hoist her kids up into a Burb or Excursion when they just could have gone minivan. It isn't like even a third of them tow either.

It certainly will be sad to see these companies go but I'm not so sure they should get bailed out w/o conditions. The conditions will have to be investment in smaller, more efficient vehicles, higher quality, etc. In other words if you want the "free market" to bail you out then the market is no longer "free". Another sad thought is that we could put tariffs on foreign auto parts but that would just give Detroit a reason to reduce their quality. In short they are reaping the rotten apples from the rotten apple seeds they have sown for so, so long.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Well said Mike and totally agree!

Carey


----------



## joegoodrich (Oct 15, 2008)

Not sure...but this website suggests a duramax suburban in 2010.

http://www.dieselsuburbans.com/10SubDiesel.htm


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

NJMikeC said:


> I for one am absolutely convinced that the US Automakers jammed the large SUV's down our throats ....


This thread was started about how people were upset that the Burb was not being updated. Doesn't sound to me like they were "forced" to buy them...









There are at least 6 full line vehicle manufacturers in the US, and another half dozen partial line manufacturers. Buy what you want or need, but don't criticize someone who wants to drive a vehicle that you do not think is practical.


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

Nathan said:


> I always get a chucle out of a 5ft tall women trying to hoist her kids up into a Burb or Excursion when they just could have gone minivan. It isn't like even a third of them tow either.


Were they complaining about lifting the kids in to the burb???







Why do you assume they wanted a minivan. Maybe they didnt??

Without throwing out numbers that i dont know I will say that i bet that most people buy what they want not what an OEM forces them to buy....and by chance, that same OEM will probably continue to make more of what people are buying....


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

Sayonara said:


> I always get a chucle out of a 5ft tall women trying to hoist her kids up into a Burb or Excursion when they just could have gone minivan. It isn't like even a third of them tow either.


Were they complaining about lifting the kids in to the burb???







Why do you assume they wanted a minivan. Maybe they didnt??

Without throwing out numbers that i dont know I will say that i bet that most people buy what they want not what an OEM forces them to buy....and by chance, that same OEM will probably continue to make more of what people are buying....
[/quote]

What he said.... X2


----------



## clarkely (Sep 15, 2008)

joegoodrich said:


> Not sure...but this website suggests a duramax suburban in 2010.
> 
> http://www.dieselsuburbans.com/10SubDiesel.htm


I will believe this one when I see it.............They talk about it every year it seems.............

If i sound Sour...........Its because I am...................I would love to have one!!!! but with a bigger diesel in it


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Nathan said:


> I for one am absolutely convinced that the US Automakers jammed the large SUV's down our throats ....


This thread was started about how people were upset that the Burb was not being updated. Doesn't sound to me like they were "forced" to buy them...









There are at least 6 full line vehicle manufacturers in the US, and another half dozen partial line manufacturers. Buy what you want or need, but don't criticize someone who wants to drive a vehicle that you do not think is practical.
[/quote]

Well said and I agree. If you don't like what they sell then don't buy it. No manufacture pushed anything down any ones throats, it was a consumer demand thing. If you can say that GM, Ford and Chrysler pushed their SUV's down your throat then I can say that the Asian's have pushed their crappy little puddle jumpers down my throat. For those who bought a little Asian car as a status symbol I pity them.

In reality I don't care what someone buys or drives if they like it then that is all that counts. I think the real problem is not caused by the car manufactures but greedy Arabs and greedy loan companies who gave home loans to people who did not deserve one and could not afford them. Our auto manufactures are hurting because of something that was out of their control so if any company should be bailed out it should be companies like our auto manufactures.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Nathan said:


> I for one am absolutely convinced that the US Automakers jammed the large SUV's down our throats ....


This thread was started about how people were upset that the Burb was not being updated. Doesn't sound to me like they were "forced" to buy them...









