Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles
View Poll Results: Would you be ok with a Lambda SUT being called Avalache after the GMT900 one ends.
Yes
13
68.42%
No
6
31.58%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Should a Lambda SUT be called Avalanche

Old Aug 11, 2009 | 04:29 PM
  #1  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Should a Lambda SUT be called Avalanche

• Mid-sized pickup: A mid-sized, all-wheel-drive pickup developed on the fwd Lambda platform might replace the Avalanche. The vehicle would target Honda Ridgeline shoppers who need towing capacity but do not need a big body-on-frame truck. Timing has not been determined.

• Avalanche: The Avalanche will be killed by the 2013 model year because of poor sales, those familiar with GM's plans say. Through June, GM sold just 7,130 Avalanches, down 61.0 percent from 2008.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...3/#post1817832

Sounds like the Suburban based Avalanche is dead after this generation. But if a similar type vehicle is coming out on Lambda then why not keep the Avalanche name. I think it is one of the best new names from GM in the last 10 years. I'd have no problem with it but after the backlash that the SRX has gotten online for slightly downsizing I'm sure a lot of people will complain. No one has a problem when cars like the Malibu, Altima, Civic, Accord, Explorer, any small pickup go up in size, but when they go down a little it is all

Last edited by Z28x; Aug 11, 2009 at 04:33 PM.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 04:37 PM
  #2  
FUTURE_OF_GM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
I would vote to stick with Avalanche.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 04:40 PM
  #3  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
I have no problem with it. But would rather see the Holden Ute crew cab as a GMNA Chevy SUT.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 06:09 PM
  #4  
Ken S's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Too bad.. I remember reading at one point the Avalanche had really great sales numbers.

To me, the defining features of an Avalanche are:
* droppable midgate
* hardtop removable panels
* and to a lesser degree - a full sized suv/truck with 7000+ lbs of towing.

Now, if this new smaller lambda has the midgate and panel feature, than maybe the Av name would work.

But this brings an interesting point about towing capacity. The current Ridgeline is rated at 5000 lbs. The past and current Av's are about 7000-8000, depending on options.

So are they going to have a FWD/AWD Lambda that tows, what, 7000 lbs? The current midsized BOF Colorado and Tacoma aren't even rated that high. (about 5500-6500)


BTW, the highest towing rating on a Holden Ute Crew Cab is only about 2500 kg, or about 5500 lbs, thats the V8 crewcab "one tonner" version. It goes down to 2100 and 1600 kg's for the other models.

http://www.media.gm.com/aus/holden/e...05_LCVSPEC.pdf
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 06:20 PM
  #5  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Ken S
Too bad.. I remember reading at one point the Avalanche had really great sales numbers.
They sold almost 100,000 one year. Crew Cab Silverado 1500's have hurt their sales.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 08:53 PM
  #6  
cmutt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 121
maybe off-base on this

.. but why a SUT and not just as a replacement for the Colorado/Canyon?

One of the things that limit the Coloraro/Canyon twins is that they are *too* unique. What else shares their platform & powertrain? All those engineering/development/build-out costs for two, small-volume trucks? A lambda-based truck would give you a car-based ride. Spec-wise they are remarkably similar. An AWD Chevy Traverse gets 16/24 mpg, puts out 288hp/270ft-lbs, handles a payload of 1500+ lbs, and tows 5200 lbs. A olorado gets 18/24, puts out 242hp, 242ft-lbs, handles a payload of 1400 lbs, and tows 5300.

The bonus is that it would use a conventional 3.6l (instead of the one-off 4cyl/5cyl specifically built for only this truck) and could be built alongside a Lambda-SUV and probably share quite a few interior and exterior components as well. It would bring the cost way down on the truck. Think of gaining HP, not losing towing/payload capability, lowering the price and getting a car-like ride. Just a thought...
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 08:58 PM
  #7  
R377's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
The Avalanche will be killed by the 2013 model year because of poor sales, those familiar with GM's plans say. Through June, GM sold just 7,130 Avalanches, down 61.0 percent from 2008.
That really too bad, and a bit surprising. I always thought the Avalanche was a pretty clever packaging idea, and the latest model is quite good looking (getting the Tahoe front end instead of the ugly Silverado's). When you think back five or six years it was selling close to 100k annually, this is quite the drop.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 09:45 PM
  #8  
flowmotion's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
Yeah, that's nuts - I guess the "lifestyle truck" market is dead.

Ridgeline has sold 8,959 so far - wouldn't be surprised to see it canceled too.
Old Aug 11, 2009 | 09:58 PM
  #9  
Ken S's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Originally Posted by R377
That really too bad, and a bit surprising. I always thought the Avalanche was a pretty clever packaging idea, and the latest model is quite good looking (getting the Tahoe front end instead of the ugly Silverado's). When you think back five or six years it was selling close to 100k annually, this is quite the drop.
I might be in the minority, but I prefer the metal chrome bumpers and the embossed CHEVROLET across the back.
Old Aug 12, 2009 | 08:12 AM
  #10  
Z28x's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by flowmotion
Yeah, that's nuts - I guess the "lifestyle truck" market is dead.

Ridgeline has sold 8,959 so far - wouldn't be surprised to see it canceled too.
Trucks seem to be going back to what they were used for in the early 90's. Owning a truck because you think you look good driving a truck is going out of fashion and will be even more so when the $4 gas is back.
Old Aug 12, 2009 | 08:39 AM
  #11  
91_z28_4me's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,600
From: Pewee Valley, KY
Originally Posted by cmutt
.. but why a SUT and not just as a replacement for the Colorado/Canyon?

One of the things that limit the Coloraro/Canyon twins is that they are *too* unique. What else shares their platform & powertrain? All those engineering/development/build-out costs for two, small-volume trucks? A lambda-based truck would give you a car-based ride. Spec-wise they are remarkably similar. An AWD Chevy Traverse gets 16/24 mpg, puts out 288hp/270ft-lbs, handles a payload of 1500+ lbs, and tows 5200 lbs. A olorado gets 18/24, puts out 242hp, 242ft-lbs, handles a payload of 1400 lbs, and tows 5300.

The bonus is that it would use a conventional 3.6l (instead of the one-off 4cyl/5cyl specifically built for only this truck) and could be built alongside a Lambda-SUV and probably share quite a few interior and exterior components as well. It would bring the cost way down on the truck. Think of gaining HP, not losing towing/payload capability, lowering the price and getting a car-like ride. Just a thought...
The Colorado/Canyon share their platform and many parts with the Thailand built GMT345 trucks, which includes the Holden Rodeo (it uses the 3.6 HF V6). Also I would wager the 3.6 V6 powered Rodeo gets better mileage and power than the Atlas 3.7 I5 does.

The upcoming Colorado/Canyon were supposed to be developed from Brazil (who still sells S-10 based products).
Old Aug 12, 2009 | 09:07 AM
  #12  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
Originally Posted by Ken S
Too bad.. I remember reading at one point the Avalanche had really great sales numbers.

To me, the defining features of an Avalanche are:
* droppable midgate
* hardtop removable panels
* and to a lesser degree - a full sized suv/truck with 7000+ lbs of towing.

Now, if this new smaller lambda has the midgate and panel feature, than maybe the Av name would work.

But this brings an interesting point about towing capacity. The current Ridgeline is rated at 5000 lbs. The past and current Av's are about 7000-8000, depending on options.

So are they going to have a FWD/AWD Lambda that tows, what, 7000 lbs? The current midsized BOF Colorado and Tacoma aren't even rated that high. (about 5500-6500)


BTW, the highest towing rating on a Holden Ute Crew Cab is only about 2500 kg, or about 5500 lbs, thats the V8 crewcab "one tonner" version. It goes down to 2100 and 1600 kg's for the other models.

http://www.media.gm.com/aus/holden/e...05_LCVSPEC.pdf
For 2009, the Acadia, Traverse and Outlook got 5200lbs for towing, with the towing package. Enclave is still rated for 4500lbs. I don't know what they will rate the new one for. It will be interesting.
Old Aug 12, 2009 | 10:51 AM
  #13  
97QuasarBlue3.8's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,018
I think there's a contingent of us out there that don't want unibody, FWD pickups. I don't need my pickup to handle nicely or feel like a car. I personally like the quiet ride of having the cab insulated from the frame, the better ground clearance, and typical 4x4 setup with RWD. If I want a sports car, I'll buy one.

As mentioned, the Colorado isn't as unique as it seems. The Atlas is a global engine, and the I4 and I5's are chopped I6's that are also found in the Trailblazer. I can't imagine there was a ton of development cost in those. The rest of the Colorado is mostly parts-bin stuff...As of this year it also shares the 5.3 with the Silverado.

I think GM would cause the midsize truck market to swoon if they gave the American CC twins the same refresh that the overseas trucks received. Diesel or 3.6, with an upgraded/refined interior, new front fascia.

Where are all the tough trucks going?
Old Aug 12, 2009 | 11:25 AM
  #14  
FUTURE_OF_GM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
What I would do if I were in charge:

Give Chevy the Lambda SUT and then give GMC a version of the Ute (a la Denali XT) That way, the consumer has a choice.

I remember when GMT900 was being developed that Lutz wanted to kill the Avalanche in favor of just adding the 'mid gate' to the crew cab Silverado.

Maybe we'll see that this time around.
Old Aug 13, 2009 | 02:20 AM
  #15  
Ken S's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,368
From: OR
Originally Posted by FUTURE_OF_GM
I remember when GMT900 was being developed that Lutz wanted to kill the Avalanche in favor of just adding the 'mid gate' to the crew cab Silverado.
I think this is "easier said than done".. because I'm almost 99% sure the bed of a Silverado is not connected to the cab.

The Avalanche is one continue body between the cabin and the bed, which allows the midgate design.

Unless they do something really awkward with "two midgates", one for the bed and one for the cab on the Silverado, they might as well keep the Av on the SUV platform.


Its starting to sound like the next gen Colorado replacement might not be BOF based, unless they really want to have both a unibody based midsized "truck-like" vehicle along side with perhaps the overseas's version of the small BOF pickup.

I hope the Colorado goes out with a bang.. hoping for a 6 speed 400 hp V8 3.73'd big braked ZQ8

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.