GM: Suburban & Tahoe Dead

[GTaudiophile]

DETROIT ? Facing a prolonged downturn in sales of full-size trucks and SUVs and the likelihood of a permanent erosion in their volume and market share, General Motors executives last May canceled the CXX program ? the planned replacements for the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and their siblings at GMC and Cadillac.

A story in Sunday's New York Times quotes GM vice chairman Robert Lutz, head of product development, as saying: "It would have been very difficult in today's environment to spend a couple of billion dollars to do a replacement."

The next-generation Tahoe and Suburban, along with successors to the Yukon and Escalade, were slated to begin arriving in 2011 as 2012 models, supplier sources told Inside Line. GM originally had earmarked $2 billion to completely redesign the big SUVs and retool its assembly plants to build them.

It is now unclear whether the current models, which went on sale in early 2006, will continue in production until 2011 or will be phased out earlier. GM has announced plans to close one SUV plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, consolidating SUV production in Arlington, Texas.

Through the first nine months of 2008, Tahoe sales were down 30 percent.

GM earlier this month said it would kill the mid-size Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X in December because of plunging sales.

GM is not alone among the Detroit-based automakers facing a sea change in buyers' vehicle preferences. Chrysler last week said it would discontinue its full-size Aspen and Durango SUVs at year-end, including just-released hybrid editions.

Inside Line says: Look for the classic truck-based sport-utility vehicle to completely vanish from the American landscape over the next 24 to 36 months. ? Paul Lienert, Correspondent

Source

Edit:

CNN reports that US automakers are about to get some bailout money:

Article

Just another reason why companies in the future should do their worst: design inefficient vehicles with built-in obsolescence. The taxpayer is just going to save your ass. Personally, if the decision were left up to me, I'd let them die.

 

[Arkaign]

That's both smart and stupid.

There really shouldn't be a mass market for those types of vehicles. But there *ARE* legitimate uses for them.

If gas prices are low for 24-36 months, look for a comeback announcement.

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
That's both smart and stupid.

There really shouldn't be a mass market for those types of vehicles. But there *ARE* legitimate uses for them.

If gas prices are low for 24-36 months, look for a comeback announcement.

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

There may be legitimate uses for an 8 seat full size truck, but those are things that a small portion of buyers do.

They can't make a lightweight version that gets 27/33 mpg. A lot of the bulk of those vehicles is useless, but there's also the ladder frame, big engine, heavy duty axles, etc. Take those away and it's a big dirigible that will fall apart without internal pressure. Downsize, and you've got the Blazer etc-- vehicles which make more sense anyway for most people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
DETROIT ? Facing a prolonged downturn in sales of full-size trucks and SUVs and the likelihood of a permanent erosion in their volume and market share, General Motors executives last May canceled the CXX program ? the planned replacements for the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and their siblings at GMC and Cadillac.

A story in Sunday's New York Times quotes GM vice chairman Robert Lutz, head of product development, as saying: "It would have been very difficult in today's environment to spend a couple of billion dollars to do a replacement."

The next-generation Tahoe and Suburban, along with successors to the Yukon and Escalade, were slated to begin arriving in 2011 as 2012 models, supplier sources told Inside Line. GM originally had earmarked $2 billion to completely redesign the big SUVs and retool its assembly plants to build them.

It is now unclear whether the current models, which went on sale in early 2006, will continue in production until 2011 or will be phased out earlier. GM has announced plans to close one SUV plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, consolidating SUV production in Arlington, Texas.

Through the first nine months of 2008, Tahoe sales were down 30 percent.

GM earlier this month said it would kill the mid-size Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X in December because of plunging sales.

GM is not alone among the Detroit-based automakers facing a sea change in buyers' vehicle preferences. Chrysler last week said it would discontinue its full-size Aspen and Durango SUVs at year-end, including just-released hybrid editions.

Inside Line says: Look for the classic truck-based sport-utility vehicle to completely vanish from the American landscape over the next 24 to 36 months. ? Paul Lienert, Correspondent

Source

:thumbsup:Good riddance.

 

[bamx2]

Any one remember the GMC Carryall - The work version Suburban predecessor that surveyors and highway construction people drove around in ?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
DETROIT ? Facing a prolonged downturn in sales of full-size trucks and SUVs and the likelihood of a permanent erosion in their volume and market share, General Motors executives last May canceled the CXX program ? the planned replacements for the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and their siblings at GMC and Cadillac.

A story in Sunday's New York Times quotes GM vice chairman Robert Lutz, head of product development, as saying: "It would have been very difficult in today's environment to spend a couple of billion dollars to do a replacement."

