A Ghost Reportedly Dies, Jeep and Ford Smile

by Steph Willems

Published: August 12th, 2019

a ghost reportedly dies jeep and ford smile

Can you kill a ghost? While Hollywood and some Catholic priests say yes, in the automotive realm the process of ridding oneself of a spectre usually involves a new sheet on the drawing board, not a ceremonial ritual.

As you may have already heard, a ghost long rumored to haunt Detroit’s future product stable has reportedly disappeared into the ether from which it came. It never had much of a form, its name carried a question mark, and no one officially admitted to its existence. It only had a clear rival: the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited and upcoming Ford Bronco.

If you’ve concluded that we’re talking about that hazy GMC model, you’re bang on. Despite assurances from brand execs that General Motors’ truck brand had no intention of launching a body-on-frame rival to Jeep’s quintessential off-roader, just enough evidence of its development existed to keep the rumor alive.

Earlier this month, Muscle Cars & Trucks, citing GM sources, claimed that the BOF off-roader program died as a result of last November’s cost-cutting measures. That slash job spelled the end for several North American manufacturing plants and a handful of passenger car models. The publication claimed the program’s death came not from a widespread dislike of the Wrangler/Bronco rival idea, but the decision to move away from an all-new platform for the next-generation Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon midsize pickups.

Backing up the report, at least to some degree, is this quote from LMC Automotive’s president of global forecasting, Jeff Schuster. “We have also heard rumblings that the vehicle may have been canceled but so far have not been able to confirm that,” he told Automotive News.

Schuster added that, “If it was canceled, it may speak to the cost pressure automakers are under and the proliferation of the SUV/CUV body style.”

Surely at GM the only concern would be the former, not the latter. Chevrolet just reintroduced the Blazer and TrailBlazer nameplates, and Buick will debut the Encore GX to slot above the Encore early next year. Granted, these models aren’t market-limited niche offerings. While the automaker lacks a non-pickup off-roader, ongoing belt-tightening and an almost guaranteed revenue bump from its new crossover introductions begs the question “why bother?”

GM remains silent as to the whether the Wrangler/Bronco rival program existed, or whether the hazy future might somehow hold just such a vehicle. If this ghost was indeed killed, one wonders why the automaker was seen benchmarking two Wrangler Unlimiteds at its Milford Proving Ground earlier this year.

[Image: General Motors]

#FutureModels #GeneralMotors #GM #GMC #Jeep #JeepWrangler #Off-Roading #ProductPlanning

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 25 comments

MKizzy on Aug 12, 2019

Oh well. GM would've probably just screwed up whatever BOF Jeep-like vehicle it would've developed by giving it some off-the-wall name like "Citation" or "Lumina."

Like Reply
- Luke42 on Aug 13, 2019
  
  Citation is still a great model name! ...For Cessna aircraft. Except for the old straight wing "Slowtation". Noisy AND slow! You can hear them miles away.
  
  Like
PrincipalDan on Aug 14, 2019

You guys missed the announcement though that every GMC model is going to have AT4 variant! http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/08/every-gmc-model-will-have-at4-variant-by-2021/ Because what is really needed is a Terrain AT4... Maybe they can purchase "trail rated" badges from Jeep's supplier.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Ollicat I am only speaking from my own perspective so no need to bash me if you disagree. I already know half or more of you will disagree with me. But I think the traditional upscale Cadillac buyer has traditionally been more conservative in their political position. My suggestion is to make Cadillac separate from GM and make them into a COMPANY, not just cars. And made the company different from all other car companies by promoting conservative causes and messaging. They need to build up a whole aura about the company and appeal to a large group of people that are really kind of sick of the left and sending their money that direction. But yes, I also agree about many of your suggestions above about the cars too. No EVs. But at this point, what has Cadillac got to lose by separating from GM completely and appealing to people with money who want to show everyone that they aren't buying the leftist Kook-Aid.
Jkross22 Cadillac's brand is damaged for the mass market. Why would someone pay top dollar for what they know is a tarted up Chevy? That's how non-car people see this.