REPORT: GM kills plans for unibody pickup truck
GMC Denali XT concept - click above for high-res image gallery
General Motors has reportedly cancel plans for a new unibody mid-sized pickup truck after finding it wouldn't get much better fuel economy than existing body-on-frame designs. In early 2008, GM showed off the GMC Denali XT concept at the Chicago Auto Show. That truck was actually based on the same Zeta rear wheel drive platform used for the Pontiac G8. And unlike the star-crossed G8 ST that never made it into showrooms, the intended production truck would have been derived front-wheel drive/all-wheel drive Epsilon II architecture like Honda's Ridgeline.
GM vice-chairman Tom Stephens told Automotive News the unibody design would not give much of an efficiency boost while losing capability that buyers were willing to pay a premium for. That means the trucks would have been less profitable, something GM is obviously trying to avoid. The current four-wheel drive Chevrolet Silverado pickup has an EPA rating of 14/20 mpg while the all-wheel drive Ridgeline only gets 15/20 mpg, so there's clearly something to this.
As a mid-sized truck, the unibody would have likely replaced the Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, two vehicles that are getting long-in-the-tooth. It's not clear how GM plans to handle those products (or that segment) going forward.
[Source: Automotive News - sub req'd]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Michael h 9:33AM (9/21/2009)
"General Motors has reportedly cancel plans for a new unibody mid-sized pickup truck..."
cancel? Seriously, do you guys even proof read your posts?
Reply
vespid82 9:47AM (9/21/2009)
+1
Bigfork 10:07AM (9/21/2009)
Also, grammar check: "...would have been derived front-wheel drive/all-wheel drive..."
Taglane 11:06AM (9/21/2009)
I'm sure before the day is up, you'll make a few typos as well. It's not like it throws off the whole article. Now if it said, "General Motor had reportely cancel plan for new uni,body mid-size pickuptruck." I'd understand the confusion. but it's one word.. come on.
HotRodzNKustoms 9:37AM (9/21/2009)
There is nothing inherently wrong with the body on frame design when it comes to trucks. And don't forget the XFE gets 15/21 with a 315hp V8!
Reply
Kevin 11:39AM (9/21/2009)
+1 dude.
IMO, trucks are supposed to be body-on-frame (aka TOUGH) and not built like cars. And if the General is already getting great mileage out of their big strong trucks, then there is no purpose for a lifted FWD/AWD car with a bed on the back. (Honda Ridgeline)
Smegley 9:38AM (9/21/2009)
So wait. They bring out this POS new Terrain, but they kill this??????
Are they kidding? Only in a gov't run company could such stupidity abound....
Reply
fixitfixitstop 9:49AM (9/21/2009)
The Terrain is stupid and ugly, but killing this idea isn't. Well, killing that Denali thing isn't stupid, at least.
Dr. Greenthumb 10:02AM (9/21/2009)
Stop with the stupidity. You know how long it takes to plan, tool and then produce a car. The government was nowhere being involved with GM when the terrain was planned. The terrain will sell more units than this Ridgeline in drag ever would.
The terrain has a market, it is more a young MAN's CUV than anything else that GM or Ford makes. Kind of man? Young, doesn't especially like cars, probably downsizing from used up Tahoes, 'burbans, Expeditions and Explorers.
Most of you don't understand the urban car market. These macho CUVs will be big in the urban market. The hip-hop crowd buys an awful lot of cars, this goes well with my Tims, baggy jeans, and pit bulls. You know that once the brothers (BOTH CHOCLATE & VANILLA) start rocking them, they'll appear in a couple of music videos with vivacious skanks draped all over the hood of the truck, and GM won't be able to build enough of them.
It has happened before, Escalades, 300Cs, and H2s. I think it was smart of GM to recognize that.
Cmicasa the GREAT 11:25AM (9/21/2009)
ONLY on AUTOBLOG (and maybe Jalopnik) would U be able to see such a dumb ass comment.
The Terrain's looks are certainly polarizing but that it not even remotely a cue that it is "ugly." Personally I prefer it's looks to Equinox, and certainly the Asian competitors.
GM is finally doing what makes sense after 2 decades of questionable decisions (Chevy SSR as an example) and we question it? The blogger even points out that the Silvy gets damn near the same Fuel Economy as the sissy looking Ridgeline (with the Chevy having 50+ more USABLE HP/Torque) and U see this decision as a bad one??? Ludicrous I think.
Bravo GM for realizing that unibodies, like OHCs provide no better fuel economy over the BOF or OHV alternatives.
Jei 11:35AM (9/21/2009)
I'm a bit disappointed.
We all know Honda or Toyota will now debut something like this in a couple of years (and call it a breakthrough).
RWD fan 9:39AM (9/21/2009)
Holy cow! GM actually has someone thinking about what truck buyers, real truck buyers, want. Glad to hear it. Now if they can get a proper body on frame compact truck (not midsize) with a healthy tow rating and a nice torquey 4 cylinder available on a 4x4, they may even pick up some market share.
Reply
Avinash machado 9:47AM (9/21/2009)
Can the Ridgeline really be considered a real truck?
Reply
imoore 10:28AM (9/21/2009)
No, the Ridgeline can never be considered a real truck, in my opinion. In fact, the old Rabbit pickup and the Brat were more of a pickup than the Ridgeline will ever be.
If GM wants a real midsize truck, they should have brought the Holden Ute here in the first place.
Sofa King Fast! 11:04AM (9/21/2009)
Unibody construction is for crossover vehicles, not real trucks.
If you are not going to use your truck for hauling or carrying, unibody is fine...but in that case you have to wonder if you really need a truck.
Small, body-on-frame trucks like the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier and Chev Colorado are some of the most useful vehicles made today. No company that understands the purpose of a truck would ever replace these great veicles with a unibody vehicle.
Aprime 11:23AM (9/21/2009)
They still make sense to some people, including construction workers.
But GM's right, the Ridgeline isn't anything close to a fuel miser and it's pushed by a V6 - why would it work any better for them?
Jim 12:19PM (9/21/2009)
"Unibody construction is for crossover vehicles, not real trucks.
If you are not going to use your truck for hauling or carrying, unibody is fine...but in that case you have to wonder if you really need a truck."
this is misguided. You know why light trucks mostly stick with BoF construction? It makes it a lot easier for the manufacturer to offer a variety of cab & bed configurations. Having the frame as a separate structural component means it's easier and cheaper to validate different frame lengths and configurations, and you can "mix and match" cab/bed combos to get what configurations you want.
A unit-construction pickup would be much less conducive to this. However, if there are only one or two configurations planned, then unit-body would be fine so long as it met the structural requirements. Witness the Jeep Comanche.
Kevin 1:27PM (9/21/2009)
The Comanche actually had a frame supporting the bed... and they had to make two different ones for the different bed lengths. I don't know if the Ridgeline has something like this (found some articles mentioning subframes for certain components but not anything about one for the whole bed)
vespid82 9:49AM (9/21/2009)
IMO, the Denali XT shouldn't have made it past a sketch. Ok, maybe a rendering or an Alias model, but never a tangible concept vehicle, lol.
Reply
fixitfixitstop 11:07AM (9/21/2009)
I have a hard time ranking up comments with a pointless "lol" at the end, but I did it just this one time.