The next-generation Tahoe and Suburban, along with successors to the Yukon and Escalade, were slated to begin arriving in 2011 as 2012 models, supplier sources told Inside Line. GM originally had earmarked $2 billion to completely redesign the big SUVs and retool its assembly plants to build them.

It is now unclear whether the current models, which went on sale in early 2006, will continue in production until 2011 or will be phased out earlier. GM has announced plans to close one SUV plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, consolidating SUV production in Arlington, Texas.

Through the first nine months of 2008, Tahoe sales were down 30 percent.

GM earlier this month said it would kill the mid-size Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X in December because of plunging sales.

GM is not alone among the Detroit-based automakers facing a sea change in buyers' vehicle preferences. Chrysler last week said it would discontinue its full-size Aspen and Durango SUVs at year-end, including just-released hybrid editions.

Inside Line says: Look for the classic truck-based sport-utility vehicle to completely vanish from the American landscape over the next 24 to 36 months. ? Paul Lienert, Correspondent

Source

:thumbsup:Good riddance.

Yeah, people with horses or boats shouldn't be able to tow them and transport their family all in one vehicle. That's just too convenient.

As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

 

[Mermaidman]

And while you're at it, bring back the station wagons! The CTS wagon is a good start.

 

[Knavish]

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

Like a Chevy HHR?? There's no way you're going to get a heavy truck chassis to get that kind of MPG. That kind of mileage pretty much requires a 4 cyl engine too. Heck the RX400h was only rated 27/24 City/Highway.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
DETROIT ? Facing a prolonged downturn in sales of full-size trucks and SUVs and the likelihood of a permanent erosion in their volume and market share, General Motors executives last May canceled the CXX program ? the planned replacements for the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban and their siblings at GMC and Cadillac.

A story in Sunday's New York Times quotes GM vice chairman Robert Lutz, head of product development, as saying: "It would have been very difficult in today's environment to spend a couple of billion dollars to do a replacement."

The next-generation Tahoe and Suburban, along with successors to the Yukon and Escalade, were slated to begin arriving in 2011 as 2012 models, supplier sources told Inside Line. GM originally had earmarked $2 billion to completely redesign the big SUVs and retool its assembly plants to build them.

It is now unclear whether the current models, which went on sale in early 2006, will continue in production until 2011 or will be phased out earlier. GM has announced plans to close one SUV plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, consolidating SUV production in Arlington, Texas.

Through the first nine months of 2008, Tahoe sales were down 30 percent.

GM earlier this month said it would kill the mid-size Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy and Saab 9-7X in December because of plunging sales.

GM is not alone among the Detroit-based automakers facing a sea change in buyers' vehicle preferences. Chrysler last week said it would discontinue its full-size Aspen and Durango SUVs at year-end, including just-released hybrid editions.

Inside Line says: Look for the classic truck-based sport-utility vehicle to completely vanish from the American landscape over the next 24 to 36 months. ? Paul Lienert, Correspondent

Source

:thumbsup:Good riddance.

Yeah, people with horses or boats shouldn't be able to tow them and transport their family all in one vehicle. That's just too convenient.

As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

It's a tiny segment really and one that is probably shrinking rapidly in this economy. Besides, those people can still buy a crew cab truck. Although, I suspect there will be far fewer of those manufactured as well because of the economy and the ever looming potential for the return of high gas prices.

I don't have a problem with people owning the right vehicle for their needs. I have a problem with people buying big wasteful vehicles they clearly don't need.

I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend and he said something I thought was amusing. We were talking about the Los Angeles Auto Show coming up (we're going) and whether or not any of us are in the market for a new vehicle anytime soon. My 2003 Maxima has 71,000 miles on it and his 2004 Acura TL has 84,000 miles on it so neither of us are planning on buying a car anytime soon. Unsolicited he said, "I'm just glad I own a car rather than a Stupid Useless Vehicle."

 

[StageLeft]

They need to die. There is absolutely no justification in the world for the taxpayer to prop up a business that has been dying for decades. If the money has to be spent, give it to those who have proven they can turn at a profit, at the very least.

My 2003 Maxima has 71,000 miles on it and his 2004 Acura TL has 84,000 miles on it so neither of us are planning on buying a car anytime soon.

My 2000 Max has 118k and I'm further away from replacing it than I've been in years, despite making more money. But is that frugality or just l337 awesomeness of the maxima?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Knavish

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

Like a Chevy HHR?? There's no way you're going to get a heavy truck chassis to get that kind of MPG. That kind of mileage pretty much requires a 4 cyl engine too. Heck the RX400h was only rated 27/24 City/Highway.

