GM's large SUVs are elderly and mediocre products. GuionM, I know you won't believe me, but anyone who can afford a $40K SUV can afford to fill the tank with $3.00/gallon gasoline. If you still don't believe me, consider the fact that I'm a completely satisfied Chevrolet owner who still bought a gigantic Nissan SUV. Why? Not because I felt burned - far from it.

I'd also like to add, that I figured on 12-13MPG I bought my Armada. In reality, I'm getting 16-18MPG on 87 octane. I've got no reason to complain. I don't like the idea of $3/gallon gasoline better than anyone else, but so what? I knew it was coming - even if I was surprised (like everyone else) that it came so far ahead of the summer.

GM management needs to take full responsibility for the falling sales of their large SUV sales. You can't just blame "gas prices" after you've milked these products for years without reinvesting the sky high profits.

 

I was under the impression that the 4.8 was as well, and there are two versions of the 6.0 (truck 6.0 and LS2 6.0) and two versions of the 5.7 (LS1, LS6) that are based on that block as well, right? Just wondering.

 

demand for the engine.....

....at one point, we were told that the 2000 model years would only have 6 cylinders available.......we told 'em to pull the plug then, because we would not sell these vehicles without a V8 engine.

At the time, it was a gamble to spend 350M on a new plant to cast blocks...but the decision was made...and glad it was.......thus, the reason for some blocks cast in Mexico and some in St. Catharines.

 

I don't think that's the case at all.

There are many reasons...one IS the cost of fuel. (the fifty million dollar question is: where will prices go in the next year or two....???) One is that the GM SUVs are getting to the end of the lifecycle -- thus the reason for pulling the 900 series forward........

 

Imagine a V6 Camaro SS.....

There would have been a riot at the gates..

 

no.......I would have taken hostages first!!!! (j/k.....those of you in GM Security!!!!)

by the way....I mis-spoke..it was the 1999 model year.......

 

*shudders*

On Autoline Detroit, they had a guy from JD Power talking about sales of SUV's and gas prices. They did a report and said that gas prices would have to be over 4 dollars a gallon, and STAY there for a long period of time for SUV sales to really drop.
He said that most Americans are trained that gas prices come down, so most just suck it up and wait it out.
SUV sales arent really falling, just large ones. Smaller SUV's and Crossovers are becoming hot because it offers the best of both worlds. Chevy's Nox, and GM's upcoming Lambda's should pick up the slack, and then the 900's should stay strong with the bigger SUV's.

 

Red,
Glad to see we have drawn you outta the woodwork. I thought we had lost you forever. My faith is lifted just by seeing you on the boards.

Now any comment on the GMT355 rear in the new Camaro?

 

OT: In your dreams. The S10 is not even close on space.

Back on topic: Congrats on the Equinox. I spent about a 1000 miles driving one early this year, and my assessment was pretty much the same as yours. The steering didn't really bother me very much, though (though I think the electric power steering in my '05 Ion and my parents' '04 Malibu Maxx is better). The quiet and the ride are awesome in the Equinox.

Too bad you had problems with your TB, but I guess that can happen from time to time. Good luck with the new vehicle.

 

I like that Blue, it looks cool on the 'nox

I drove a Cobalt with the electric steering and couldn't even tell it had it. It wasn't until after driving the car for 4 days that I remembered that it had that.

I had a renta Yukon XL for 200mi. and avraged 18.6mpg, with an even city highway mix. It actually did best on the 45mph roads. GM V8s have class leading fuel economy

 

Thanks. Now I can understand how the (false) rumor got started that the F-bodies were history after the 1999 model year.

Of course, that particular false rumor got me excited about buying a Camaro.

 

Yep. Some are iron and others aren't.

I was speaking to aluminum blocks, but you get the point... this is GM's core advantage that needs to be exploited - economy of scale, particularly in Powertrain.

Now let's just say, for a moment, that PacerX gets to run GM...

3800 V6? Gone, dead, see ya later, thanks for years and years of sterling service from one of the bestest engines ever dreamed up.

Trailblazer I-6? Gone, dead, see ya later. The LSx family (w/ DOD) takes the entire volume over.

Colorado I-5? Errr... might get a reprive... I'd kill it dead if I had my choice, but I see why it's used.

I would have a limited number of motor families, probably even more limited than the current choices GM has. Basically your choices in normal cars would be low-feature V6 or an LSx variant. High end cars would start with high-feature V6's and move up to Northstar variants.

So, then you have FWD and RWD variants of the above, and the various transmissions... and you limit the transmissions too...

I think GM has this idea brewing, but has not been aggressive enough in executing it.

The gas price monkey wrench is about to be thrown though. GM may have an image problem if they kill all the high-feature V6's they can and replace them with what the press will most surely call "gas-guzzling V8's"... unless GM heads them off at the pass.

It's better to be aggressive in shaping public opinion than it is to allow sensationalist crack pots (i.e. environmentalists) to hit you over the head and THEN have to try to recover... you could have GREAT commercials though:

"Hello Mr. Dirtbag Toyota owner... you have a V6 in your Camry, right?"

"Why yes I do, and it's good for the trees and protects baby seals and keeps our water clean..."

"Ummm... did you know that the 6.0 liter V8 in the Corvette over there actually gets better higway fuel economy?"

"That's just not possible, Michael Moore told me so..."

***Whip out EPA ratings here.***

"SO, Mr. Dirtbag Toyota owner, NOT ONLY ARE YOU KILLING BABY SEALS AND SETTING FIRE TO RAIN FORESTS BECAUSE YOUR CAMRY'S GAS PIG, BUT YOU'RE SLOW TOO!"

 

It's too bad that GM's SUVs don't have class leading performance to go with the supposed class leading fuel economy. My lowly Nissan can smoke any Cadillac Escalade. Sad, isn't it.

I forgot to mention that the 16MPG figure is for around town - without any highway driving. The fact that I've never gotten much more than 18MPG on the highway most reflects the fact that I don't spare the horses.

Maybe the stereotype that Japanese vehicles make a better compromise between performance and fuel economy is true - at least when it comes to big, huge V8 Nissans.

 

Thanks for the honesty.

I'm just sorry that the GMT-900 redesign couldn't have come sooner. If there had been a glimmer of hope that GM was going to trump Nissan's Armada/Titan, I might have had a reason to wait.


For the sake of GM and the entire domestic automotive industry, I sincerely hope that GMT-900 is more than it's billed to be.

 

Errr... why would someone pick out a Cadillac EXT out for a drag race?

The Titan runs neck and neck with the 5.3 liter HYBRID Silverado (7.91 vs. 7.94 0-60 times) . If you want to race, why don't you try conclusions with an SS? The Titan and SS are within 100 lbs. of each other and the SS has 40 horsepower on the Titan.

Then again, if towing were your thing, we could always just option up a 2500HD with the Diesel and Allison and we'll take bets on which part of your "it's almost a truck" will get torn off first in a pulling contest... my guess is the rear axle assembly... but hey, just a shot in the dark there...

The Titan is a good effort. Nissan came very close to almost kinda sorta building a truck this time.

Pssst... 900 is coming... and it's going to be a dark day in Ford/Dodge/Nissan/Toyota land when they hit the streets. Let there be no doubts, it will trump anything on the road.