By Edward Niedermeyer
May 9, 2008 - 2,303 Views
Big trucks have meant big profits for Detroit. Thanks to cheap oil, personal paranoia, a desire for an outdoor life that only the drudgery of daily commuting could provide, the fairer sex' natural desire to see ten miles ahead at all times and a federal fuel economy regulation loophole big enough to drive an Expedition through, The Big 2.8 managed to convince Americans that body-on-frame vehicles were just dandy for personal transportation. With gas price increases showing no signs of slowing, one of Detroit's biggest truck chassis addicts is looking at kicking the habit. Bloomberg reports that GM, yes GM, is developing a lighter replacement for its biggest SUVs (Yukotahburbelade) that won't tow jack shit rely on a heavier pickup-truck frame. This, according to "people familiar with the effort." (Familiarity breeds PR.) It should be said (and soon will be) that GM has been relying on the same basic Silverado full-size truck platform its "light trucks" since 1965. Even if truck-framed transportation isn't about to disapper overnight, at least GM has taken the first steps to beating its addiction to "easy" profits. It has admitted it has a problem.
Subscribe to Newsletter31 Responses to “ Is GM Kicking The Body-On-Frame Habit? ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
May 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
body on frame easily tows more than 5000.. how many families that own one commonly do that? I’d say good call
May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Has GM completely forgotten the concept of a station wagon? For vast majority of families, that is completely sufficient (and way more fuel efficient).
May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I’d say bad call as there are always going to be people who use these vehicles for work or heavy duty towing that will need one despite the price of gas. People like farmers, tradesman and so fourth.
I thought all the families buying these things that didn’t really need them were supposed to go to GM’s big fat pod-shaped crossovers instead?
May 9th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
WTF? Wasn’t the Acadia/Traverse meant to replace the Yukon/Tahoe for this exact reason?
This smells of the same brand salvaging effort that Ford is putting into the next gen, FWD Volvo based, Explorer Crossover. Whatever.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Hearse, limo, bread van, and RV builders can easily handle the REAL market for these big brutes. The Big 3 can make better money selling chassis’ with corporate front clips
to these specialists.
They should have never been sold as mainstream vehicles. Most I see on vacation don’t tow anything and the “big families” they typically carry consist of Mom and Dad plus two spoiled brats who “can’t” sit next to each other.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Isn’t that essentially what the Lambda-platform vehicles (GMC Acadian, Saturn Outlook, etc.) already are? They look like a comparable size to a Tahoe to me.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I thought it was “Yukaburbahoecalade?”
Abandoning B-o-F vehicles, however, won’t necessarily improve fuel economy or anything else. The Vue, for example, is remarkably heavy for its class, with very similar capacity to the Rav4 but some 500lbs heavier, if I recall correctly.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“The Big 2.8 managed to convince Americans that body-on-frame vehicles were just dandy for personal transportation.”
Land Cruiser, Pathfinder, 4 Runner, FJ Cruiser, Armada, Sequoia, Titan, etc…and don’t forget the badge engineered Lexus Land Crushers, whatever the hell they’re called.
Last time I checked, these bloated body on frame dinosaur guzzlers were not exclusive to Detroit brands.
And I do agree with a previous poster; wagons are a great solution for most families.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Interestingly enough, unit body vehicles can actually be HEAVIER than body on frame vehicles.
Case in point, look at the weight of a 1960 Studebaker Lark compact (which was in reality, a cut-down full sized car on a frame). 108″ wheelbase, six cylinder, Deluxe 4 door sedan (6 passenger) minimum weight 2592 pounds! Compare this to its direct competitor, the 1960 Rambler Six Series 10 Deluxe 4 door sedan 2912 pounds minimum!
When Herr Doktor Porsche was hired by Studebaker in the early 1950’s to develop a secret compact and 120 degree overhead valve V6 engine, the car (with 111″ wheelbase) weighed in at 3300 pounds! It was unit construction. (This development work, which Dr. Porsche got $2 million for, actually made it possible for Porsche automobile to survive the tough 1950’s).
However, it is not ALWAYS the case the unit body weighs more than body on frame.
The big advantages of unit construction are that the crush forces can be so well dispersed that the vehicle is safer, plus there is no frame rail to ram right through people when you drive through a red light and smack someone in a lower vehicle, right through their doors.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Rodion , I think it is the “convincing” Mr. Niedermeyer refers to and can mostly be attributed to the Explorer and Wagoneer. You’re right, though, that Toyota’s current BOF vehicles have nearly managed to eclipse the domestics in both variety and guzzling ability.
I’ve been on the lookout for something capable of comfortably towing my Miata and accouterments to autocrosses on the cheap. The 1994-1996 Cadillac Fleetwood, when equipped with the towing package, is rated for 6,500#! I could forgo hotels by sleeping in the ample back seat. With a feather adorned fedora, I could complete quite an image.
I think my wife would prefer a Pathfinder or something equally bland.