NG GMT 360 Shelved

[Chicagoland]

Headline in today's Detroit News 'Chevy may junk TrailBlazer by 2010'

I am sure some will be mad, but there are too many SUV's.

[haypops]

Headline in today's Detroit News 'Chevy may junk TrailBlazer by 2010'.

I wonder if there would be any thought to selling the 360 out of GMC stores only. It would help differentiate GMC from Chevy truck. It would be ironic if the most rebadged GM truck (Chev-GMC-Saab-Buick-Isuzu-?) became a GMC exclusive!

[sciguy_0504]

It would be ironic if the most rebadged GM truck (Chev-GMC-Saab-Buick-Isuzu-?) became a GMC exclusive!

Oldsmobile...

[Northstar]

Aren't the Lambdas significantly larger than the GMT360s?  I was under the assumption the Lambdas are the unibody counterparts to the GMT900 SUVs.  If that is the case, I still see a market for a smaller, cheaper SUV that is better than the 'Nox/Torrent.

They're bigger than the 360s by about ten inches but about shorter than the EXT by about 6 inches.

The better than Nox/Torrent SUV will probably be the NG of the Nox/GMC.

[Camino LS6]

With Equinox,Tahoe/Suburban,the Lambdas, and Avalanche the only room for another BOF SUV I can see is a smaller, simpler, less-expensive,yet very tough vehicle.

[bobthebuilder]

With Equinox,Tahoe/Suburban,the Lambdas, and Avalanche the only room for another BOF SUV I can see is a smaller, simpler, less-expensive,yet very tough vehicle.

I'd buy a GMT355 based Blazer Z71 if it could be had with the 4.2L six. I don't care if its a little smaller than the competition....it would be off road capable, tough, reliable, and fast.

[02800]

I'd buy a GMT355 based Blazer Z71 if it could be had with the 4.2L six.  I don't care if its a little smaller than the competition....it would be off road capable, tough, reliable, and fast.

that would be perfect. i guess we will have to wait and see how capable the new mini-van (oops), lambdas are.

[Drew Dowdell]

What will happen to the I6? It would be a shame to lose such a great engine after just one generation.

[Northstar]

That's a good question... with the new capacity they could stick them in the T900 pickups.

[Drew Dowdell]

yeah, that'd make a great base engine for the 900s

[91z4me]

That's a good question... with the new capacity they could stick them in the T900 pickups.

That would absolutely ROCK!!! Think how good it would look to have the 4.2 I6 with 290 hp as your BASE MOTOR! Put it together with a low cost stick and you would have one VERY sporty W/T. The question is can GM do this at the base W/T's price point? BTW what do the competitors have for base engines? I just looked it up Ford has the 4.2 OHV V6 w/ 202 hp and 260 ft lbs and Dodge likely uses the 3.7 V6 with 215 hp and 235 ftlbs, though they do have a 255 hp 4.0 SOHC V6 coming really soon for the LX cars. The current Tundra has a 4.0 DOHC V6 with 236 hp and 266 ft lbs of torque, the current V8 has 271 hp and 313 ft lbs of torque which should be quite a bit higher on the new model given its size.

[evok]

That's a good question... with the new capacity they could stick them in the T900 pickups.

1 Problem - Engine cost more than the 4.3.

1 Advantage - Engine gets better mpg than 4.3.

Last time I looked into it, I believe the Flint plant was trying to make a business case to put the engine into the 900s. That was about 4 months ago.

[Drew Dowdell]

1 Problem - Engine cost more than the 4.3.

1 Advantage - Engine gets better mpg than 4.3.

Last time I looked into it, I believe the Flint plant was trying to make a business case to put the engine into the 900s.  That was about 4 months ago.

2nd advantage - Engine is smoother <and thereby more "premium">

3rd advantage - Engine is much more powerful

4th advantage - No pushrods.... because pushrods r teh suck!

Edited June 26, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[longtooth]

In the June edition of Motortrend there is an article discussing the doomed future of the GMT 360s and how GM may be devoting more money to the Lambda program to cover the mid-size range and keep the BOF platforms to the pick-ups and full-size SUVs. (Yes... I understand this is Motortrend making the predictions and they're usually never right, but I tend to believe this one because of the constant delays.)

Here's a chop they used of what a Chevy Lambda could potentially look like.

I've got to say, the Outlook looks much more attractive with the Chevy bar across the center.  Chevy should've gotten this vehicle over Saturn but since the Trailblazer already covers this territory right now, the brand doesn't need it as much as Saturn does.

From Motortrend:

Sorry for the bad quality... I've got a crappy scanner.

It looks good to me. Now, can anyone picture it as a replacement for the Uplander?

There's talk about that actually happening. Or does America demand that sliding center door?

Edited June 26, 2006 by longtooth

[Spike]

Are the GMT-900s structurally designed to accept the 4.2 I6? I seem to remember that it is harder to deign a vehicle with a long engine in terms of packaging, crash worthiness, etc.

[ehaase]

1 Problem - Engine cost more than the 4.3.

1 Advantage - Engine gets better mpg than 4.3.

I would think that the 4200 is also more expensive to produce than any of the V8's.

[evok]

2nd advantage - Engine is smoother <and thereby more "premium">

3rd advantage - Engine is much more powerful

4th advantage - No pushrods.... because pushrods r teh suck!

Yes - But you know as well as I cost Vs. mpg in light of the new CAFE targets is the number 1 driver as much as I would love to see V6 pushrods end up in museums.

[Camino LS6]

Yes - But you know as well as I cost Vs. mpg in light of the new CAFE targets is the number 1 driver as much as I would love to see V6 pushrods end up in museums.

Anyone actually know what the cost differential might be? This is an interesting idea, one worth exploring, even if it hijacks this thread.

I would think that an economy of scale could be involved if this engine went to the 900s.

[Drew Dowdell]

Anyone actually know what the cost differential might be? This is an interesting idea, one worth exploring, even if it hijacks this thread.

I would think that an economy of scale could be involved if this engine went to the 900s.

losing the Rainier, Accender, and 9-7x but gaining the the base 900 line....

yeah, that'll require an increase in production

[Camino LS6]

I wonder how a less-expensive,I-6 Tahoe would go over.

[evok]

In the PUs the V6 has a small market penatration. Off the top of my head, probably less than 10%.

2004cy

4.2 I-6 - 439,987

4.3 V-6 - 231,848

In the 4.3 total the G-Vans are buried in that total engine production. I double checked the 4.3 V6 penetration in the 800 pick up and it is just shy of 10%. So that is about 90,000 V6 in the vehicles.

Edited June 26, 2006 by evok

[Drew Dowdell]

In the PUs the V6 has a small market penatration.  Off the top of my head, probably less than 10%.

2004cy

4.2 I-6 - 439,987

4.3 V-6 - 231,848

In the 4.3 total the G-Vans are buried in that total engine production.  I am unsure of the mix.

horsepower.....

I thought was higher than that.

shame though, they could advertise best in class base engine

[Northstar]

You could also put the I6 in the NG Colorado and H3 if they were designed to use it unlike the current ones.

[91z4me]

You could also put the I6 in the NG Colorado and H3 if they were designed to use it unlike the current ones.

Yep.

[Shantanu]

I was wondering what vehicles they would have the plant make in the Trailblazer/Envoy's stead. But now that so many people have left GM, my guess is that they will just close the plant.

[Hudson]

I was wondering what vehicles they would have the plant make in the Trailblazer/Envoy's stead.  But now that so many people have left GM, my guess is that they will just close the plant.

I would agree. GM doesn't need the added capacity.