I want no parts of any lambda "truck", Avalanche or otherwise.

 

I love the Avalanche...three things however hobble it..

-The current styling is not distinctive enough...everytime I see one come down the road from the front I think it's a Tahoe..untill I see it is missing the back. The last gen..with or without cladding..you always knew it was an Avalanche.

The last generation you could get it in a 3/4 ton with a Big block or even Diesel. You can't in this generation which. A Box trailor with a 2 ton car in it is just above what i would be comfortable towing with the current Avalanche. It was a really neat vehicle in 3/4 ton trim.

The last issue is the Avalanche seems to cost more than the Silverado Crew cab when similaryly configured..most likely because the Avalanche has GM's expensive truck interior no matter what trim.

 

I love my Avalanche. In fact this 2007 is my second one. I'd have to see a unibody version to judge if it were worthy of the Avalanche name.

 

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...256E44000B843F

 

I'd like to see that in person, but based on that photo - I'd say NO to the name Avalanche.

Jeff

 

The last time that was tried it didn't work out so well ...

 

True but this was larger on the interior and bed and had an available V8. Plus it didn't look like a toy.

 

Not crazy about the front-end, but that's easily changed (and I would expect it to). The side view looks good, and very Avy-like. I think it has promise. IMO, the true nature of Avalanche is the transformability. If that's still present, I think the name can live one.

BTW, my daughter is 17 and loves my Avalanche. We were talking about it going away as a brand yesterday, and she said that I'm going to have to hang on to mine now that it could be "endangered".

 

Whoa, we have mis information here. That picture is the Holden G8 relative. That's NOT a lamda product. There was a denali concept last year if someone can post a pic. The last rumor I read of the lamda truck was that it would be built in springhill since it already has chevy lamda tooling and the traverse would move in with it's stable mates when outlook was discontinued. Don't confuse the two since Holden chose the Avalanche nameplate. The lambda is much bigger and fwd based.

I can't see the CC twins being built and a lambda truck, that's old GM. If they do make both I see that as a sign GM hasn't changed it's ways. Btw the correct mpgs are traverse awd gets 23 mpg and the CC crewcab 4wd gets 21. I am past the frame vs unibody discussion, jeep has been doing both and their unibody products tow 7000lbs and GM's limiting factor has been it engine choice. Plus take a suv with a frame vs a unibody one and with same tire size and 9 times out 10 the unibody will have a higher GC thanks to IRS.

I am a big fan of putting the 3.6 in the CC. I drive a 3.6 and a 4200. The 3.6 is just alot more tuned the 4.2. Its very doggy thanks to the knucklehead that decided to hold back the throttle input below 3000 rpm and the lack of a varible intake. It also seems like the 3.6 uses much more vvt and it makes it feel much more torquey. And then there's a nvh difference. There's only 18000 miles between my motors and the 3.6 sounds so much better, especially at startup.

 

Actually that is a VZ based Ute, last gen Commodore. Someone asked for what a unibody Avalanche like product would look like, so I gave them a pic of one.

 

Well it looks nothing like a lambda, cause it isn't, regardless of the name plate and this thread is primarly about a lambda sut, so your pics are misleading except to those who know better. To put it another way you are saying GM's lambda sut will look like this and you're wrong. Here's a link to the Denali concept.


http://autoobserver.typepad.com/phot...acing_ri_2.jpg

realize that this concept is over 1000lbs heavier and massive compared to the VE family. Disregard the chopped roof, low stance and show car wheels, I can see it being alot more trucky in production. It's got a tranverse mounted DI 4.8L with 325 hp irc.

 

I am not misleading anyone except for you, and that is only because you are having difficutly with reading comprehension. I am not saying that a lambda SUT will look like the VZ Holden I showed the pic of. Someone asked what a unibody SUT may look like, and since GM has only made 1 before I posted a picture of it.

Since that concept was made by Holden it is very likely a VE chassis and not a Lambda unitbody that was modified, since Holden would have no access to a Lambda but immediate access to VE . Also that has a longitudinal mounted V8, and likely not a 4.8 or a hybrid system. It is a concept and often companies lie about the guts of a concept to see the reaction of the general public.

So you would be just as wrong as I am. The difference is that I was answering one question directly (What would a unibody SUT by GM look like) and you are trying to answer a different question (What would a Lambda SUT look like). Also you merely showed a more modern concept of the production vehicle that I showed you.

 

So my reading comprehension missed the part in this post where you explained that this 6 year old concept pic that was based on a V-8 RWD 3800lb sport sedan is what the next Avalanche is going to look like?

I do see your point, you just didnt explain it, theres a big difference between showing a pic a 3800lb RWD sports car unibody and a 5000lb FWD crossover unibody thats 6 years newer.

Boy your lucky you dont live around here cause I'd come over there and... oh wait, never mind.

 

I'd consider a lambda based SUT regardless of what its called.

 

Flip, I know you are having trouble with this so let me just spell it out as plain as I can. After that I am done with this, it is obviously to hard for you to understand that someone may have thought differently than you but here we go.

First this was posted:
See the bold part about a unibody SUT? Do you freaking comprehend it? So I posted the following:
This is a picture of a unibody SUT made by GM. Does it make sense to you yet?

Seriously, get over it bud. You want to mis understand what I said to contradict your own view.

I am out of this.