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Knavish

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

Like a Chevy HHR?? There's no way you're going to get a heavy truck chassis to get that kind of MPG. That kind of mileage pretty much requires a 4 cyl engine too. Heck the RX400h was only rated 27/24 City/Highway.

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

Too expensive IMO and a waste of resources.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

SUVs and trucks need to get back to what they used to be. Vehicles for work, not mobile living rooms.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

the unibody chevy taverse is roughly the same size as a tahoe (doesn't pull as much, being unibody and with a V6), and saves about 500 lbs.

you'd probably have to go into aluminum, fiberglass, and carbon fiber to get significantly higher weight savings. that means $$$. there is the hidden tax of CAFE.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Arkaign

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

the unibody chevy taverse is roughly the same size as a tahoe (doesn't pull as much, being unibody and with a V6), and saves about 500 lbs.

you'd probably have to go into aluminum, fiberglass, and carbon fiber to get significantly higher weight savings. that means $$$. there is the hidden tax of CAFE.

I think we should offer tax savings to corporations that use those materials to save weight and increase safety & efficiency.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

I think we should offer tax savings to corporations that use those materials to save weight and increase safety & efficiency.

so now we've got corporate tax breaks? you know that just has to be made up elsewhere. (notwithstanding that i'm against the whole idea of corporate taxation because corporations don't really bear the tax anyway).



looked up the specs for the honda odyssey. it's slightly smaller dimensionally outside, but because of the low floor is quite a bit bigger inside than a traverse. it weighs a good 400 lbs less but it gets slightly worse MPG with a slightly less gutsy engine. it does tow more than a traverse. i have to wonder, now, if GM is intentionally underrating the towing capability of the traverse and twins in order to keep up sales of the tahoe

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Knavish

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

Like a Chevy HHR?? There's no way you're going to get a heavy truck chassis to get that kind of MPG. That kind of mileage pretty much requires a 4 cyl engine too. Heck the RX400h was only rated 27/24 City/Highway.

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

The Chevy Traverse is half way there...minus the use of expensive materials to make it lighter...but it does get an impressive 25mpg in 2wd format on the highway. It is bigger inside than the standard Tahoe...although not quite as big as the Suburban. Needless to say, they are selling very well for GM (along with it's brethren the GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook, etc)

 

[grohl]

Love, love our Suburban. Haul three kids it during the week, last weekend I had 30 bags of mulch in it and STILL had room for three passengers. I will ALWAYS have a big gas-guzzing beast, the rest of you can suck it.

 

[Chunkee]

i like them, love the Tahoe... however, 45000 bux...cmon...seriously...

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Chunkee
i like them, love the Tahoe... however, 45000 bux...cmon...seriously...

If you pay anything even remotely close to that price...than you got robbed. You can get these things nearly 10 grand off these days.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Knavish

There also shouldn't be a technical reason that they couldn't make a lightweight version of that vehicle class that gets something like 27/33mpg.

Like a Chevy HHR?? There's no way you're going to get a heavy truck chassis to get that kind of MPG. That kind of mileage pretty much requires a 4 cyl engine too. Heck the RX400h was only rated 27/24 City/Highway.

You're talking with conventional technology. 'Heavy truck chassis' implies no improvement in the design.

I think it's entirely possible that by using different materials and design philosophy, that you could make a vehicle that had the same interior dimensions without weighing 3 tons. Cut that weight by 1/3 and improve the fuel efficiency of the drivetrain, improve the aerodynamics, and you're getting there.

The fuel economy of the Suburban as it is already is somewhat impressive considering the weight and drivetrain. With a singular focus on improving the overall design for efficiency, it would gain a lot in subsidiary benefits.

Lower weight = stop better.
Lower weight and COG = less likely to roll over.
Lower weight = less dangerous for other vehicles/passengers.
Lower weight = less wear on tires/brakes.
Lower weight = less wear and tear on our roads.
etc.

Usage of plastics, composites, and so on could easily reduce the weight down.

Too expensive IMO and a waste of resources.

not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

replacing steel with aluminium? for mass market products, never going to happen. steel is stronger and exponentially less expensive. if my work truck were made from aluminium, i would destroy a new one every year. plastic? structural plastic is decades away. what will it be made from? most likely, oil. composites? who is going to pay 100's of 1000's for a truck that shatters easily? let's not forget, there's only so much aero work you can do to a barn...

most people don't seem to realize that of all the energy contained in gasoline or diesel, at most 25% is used for moving the car. the remaining 75% goes straight out the tail pipe.

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
SUVs and trucks need to get back to what they used to be. Vehicles for work, not mobile living rooms.

:thumbsup:

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

It's a tiny segment really and one that is probably shrinking rapidly in this economy. Besides, those people can still buy a crew cab truck. Although, I suspect there will be far fewer of those manufactured as well because of the economy and the ever looming potential for the return of high gas prices.

I don't have a problem with people owning the right vehicle for their needs. I have a problem with people buying big wasteful vehicles they clearly don't need.

It was a tiny segment in the 60's, 70's, and 80's too, but the Suburban was profitable then because it was a work truck that didn't bother with expensive luxury bits.

The fact that people who don't need them buy them is not the fault of the auto makers. They just responded to that demand.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

It's a tiny segment really and one that is probably shrinking rapidly in this economy. Besides, those people can still buy a crew cab truck. Although, I suspect there will be far fewer of those manufactured as well because of the economy and the ever looming potential for the return of high gas prices.

I don't have a problem with people owning the right vehicle for their needs. I have a problem with people buying big wasteful vehicles they clearly don't need.

It was a tiny segment in the 60's, 70's, and 80's too, but the Suburban was profitable then because it was a work truck that didn't bother with expensive luxury bits.

The fact that people who don't need them buy them is not the fault of the auto makers. They just responded to that demand.

ZV

People didn't just wake up one morning and suddenly realize that they needed an SUV. That was marketing...pure and simple.

Slapping some extra carpet, a few more windows, and a little sheet metal on a pickup truck and charging an extra $10-15k (or more) for it makes for a lot of profit. Pure marketing genius actually...and we Americans sucked it up like Hoovers for almost 2 decades.

That ship has sailed though and I'm not saddened by that in the least.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

It's a tiny segment really and one that is probably shrinking rapidly in this economy. Besides, those people can still buy a crew cab truck. Although, I suspect there will be far fewer of those manufactured as well because of the economy and the ever looming potential for the return of high gas prices.

I don't have a problem with people owning the right vehicle for their needs. I have a problem with people buying big wasteful vehicles they clearly don't need.

It was a tiny segment in the 60's, 70's, and 80's too, but the Suburban was profitable then because it was a work truck that didn't bother with expensive luxury bits.

The fact that people who don't need them buy them is not the fault of the auto makers. They just responded to that demand.

ZV

People didn't just wake up one morning and suddenly realize that they needed an SUV. That was marketing...pure and simple.

Slapping some extra carpet, a few more windows, and a little sheet metal on a pickup truck and charging an extra $10-15k (or more) for it makes for a lot of profit. Pure marketing genius actually...and we Americans sucked it up like Hoovers for almost 2 decades.

That ship has sailed though and I'm not saddened by that in the least.

So did the Auto Industry market small fuel efficient cars recently or did people naturally gravitate towards them cus of fuel prices??? People wanted SUV's and the Auto Intustry gave consumers what they wanted. Don't blame it on the Auto Industry.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
As much as I agree with you that SUVs were too often bought by people who didn't need them, the fact is that they did indeed serve a legitimate use for certain segments of the market. Yes, this is a small segment, but it's still sad to see vehicles that did still have the ability to do serious work disappearing entirely. I think that they should get back to the way the Suburban originally was: a work pickup with a cover over the bed and an extra seat thrown in back there.

I think that they lost focus on these trucks by making them too luxury-oriented and that there would still be a decent market if they went back to a less luxurious more work-oriented vehicle.

ZV

It's a tiny segment really and one that is probably shrinking rapidly in this economy. Besides, those people can still buy a crew cab truck. Although, I suspect there will be far fewer of those manufactured as well because of the economy and the ever looming potential for the return of high gas prices.

I don't have a problem with people owning the right vehicle for their needs. I have a problem with people buying big wasteful vehicles they clearly don't need.

It was a tiny segment in the 60's, 70's, and 80's too, but the Suburban was profitable then because it was a work truck that didn't bother with expensive luxury bits.

The fact that people who don't need them buy them is not the fault of the auto makers. They just responded to that demand.

ZV

People didn't just wake up one morning and suddenly realize that they needed an SUV. That was marketing...pure and simple.

Slapping some extra carpet, a few more windows, and a little sheet metal on a pickup truck and charging an extra $10-15k (or more) for it makes for a lot of profit. Pure marketing genius actually...and we Americans sucked it up like Hoovers for almost 2 decades.

That ship has sailed though and I'm not saddened by that in the least.

So did the Auto Industry market small fuel efficient cars recently or did people naturally gravitate towards them cus of fuel prices??? People wanted SUV's and the Auto Intustry gave consumers what they wanted. Don't blame it on the Auto Industry.

We reacted too late to a problem we should have seen coming and now it's biting us in the ass. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

I've been preaching this for years but I've gotten nothing but shit for it. I'm not going shed a single tear for the auto industry in this country.