What's Wrong With This Picture: Raptor Hunting Edition

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Where did GMC get the idea to take a short-bed pickup, widen the track, fit some Fox shocks and generally beef it up to create a factory off-road “halo” truck? Oh right, from Ford. If you’re not convinced that Detroit still has at least one foot firmly stuck in the past, this halo niche-chasing behemoth should help clear up some of that doubt.



Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 48 comments
  • Jandrews Jandrews on Dec 17, 2010

    This thing is absolutely hilarious. As poser-riffic as the Raptor is (and let us count the ways...), this is even worse. First, no one offroads even a fullsize pickup if they're serious about it. They're too long, maneuver too poorly, and have horrible approach/departure/breakover angles. They're too heavy, and don't float on sand or mud. They have high centers of gravity. The Raptor's fancy shocks are great for mall crawling...and the block under the rear leaf springs is great for axle-wrap. In the offroad world it's Jeep, Mid-size/compact pickup/SUV, or custom truggy or bust. What then, are we to make of an even more bloated beast supposedly "tuned" for offroad duty? Are you fucking kidding me GM? Did you just offroad "tune" a fucking 3/4 ton pickup by *deleting* the live front axle? Perhaps you didn't notice the place of the solid axle swap on factory-IFS vehicles as the ultimate offroad tuning mod? This is why you went bankrupt. Previous comments were right: It's a good thing halo vehicles are money-losers by definition. This thing will be bought by men on the west coast with large incomes and tiny penises. Congratulations to GM for creating the first vehicle in the "AutoBrobile" niche.

  • Faygo Faygo on Dec 17, 2010

    not sure where anyone gets the idea that halo products are money-losers. M cars make tons of money, so do SRTs and SVT product. unless you're greenwashing, no car company is going to approve a program which loses money. no one. the Raptor may feel a bit soft and tippy on the road, but it's actually not bad at all when you get used to it. the crew cab is large, but for those who want the extra space, it's pretty useful. Raptor is not a rock-crawler/mud-bogger/single-track creeper, nor was it intended as such. I'll believe this thing if they actually build it. I'm not sure how you get something with that much big. heavy engine up front to not land like a lawn dart over any sort of jumps, but maybe they'll figure it out. a lot of serious engineering went into the Raptor, we'll see whether GM wants to do the same, or just jack up a truck and put shocks on it.

    • See 2 previous
    • TomH TomH on Dec 20, 2010

      Faygo, You're correct on a lot of counts vis-a-vis the Raptor and its engineered bits. Jandrews and his ilk may not "get it," but then again, the get what they deserve.

  • Varezhka Maybe the volume was not big enough to really matter anyways, but losing a “passenger car” for a mostly “light truck” line-up should help Subaru with their CAFE numbers too.
  • Varezhka For this category my car of choice would be the CX-50. But between the two cars listed I’d select the RAV4 over CR-V. I’ve always preferred NA over small turbos and for hybrids THS’ longer history shows in its refinement.
  • AZFelix I would suggest a variation on the 'fcuk, marry, kill' game using 'track, buy, lease' with three similar automotive selections.
  • Formula m For the gas versions I like the Honda CRV. Haven’t driven the hybrids yet.
  • SCE to AUX All that lift makes for an easy rollover of your $70k truck.
Next