There are at least 6 full line vehicle manufacturers in the US, and another half dozen partial line manufacturers. Buy what you want or need, but don't criticize someone who wants to drive a vehicle that you do not think is practical.
[/quote]

Nope, this thread wasnt started to complain, or be upset... Im not sure why you keep feeling that we are complaining here.. Dude were sad and feel bad for the layoffs of the workers of the big 3.. Its not the workers fault.. Its the total lack of reality of the management with the big 3 that has gotten them into this predicament. This thread was started to say Im sad and felt bad that GM hadnt looked into more efficient cars and trucks much sooner than now. Im sad for the big 3 that it has taken them being forced with bankruptcy to finally make vehicles with better fuel mileage.. Im sad that gm is being forced with dropping the big suv because they are broke.

Nope not forced to buy them.. But all of us could have had the same big suv with 25% better fuel mileage had the big 3 focused on building vehicles with more efficiency back in the 70's and 80's.. Look where we would be now.

We are stuck with 15-20 mpg vehicles for our families.. If they would have made fuel mileage a bigger concern 20 years ago we could have large suvs getting 30 plus mpg.. The big 3 are working on doing just that right now.. But now is too late.

I would like to see a Ford Focus get 50 city and 70 hwy.. The Honda Civic with its 1.5 litre got 48 city and and 60 - 65 hwy all thru the 80's and early 90's.. Our present Ford Focus gets 24 city and 35 hwy.. Thats just horrible! That same Focus could be getting 50-60 had the big 3 been trying to make effient cars from the 70's and 80's.

But now they are stuck again cause the hybrids only get 40-50 max.. They sure cant build cars that get more fuel mileage than there same hybrid of that same model.. Wont sell any higher profit hybrids... lol

And yes, the vehicles are jammed down our throats.. 
Here is my story.. I owned a 2003 Chevy Venture LT before our 1/2 ton dodge. It got 16 in town and 20-21 hwy. Both my wife and I were upset with the rotten mileage of this vehicle. And to boot, the engine only made 180 hp.. So for that rotten mileage there was no tradeoff of a hot rod vehicle..

We went and looked at the hemi ram and test drove it.. we loved the hot rod feeling it had, and the window sticker said like 14 city and 19 hwy..

We both felt that just a couple less mpg than our minivan we could have all that hp of the ram.. Come to find out the hemi ram gets close to 20 on the hwy most of the time.. almost the same as the minivan with 1/2 the horsepower of the hemi.

Ok moral of the story.. If you are a car factory and want to sell big vehicles that give you higher profits, you simply force people into buying them by doing just what I exampled above.

Comparing a Chevy Impala with a Tahoe.. The Tahoe only got about 3-4 less mpg than the low profit impala.. What would most any person rather drive? The Tahoe!

Now if the Impala got 40 mpg hwy and the Tahoe got 19 hwy.. There is a much better reason to drive the Impala.. But since our Impala got 23-24 hwy and the Tahoe got 19 hwy, I would want to own the Tahoe every time!

So yepper, you got it exactly right on Mike! They jammed big vehicles right down our throats, and made it not logical to own a family car that only got about 10% better fuel mileage..

Yes its all about choices... When we are stuck with a family car getting 10% better fuel mileage than a comfy suv, we all wanted the suv... Who wouldnt?

Nope now the big 3 try and blame us. Its our fault that all we wanted was a big suv... No big 3 your wrong as usual!!! You forced us into the comfy high profit suv cause your car line only got just a few more mpg than the suv...

Now they are gonna be forced to build family cars that get great mileage, but have a low profit margin for them.. They cant figure out how they will survive doing that... I say, had they focused on this 20 years ago, they could own the auto world and be like the rich shieks in saudi.. The big 3 could have easilly wiped out the foreign car makers back then(70's) and then become the auto maker for the entire world.. They could have had vehicles for everyone.. Yes they wouldnt have sold as many Tahoes, but would have more than made up for it by building the cars toyota, nissan, subaru, renault, hyandui and kia build for the rest of the world..

Nope they decided that by keeping there fuel mileage for whole vehicle line close to each other that any logical person would much rather have a big suv(me included) because the fuel mileage tradeoff wasnt there compared to the family car.

