GMI: Some GMC Programs Canceled

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I'd like to know how a pickup based on a unibody architecture which would ne lighter, handle better, and be more fuel effecient than the BOF trucks is "no longer a viable option" in these days of high gas prices.

Because the GME people politicked it out of existence.

It's the same reason that a G8 which gets 1MPG less than a fat ass Epsilon, yet is a MUCH better representation of engineering prowess is "no longer a viable option"

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Personally, if Pontiac and GMC were to die, I would prefer a Buick, Saturn, Saab sales channel for GMNA.

Yeah, because those brands fit together perfectly....

So then, Buick could be starved and voila, Saturn/Saab. Saab is obviously the 'wave of the future' so eventually it could become Cadillac (Once that division is axed, of course)

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Well, if the Traverse will replace the Tahoe/Suburban for the time being with the current fuel price situation, then I guess the Denali XT becoming a Chevrolet would replace the Avalanche.

I was talking to my wife about the possibility of GMC being closed down and she replied, "At least you'll still have the similar looking Chevrolet trucks to buy then". I guess she doesn't get it either (that GMC is much more than just a badge & grille change for me). In my opinion, I think GM should let GMC survive by being the sole truck division, this way Chevrolet can be the value leader in cars for GM, including being the innovator for new fuel technology models. With trucks forecasted to sell less now that fuel costs are increasing, the smaller GMC dealership base would be more than capable of handling the truck needs. Just my :twocents: , and I'll admit my bias towards GMC!

I agree 100%

If the market is shifting away from trucks, then Chevrolet should (for the most part) follow the market if they want volume. Let Chevy build the unibody truck offerings and sell the volume. Make GMC the true truck division that it's supposed to be.

But I'm sure that makes too much sense for GM to actually do.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I disagree about Pontiac. IF GM were bigger and economic times were better, they could surely put out great performing and fuel efficient products. However, GM is in a fight for its life right now, and currently Pontiac has nothing that Chevy can't offer. Even though they have some small potatoes bespoke products, they could easily be given to Chevy and it would not be out of the brand's character. I would guess that in the current marketplace, Chevy is Pontiac's biggest competitor, and GM cannot afford to be competing with itself right now. GMC is similar, but not as big of a drain on resources.

So your solution is to roll all of Pontiac over into an already PACKED Chevrolet showroom?

:sighs:

[Windy-57]

I agree 100%

If the market is shifting away from trucks, then Chevrolet should (for the most part) follow the market if they want volume. Let Chevy build the unibody truck offerings and sell the volume. Make GMC the true truck division that it's supposed to be.

But I'm sure that makes too much sense for GM to actually do.

The problem with that is that the Tahoe sells in much better volumes than the Yukon and the Silverado sells in much bigger volumes than the Sierra. It doesn't make sense to phase out Chevy trucks to keep GMC. Not to repeat, but it makes more sense for GMC to take over the commercial region so that the brand doesn't have to die. Then if consumer perceptions change enough after the proliferation of alternative fuels, as you suggest they will, you can re-expand GMC into the consumer realm again.

[Blake Noble]

Well, if the Traverse will replace the Tahoe/Suburban for the time being with the current fuel price situation, then I guess the Denali XT becoming a Chevrolet would replace the Avalanche.

For some reason I can't see a Lambda-based vehicle replacing the Suburban effectively. I believe Suburban owners are more likely to use their vehicle to do actual work, such as hauling a boat or large camper, than in comparison to a Tahoe owner. I have a hunch that it's possible we will see the Tahoe replaced by a next-generation Lambda, but not the Suburban. In any case, I think the trucks on the C3XX platform will not be any larger than their current counterparts, and even possibly be somewhat smaller.

I was talking to my wife about the possibility of GMC being closed down and she replied, "At least you'll still have the similar looking Chevrolet trucks to buy then". I guess she doesn't get it either (that GMC is much more than just a badge & grille change for me). In my opinion, I think GM should let GMC survive by being the sole truck division, this way Chevrolet can be the value leader in cars for GM, including being the innovator for new fuel technology models. With trucks forecasted to sell less now that fuel costs are increasing, the smaller GMC dealership base would be more than capable of handling the truck needs. Just my :twocents: , and I'll admit my bias towards GMC!

I like GMC vehicles myself, currently being the owner of a Sonoma. It might not appear to be greatly differentiated from it's S-10 counterpart, but the overall changes make the truck much more attractive in comparison to it's Chevrolet twin. And I say that having owned an S-10 prior to my Sonoma.

But there is truth in how GMC has been the redundant division for quite some time now. However, I think there is a way to make GMC work by allowing it to offer more work-oriented trucks than what Chevrolet can offer. And GMC doesn't always need every truck Chevy offers and vice versa.

[balthazar]

>>"I don't think there is relevance for GMC in the consumer market right now or in the forseeable future. I know there are people on this forum who feel GMC is differentiated enough from Chevy, but unfortunately, I don't think enough of the car-buying public agrees."<<

1 year ago the car-buying public was buying more more-expensive GMC trucks than the "identical" Chevrolets, than toyots was able to come fractionally close to with something like double the incentives. If GMC is not resonating with consumers, the turdra should already be pushing up daisies. GMC was closing in on six hundred thousand units annually, the #2 GM volume division and pure profit.

The theory that there's something wrong with the brand's image/perception just doesn't hold up to reality.

Now.. if GMC wasn't able to sell -say- even 100K units this year.... I'd certainly consider the point. But even 100K units all at a profit is better than zero.

I've advocated GMC turning to a majority of commercial veh. and having HD versions & the trucks over 3/4-ton, while Chevy can have the 1/2-tonners and people movers... for a long long time. I ALSO like the idea that GMC could be sold at any GM dealer- the name so nicely lends itself to that.

[GMTruckGuy74]

For some reason I can't see a Lambda-based vehicle replacing the Suburban effectively. I believe Suburban owners are more likely to use their vehicle to do actual work, such as hauling a boat or large camper, than in comparison to a Tahoe owner. I have a hunch that it's possible we will see the Tahoe replaced by a next-generation Lambda, but not the Suburban. In any case, I think the trucks on the C3XX platform will not be any larger than their current counterparts, and even possibly be somewhat smaller.

I should have been clearer in my meaning... I meant that the Traverse will pull Tahoe & Suburban owners that don't need those vehicles necessarily for towing and hauling needs. The Denali XT becoming the next Avalanche would be in the same vein - those not needing an Av for towing & hauling needs would go more for the Denali XT version. Trust me, I know Tahoe/Yukon and Suburban/Yukon XL owners that would never go for a Lambda-based vehicle regardless of the fuel situation :AH-HA_wink: