You are right, and when you're right, you're right.

Yes, last night it dropped from 86.4 ¢ a liter to 82.9 ¢ a liter.

Can't argue with that.

 

I'm a pickup truck owner and user (there's about 2000 lbs of scrap iron in the bed right now). That makes me well-informed, and we haven't even gotten into comparing resumes yet.

And you know this how? When it comes to emissions, there's two groups - those that say it can't be done due to such-and-such a regulation, and those that go out and find ways around the problem. I respectfully suggest that too many OEMs find themselves, once again, in that first category.

Diesels don't cost an additional $5000 - there's a huge amount of market premium baked into that price.

As far as the drivetrain goes, the new 6-speeds should have much higher torque capacities, and if needed, the 9.5" 14-bolt axle fits just fine (it's now used in the Silverado SS).

Torque, power, same thing - it comes down to powerband.

The LS2 has relatively low peak torque, but very good average torque. TPI-like powerbands have their place, but not anywhere that the LS2 is used.

To address Z28x's comments, note that I didn't say that more power was really needed. If you can't get the job done with the 5.3 in a half-ton, then you're trying to do the wrong job with the wrong tool. And yes, closer transmission ratios would help a lot. That big drop between 1st and 2nd in the 4L60E is a killer for a relatively peaky engine like the 5.3.

I'm assuming that you could design and tool-up for a brand-new transmission more quickly, then? My guess is that you'd get lost rebuilding a three-speed auto.

That is product that nobody designs quickly. If you'd ever so much as dropped the pan on one, you'd understand why.

I do agree that they should have started the project long before they did, however. Someone apparently thought that since 3-speeds lasted 25 years in the market, 4-speeds would live just as long. That type of thinking shows a lack of market leadership.

Nope, but both offer far more ground clearance as compensation for their increased step-in and lift-over height. My main point of reference is my '96 K2500, though. It offers 1.5" more ground clearance under the transfer case than my friend's '03 K2500, but yet has a 2" lower bed height.

... which, with a body-on-frame pickup truck, wouldn't require a ground-up redesign to address.

Which might be why I stated that an option for one would be nice.

Also note that Ford also has 'em, stock, on the Superduty. Combine SD and Ram HD sales and I think it's something more than a "tiny niche" (that phrase more accurately describes your understanding of the truck market).

I personally like IFS, but I don't plow snow (at least not with my truck - I've got other equipment for that task). For those that do hang a snowplow off the front of their truck every winter (which is a lot of people), a solid front axle is very desirable. I think GM would be able to gather additional sales in the commercial market by offering a solid front (it's available on the 3500HD model, but only as a 2WD).

And the GMT400 is still a fine truck platform. I know it's heresy to suggest here that a 17-year-old design is still good for use as something other than a flower planter, but we're talking about pickup trucks, not luxury sedans.

Which is maybe why I offered the disclaimer - unlike you, who apparently believes that everything that comes out of his mouth is golden and is an expert on every facet of automotive design, production, and marketing, despite not working in the industry.

I said van, not minivan - there's a difference. A GM G-van has a hell of a lot more utility than any SUV. If you disagree, let me know if you can roll a sportbike up into the back of your Armada.

 

And keep on building Cavaliers right? Yep, that would've done alot for GM's small car image

Lets see, the Cobalt is selling extremely well to people that want a good, dependable small car and the supercharged SS is getting praise from all the performance auto mags (even the import biased ones!). So GM is getting sales and good publicity. Man that JUST SUCKS. WHY WOULD GM EVER BUILD THIS THING!?!

 

They really needed the full-assed makeover.

 

really..i think the uplander and aveo (which will be changed) are the only real embarrassments in the styling dept in the chevy stable
as for the pontiac, buick variants....not even necessary

 

Actually, I sort of like the new Chevy-look snout on the Uplander.

 

Quite frankly, your posts are, for the most part, opinions with little, if any fact/s to back them up.

You admit that you aren't in the industry, yet it appears to me (and others) that you think you have have most, if not all, of the answers to the industry's problems...specifically GM's problems.

Day by day, I see this board becoming more and more psychotic due to the endless spouting of "facts" that are, indeed, only opinions based nothing in fact.

Some have called you a troll. I'd like to think you aren't and that you are intelligent enough to listen to others' opinions based in fact and perhaps learn something.

I guess I'm asking you to think through things and check your facts before coming out with outlandish thoughts and ideas.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.......the Camaro (and Firebird) brought hundreds of thousands together........and it bothers me that some would like nothing better than to divide. (not accusing you of that, but the net result is that, intentionally or otherwise, that's exactly what you're doing.)

 

No kidding!

To be realistic, a modern turbodiesel shouldn't demand much more than a $1,500 premium in MSRP.




Been there, done that. These days, there's no way I'd touch a traditional full-sized van with a 10 foot pole.

The Mercedes-based Dodge Sprinter is interesting for it's diesel economy and huge load capacity, but it's far too expensive and far too tall for my garage.

 

I don't claim to have all of "the answers to the industry's problems...specifically GM's problems." Quite frankly, I'm not even sure there are answers in some instances.

Am I to suppose that your "1959 Rambler" remark falls under the category of "fact?"


I've seen more than a few transformations in the style and content of your posts. I know what the current agenda is. I'll just accept your remarks at face value, even though I'm well aware of the context.

 

I think you missed his point

 

Given sufficient production capacity, I agree with you (although above you did throw out a $4-5K figure and haven't quite explained yourself there). I was hoping that GM's relationship with Isuzu would result in something more than a single engine, but in all fairness that is one engine more than the Fiat deal yielded.

The Sprinter is indeed cool, but if you look at the commercial van market, GM still owns it with its excellent G-van platform. They're tremendous values, all because a bunch of poseurs can't stand the thought of driving something... practical.

 

Really?

OK...I give up.



RedZed.......love ya, mean it......but WHERE do you come up with these things? Did you perchance take a poll? Perhaps you need to get out and get around this great country of ours....it is not meaningless to a lot of people.

Jeez.....I try to get along with all my fellow enthusiasts....but you would try the patience of a Saint.

 

Please...by all means......elaborate on this if you will.

I will say this: I tried to remain as professional as possible...but at midnite, after reading through several different sites...and then logging onto this one...and seeing the outlandish behavior here, I do lose my patience. Shame on me! (you'd be surprised ...well, mebbe not....to see some of the things I've typed.......then read......and hit the delete key.....) (and then replaced the very damaged keyboard......)

But I invite you to elaborate (especially the 'agenda part!) Seriously.

 

Scott,

Don't waste another keystroke on this troll.....seriously, his "agenda" is to stir up c r a p to bring attention to him/her/itself....heck most threads in the last few days have been aimed at putting this troll in his place.

He/she/it is an obvious attention w **** and not worth another post.

In nearly every instance, I have chosen to ignore the pathetic attempts at simply being a bore....I've given in when it gets too stupid, but then that's the game here.........damn everything GM does just to be a troll.

Fug it......let's just all put him/her/it on our ignore list and get back to an adult, constructive debate.....

 

Doug, what's up with your "Location: NAIAS 2006 "???

SPILL!!!