Carey


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

Interesting.....


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Sayonara said:


> Interesting.....


Well dude, I am no different than the masses.. When I go buy a car/truck for my family, I buy the biggest vehicle that makes since, but will always pick fuel mileage over size to the point that my family will still be comfortable.

We love going on weekend drives of around 3-500 miles, same as any american family. I am middle class just like the masses.. If I can have a comfortable chevy impala that gets say 35-40 hwy, I would own it over a large and more comfortable suv that gets 18-20 hwy. Yes for us, just that little bit of fuel mileage difference pays the cost of the difference of the motel 6, or much more enjoyed Best Western with the spa and pool... Makes for just an ok weekend with the Tahoe into a great weekend with the Impala..

When the masses buy cars they look at fuel mileage first and then buy a vehicle that fits them best. When a chevy impala gets 24 hwy and costs 27-28k for a LT loaded model, and the Tahoe gets 19 hwy and costs 30k for the mid level model, most any normal person would buy the big comfy tahoe eveytime..

The big 3 made 10-15k on the Tahoe and they made 3-5k on the impala.. They knew good and well that building a 35 mpg impala would hurt tahoe sales, which would hurt there profit margin..

So what could they do to make us buy Tahoes over Impalas? Make the impala have similiar mpg as the Tahoe.. Simple as that... they played us, and they are now losing more than if they would have built high mileage family cars from the begining.

But now its too late as they have let the market share go to the others.... Now even if they build the perfect cars for the masses with excellent mileage, they cant sell enough to pay the mortgage... Why? They have no market share anymore.... They need to sell 2 family cars to make what they did for 1 suv... The masses now know if they want a higher mileage family car they buy a foriegn brand.. We all have been well trained that the big 3 builds big gas guzzling large vehicles, and the foriegn makers build logical cars with better mileage...

So now what are the masses doing? Buying the foriegn cars cause they want a logical car with fuel mileage..

The big 3 are looking like a bunch of Larry, Curly, and Moe's... Its too bad...

This american is embarresed for our blunders to the rest of the world. Im sad for the loss of employment, because just one auto worker gives 3 other people jobs building the parts for the auto worker.. Im also sad cause losing the big 3 will be almost unrecoverable for the american economy. Im sad that the big 3 chose profits for themselves over what the masses needed. Im sad that they let 25 years of needed technology in fuel mileage go for the profits of there company.. Im sad that they spent the last 25 years pushing eachother every year for more horsepower, eventually sucking the foriegn brands into there beliefs..

At this point if us americans dont provide some relief to the big 3 from our pockets, they will succcomb to what Toyota wanted the whole way thru..

Words of a Toyota Exec. in 1985:
His desire was not to have GM flashover and go bankrupt, but to slowly but surely slip into obscurity.

Its now happening exactly as that anonymous Toyota executive wished.

SAD!

Carey


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

When I bought my Tahoe I didn't even look at the gas millage and still don't care what it gets, I just like it. Put down GM as much as you want but they just beat Toyota in over all MPG Click here

I also read that Toyota is getting hit hard too and wants the US to bail them out, and that is something I totally disagree with.

Again no one is getting big SUV's shoved down their throats!


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Im not talking about right now.. Im talking about the past. If the blunders of the past would have been overcome there would be no toyota. At least not the toyota of today.

Gm has went from a 39% market share in 1980 to a 20% market share today. Thats very sad.. It continues to drop and at this point, they just cant stop from losing more..

The foriegn makers have also fallen into the horsepower wars of the big 3.. And yep there fuel mileage isnt what it was of the 80's and early 90's.. We arent able to buy cars that get excellent mileage right now.. Why? Horsepower wars and hybrid cars.. The push is hybrid cars for economy.. They cant build cars that get better than a hybrid's mpg.. The weight of a Hybrid is still needing to be overcome for true economy in hybrid. There is a hard push for hybrids, so fuel economy will never go over the hybrid. They could easilly better the hybrid mpg, but many groups are pushing the hybrid/electric technology. So untill battery technolgy comes were are stuck with sub 40 mpg in our non hybrid compacts.. That equals a max of 30 mpg for a family car such as an impala or camry. fuel mileage has to stay relative accross the board.. You cant have 40 mpg impalas with 40-50 mpg hybrids.. So we are stuck with our present mileage till hybrid tech gets better..

