I pretty much flushed the Uplander/Relay/Terraza/Montana vans as soon as I got the first photos and details. They're small, weak engined, expensive and pretty primitive compared to the Toyota and Honda vans.

 

1. Yup, we can expect an updated interior, a exterior freshening (more extensive than the 2003 Silverado's), and yes - at long last - we should finally get a 6-speed automatic.

2. If you expect a 6.2 liter V8 to replace the current 5.3 liter V8 in half-ton applications, you've got another thought coming. Expect to pay Silverado SS money ($40K+) for the high powered GMT-900s.

3. Assuming we get the updates mentioned, the Tahoe and Suburban will still be compromised by dismally poor packaging. In addition, the lack of a complete redesign could compromise any improvement on the "soft" handling of the current models.

1. The GMT-800 has very competitive ride comfort, assuming you enjoy softly suspended big American handling of yesteryear. I don't a major shift in design philosophy, especially when there isn't going to be a major shift in the actual design.

2. Assuming that rumors of a "6L80E" 6-speed automatic transmission come true, every RWD GM product from the Corvette to the Suburban 2500 would have a modern, high torque capacity automatic transmission. If that comes to pass, we can expect hugely increased towing capacities for vehicles like the Tahoe and Silverado 1500, possibly even ratings in a range just under 10,000lbs.

Just remember that the so-called "6L80E" 6-speed is already very late. Remember, the 6-speed automative was supposed to be in the 2005 Corvette C6 - not the 4L65E.

3. GM could still produce a limited torque capacity version of the 6-speed automatic (a "6L60E/6L65E?") for half ton application. This sort of move shave a bit off the production costs and weight of the 6-speed for lighter applications. Maintaining sustantial lower tow rating for 1500 models would also help preserve sales for higher-profit margin 2500 models.

Remember, Nissan can afford to offer their Titan/Armada models with generous tow rating approaching 3/4 ton capacities because they don't have to worry about cutting into their own 3/4 sales. At least, not yet.

 

If you haven't stayed current with "spy shots" of a next-generation Tahoe mule, you can be forgiven. They've been on the thecarconnection.com for a while. There are other photo(s) of the exterior of what appears to be a very complete 2007 Tahoe, possibly taken at a consumer clinic, possibly "leaked" for all I know. You'll have to find those shots for yourself because of the current policy on this board.

No linky to leaky.

 

I don't find their styling handsome, and personally minivan is the last thing I'd be in the market for, whether it's GM or Honda or Toyota. However, Uplander's interiors are much better than Venture, I am puzzled over a higher MSRP of Ventures as well.

 

1. I'm driving a big SUV because the best minivans didn't represent enough of saving in purchase price or MPG to justify the weaker performance and dorky image.

2. All GM products seem to have a built in price disadvantage. The inflated MSRP allows them to slap on seemingly impressive rebates without any real financial pain.

3. I'm sure that the Uplander is better than the Chevy "Denture," but that doesn't say much. The whole point is that Toyota and Honda are turning out better built, more spacious and quicker vehicles that are competive on price.

4. It's okay for GM to play possum in the minivan segment, a market segment that's in decline and isn't that profitable anyway. GM never was the frontrunner in minivan sales, having screwed up every attempt from the Astro onward. In the big sceme of things, minivans might not matter all that much.

The problem is that GM looks set to deal the same losing hand in the full-sized truck and SUV market. This is the only segment that matters. Near-luxury cars turn $3,000/unit profits, midsized cars can break even and entry level cars like the Cavalier can lose $2,000/unit. The big trucks and SUVs are the ones with $10-20K+ profit margins.

The GMT-900 are the most important of GM's upcoming vehicles.

 

Well I'll agree that past GM minivans do suck(but they were the first ones with the power door option). I haven't sat in, driven, or even read a review on a new GM minivan, so I'm going to reserve judgment on them. However, maybe its a sign that they aren't all that great when auto rags don't even write about them, but they seem to write plenty of articles about Toyota, Chrysler and Honda vans.

I will agree with you that full size truck and SUVs are the highest profit vehicles, but where on earth are you getting your numbers from? Thin air?
Also I serioulsy doubt that GM loses any money on a high volume car, especially the Cavalier. Its impossible to lose money on a car when it gets a freshening of a 1980's design every 7 years.