Yep the banking situation is hurting them all.. Sales are bad for all of them... GM has been having really poor sales since about 2005 though... The foreign makers are prepared better to weather the storm though. They have built cars that were logical and made profits with them.. We didnt do that..

Bill you bought your Tahoe for its utility. Untill the 90's people bought sport utility vehicles for there actual use.. You are a perfect example of why they started building utility vehicles starting in 1936 for chevy and its suburban.

Because the modern suv was built from a pickup it could be made cheaply for the automakers. Since the r&d and tooling was paid for by the pickup it was cheap to build suv's in mass.. That equaled extreme profit.

I once read an article back in the 90's... GM was having trouble keeping up with the demand for the Tahoe/Burb. They were having trouble building enough automatic transmissions. Since the Tahoe shared the same tranny with the Camaro/Caprice, and the profit was 10k on the Tahoe and 700 on the Camaro/Caprice, GM was slowing production of there Camaro and Caprice to keep up with suv demand.

In these years of huge suv sales they admitidly kept car mileage low to help push sales of the suv.. If they would have built and pushed for economy in those years, the big 3 would be in better shape today, but would have never sold as many suv's..

I guess we shouldnt be mad. We teach our ceo's to be this way in college.. The american way is all about profit, and how to manipulate markets for profits.. Car makers are no different.. Why boost economy of family cars when they are unprofitable because of there complex chassis and drivetrains of front wheel drive cars? If you have a vehcicle that can be built cheap and make extreme profit, why push economy in other vehicles?

In those years from about 1990 to 2004-5 it really made little since to not own a SUV for the family because none of the family cars got much better mileage..

My dad bought many an suv thru the 70's and 80's because he used them for what they were built for.. I remember him owing a 78 bronco, 83 bronco, 76 blazer, 84 full size Wagoneer. Several S10 blazers, and a 86 Jeep cherokee too.. He used them to tow small trailers, and to get up in the high country to hunt elk with. Sport utes have been a mainstream for decades. But since the ute got caught up in the craze we just may lose it for all of us..

Many of GM suv sales thru the years of 1990 and 2004 were sold to families to commute back and forth to work with, go buy groceries, and haul the kids around for football practice... Nothing wrong with that, but now the suv has lost its true meaning... It got lost because of the push from the auto makers for profits..

With the creature comforts they installed the high profit suv became irrestible for the masses because nothing beat it in economy unless you were to really compromise to a compact type of car.

Nope not anymore are they getting shoved down throats.... But for many years they did! Its well proven...

Carey

ps not putting down GM either.. im very sad that my american brothers are going thru these extremely tough times brought about by our CEO's and Boards of Directors who decided to toss out long term sustainability over quick profits.. Im sad that they gave the foriegn makers all the market share on a platter... Im sad that those patient foriegn makers are about to overtake us.. We started the love affair with the automobile. There is no reason whatsoever that we should be having these 2+ billion dollar a month loses for GM. This hasnt come overnight.. This has been coming for 20 years, sadly to say..

Now we must spend billions to help our brothers out.. Without our automakers america will cease to exist like what we all are used to...


----------



## N7OQ (Jun 10, 2006)

Well I always thought we should have been been going in the direction of new forms of energy back when we had our first gas shortages back in the 70's but here we are 30 years later and haven't done a thing. The reason the Japanese did so well was because we taught them how, with a system called total process control, a system developed by Americans but not adapted by our own industry. US industry always tried to use Quality Control to control it's quality but the Japanese were taught to control it's process to improve it's quality. With process control they were able to make a much better product and it was not until years later that US industry started to use this process.

I took a class on this process when I worked for a Cable company and they proved that most of the quility issues were human generated. They did 2 tests first they told the operators to make 5000 feet of a certain cable and then had them start another batch of 5000 feet but this time they told them to stare the line then don't touch anything until it was done. Well the 1st batch had many spots that went under or over specs and had the cut out but the 2nd batch came out all in specs. The operators were trying to make adjustments that were actually throwing the product out of specs. Even though we showed that by not making adjustments was better you could not convince them to keep their hands off the controls.

I still believe that consumers are a lot to be blamed for wanting and buying all those big SUV's but the auto makers got cough with their pants down when the housing loan scams came to a head. But I for one do not want our US auto makers to go away, I always buy US made cars and trucks and always will. I came close to buying a Toyota SUV but the local dealer was so rude, would not even let us test drive one, said they know their SUV's were the best out there and didn't need to give test drives to sell them. The salesmen acted like I was wasting his time, so I said good ridens and went out and bought a Tahoe for several thousand less and i still love it.

Oh well I guess we've kicked this horse enough, I'm going to bed. Got to go to Camping world tomorrow in my big US made truck


----------



## ALASKA PFLOCK (Jun 24, 2007)

_*NOOO...SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!!*_


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

Colorado~DirtBikers said:


> I guess we shouldnt be mad. We teach our ceo's to be this way in college..


Yep! Simple economics. Supply and demand.

Hey Carey. Im not argueing, I appreciate your opinions and insight and enjoy reading them.


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

Not argueing either Sayonara. All in good fun to me..

Again the reason for the demand, it wasnt logical to drive a family car that only got just a bit better mileage. The Tahoe type suv's are incomparable winners to cars when cars are getting similiar fuel mileage.. GM created huge demand by limiting other choices such as economical family cars. All manufacturers of products can easilly boost sales of one product by limiting choices of other products..

This is also taught to our ceo's in college. Manipulate your high profit products by limiting choices of more logical products. That way profits are maximized for stock holders.

The only place our big 3 have gone really wrong is forming sustainability in there companies. Your form sustainability by diversifying your products from large guzzling suv's to extreme economy vehicles. That includes 40+ mpg family cars. Create a full circle of cars for everyone.. You form a company that can weather all economies. We all know that the big 3 have totally dropped the ball on making cars that can get 75 mpg hwy. They admit that. If they would have sat down in 1995 when the money was flowing and decided to build economical vehicles for the masses, none of them would be in the shape they are in today.

When the demand quickly changed because of high fuel prices back in 2004, the big 3 had little to offer, and had nothing in there hip pockets to bring to market quickly.. Its been a dead fall for them since.

Then with the credit crises of 2008, they are done without the help of yours and my tax dollers to rescue them..

You know, many foriegn car makers built 50-70 mpg cars 20 years ago..

Both Honda and Toyota could build high economy cars by simply using the small engines they use in the hybrid cars of the prius and civic. delete all the extra weight of the electric side of the vehicle and we could again have 40+ city and 70 hwy with the prius and civic.. Cant do that though, we are being manipulated by the mfr's to make us think that if we want extreme economy we have to buy a hybrid car.. Again pushing the hybrids on us, by withholding higher economy cars, and making the same model in non hybrid get 25% worse mpg... Simple game of forced demand! Or like Mike says. shoved down our throats.. Hybrids are being shoved down our throats, just like the big suv was..

I have no clue why people have a hard time seeing what our car makers are doing to us.. The demand is always there year after year. They are not in this for our benifit, they are in it for theres and only theres. They all know how to build economical family cars that get 40 hwy, but wont because it throws off the whole balance of there product line..

Carey


----------



## Collinsfam_WY (Nov 9, 2006)

> Nope, this thread wasnt started to complain, or be upset... Im not sure why you keep feeling that we are complaining here.. Dude were sad and feel bad for the layoffs of the workers of the big 3.. Its not the workers fault.. Its the total lack of reality of the management with the big 3 that has gotten them into this predicament. This thread was started to say Im sad and felt bad that GM hadnt looked into more efficient cars and trucks much sooner than now. Im sad for the big 3 that it has taken them being forced with bankruptcy to finally make vehicles with better fuel mileage.. Im sad that gm is being forced with dropping the big suv because they are broke.


Another reason to be sad is for the loss of the CXX itself. GM was trying to re-invent the 'Burb and its' cousins. Now the losses have forced them to eliminate that program which would have yielded a lighter, more fuel efficient yet similarly capable vehicle. Good stuff Carey. I last read in one of those articles that GM was going ahead with its light duty Duramax in the 1/2 tonners (possibly 3/4 burb?). You heard any updates on that? I talked to a buddy of mine that is a Honda mechanic. He said that mfg's are cancelling their turbodiesel projects all over the place including the one Honda had.

-CC


----------



## Carey (Mar 6, 2012)

collinsfam_tx said:


> > Nope, this thread wasnt started to complain, or be upset... Im not sure why you keep feeling that we are complaining here.. Dude were sad and feel bad for the layoffs of the workers of the big 3.. Its not the workers fault.. Its the total lack of reality of the management with the big 3 that has gotten them into this predicament. This thread was started to say Im sad and felt bad that GM hadnt looked into more efficient cars and trucks much sooner than now. Im sad for the big 3 that it has taken them being forced with bankruptcy to finally make vehicles with better fuel mileage.. Im sad that gm is being forced with dropping the big suv because they are broke.
> 
> 
> Another reason to be sad is for the loss of the CXX itself. GM was trying to re-invent the 'Burb and its' cousins. Now the losses have forced them to eliminate that program which would have yielded a lighter, more fuel efficient yet similarly capable vehicle. Good stuff Carey. I last read in one of those articles that GM was going ahead with its light duty Duramax in the 1/2 tonners (possibly 3/4 burb?). You heard any updates on that? I talked to a buddy of mine that is a Honda mechanic. He said that mfg's are cancelling their turbodiesel projects all over the place including the one Honda had.
> ...


Yea too bad on the diesels.. For some reason they dont want to bring in diesels here in the US for the masses.. All the other countries do it, but not here..

I have no insight, but have wondered for many years why they arent building high mpg cars for commuters.. We have all wished for years...

My sis lives in Florida and drives 70 miles one way to work, all expressway speeds.. She has no use with a hybrid.

She and many millions of people are wishing for a 15-20000 dollar car that gets 60+ mpg.

Just simply use the small 1.3 or 1.4 litre engine that is presently used in hybrid cars like prius or the civic.. delete the weight of the hybrid part, then engineer for top fuel economy.. But nope they wont do it... Defeats the hybrid..

Hybrids are great for people in metro areas, but just as many live in the country or suburbs and drive all highway speeds..

From what I understand is there will be no 4.5 diesel till after 2010.. From what I read GM was dropping the finishing development on the 4.5 diesel.

The Suburban will still be with us in limited numbers, but the other CCX models will go..

Its funny, the Arlington TX plant is working overtime till the end of the year right now to keep up with the Suburban demand right now... Since fuel prices and the news that GM might be dropping the Burb, now they are selling more than they thought they would.. Hope those lucky workers save there extra money..

With the horrible car sales, all of them seem to be in an all out cash saving mode.. Just when we need new models, they do this... Its too bad..

I think we are stuck with electric or hybrid.. No small engine max mpg cars.. I dont feel either is really up to perfect par just yet... This only lowers fuel economy accross there car lines as they have to keep the hybrid vehicles at the top of the heap.. Everything will get less mpg than the hybrid.. Sad..

Carey

ps I dont feel the answer is the micro compact cars either.. Cars like prius or civc are about as small as people still feel comfortable in.. So with that.. Engineer the heck out of those sized cars for max mpg.. They had a 22-2400lb 60 mpg civic before.. They can do it again..

Knowone wants a Honda Fit, Smart Car, etc... There is no reason we cant build 2400 lb compacts that get 60+ mpg...


----------

