Future 2020/21 Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban

[WillCO]

There’s a decent amount of speculation that they will

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/01...find-its-way-to-gms-next-generation-suvs/amp/

Well, let's hope so. That article seems speculative, and it only comments on why it would be neat if GM did (which I agree with).

The economics of doing it, along with the fact that the market for diesel pickups is different from and larger than the market for diesel SUVs, makes me skeptical.

 

[Garandman]

I just don't understand why they don't offer smaller turbo'd diesels in these big SUVs like they do in Europe.

Because:

1. The federal government does not follow tax policies to promote diesel use. Diesel costs more than regular gas here.

2. We have strict emissions standards, which are enforced. Thus the “cheat codes” used by the Europeans were discovered, resulting in immense fines. The European laws were written with a loophole.

We had two Chevrolet Cruze turbodiesels in our work fleet. They cost $3,000 more than the Eco (1.4L turbo gas) model, had a 4.5G DEF tank in the spare tire well, and we had a number of emissions problems.

When it came time to buy our van, we bought the Ford Transit with EcoBoost, which cost far less than the diesel and had more torque.

 

[MichaelSE]

I doubt it. The diesel market is small and not growing in the US; it would be hard for me to envision GM spending any money to get that engine certified for the Tahoe/Yukon platform (which I think would be a separate certification than the pickups) for what would be a tiny market.

But if they did, I would probably buy one.

Thanks for the reply. Why do you think the certification would be different? They're working with the same frame, it's just the lengths that would be different. The market would be smaller just as a function of the market for SUVs being much smaller than the market for pickups; I think they would sell proportionately as well when you consider overall sales for each segment.

In daily, unloaded driving, I think the PowerStroke would benefit the SUVs greatly, since it can move their weight more efficiently than any gas engine. A base Tahoe is already heavier than a loaded Silverado, and a loaded Suburban is nearly 6000 lbs, and that's before oil, fuel, fluids, passengers. A loaded Silverado tops out around 5400 lbs.

 

[WillCO]

Thanks for the reply. Why do you think the certification would be different? They're working with the same frame, it's just the lengths that would be different.

If I'm not mistaken, the EPA (and CARB in California) requires a separate certification for any combination of chassis, transmission, engine, exhaust, and a few other components. So a certification for a Silverado and one for a Tahoe would have to be pursued separately even though the vehicles are similar to our eyes.

If you're curious, here is the EPA webpage that lists the certification data for various categories of vehicles. Here specifically is the spreadsheet that lists the light-duty vehicles that are currently certified. Each row on this spreadsheet represents one "certified vehicle" as viewed by the EPA, and there is a mind-boggling number of variants of the Chevy pickup alone.

Apparently it only costs about $25,000 per variant to actually apply for the certification with the EPA; the cost is in the development and testing that the car manufacturer goes through in order to ensure the variant will pass.

The market would be smaller just as a function of the market for SUVs being much smaller than the market for pickups; I think they would sell proportionately as well when you consider overall sales for each segment.

It would only matter whether the vehicle would project to sell sufficiently to meet profitability requirements that are part of the investment analysis. A vehicle could be seen as selling very well indeed on a market-share basis, but if it's a money loser the company won't greenlight it, unless it's a halo car or something. This is exactly why there are so few wagons on sale in the US now, for instance.

 

[MichaelSE]

Great info, thanks.

 

[GTNator]

Looks like the Navigator is not taking market share away from the Esky (yet?), but mostly from Mercedes and Range Rover. It makes sense, the inside of that Navigator reminds me of a Range Rover.

"Despite the Navigator’s early success, internal data from Cadillac has shown the SUV isn’t swaying its buyers. Most of the Navigator’s conquest buyers have come from Mercedes-Benz and Land Rover thus far. Meanwhile, Escalade sales rose last month, as did the SUV’s transaction prices."



GM Holds A Comfortable Lead In SUV Segment, But Ford Turning Up The Wick At Its Plant

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/02...rning-up-the-wick-at-its-plant/#ixzz57HccLKEs



2018 Lincoln Navigator Demand Could Be Chipping Away At Cadillac Escalade (Updated)

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/02...ping-away-at-cadillac-escalade/#ixzz57IrToNUU

 

[sickk23]

Esky sales increased as did transaction prices? Yikes. GM is really sticking it to the buyers. But hey if people will pay it...

 

[GTNator]

Esky sales increased as did transaction prices? Yikes. GM is really sticking it to the buyers. But hey if people will pay it...

I know, I was surprised too when I saw that. At first I thought they were achieving higher sales by using greater discounts, but no, they removed incentives too.

 

[cardude2000]

The Lincoln is leaps and bounds nicer than the esky but esky buyers are a rabidly loyal bunch.

I’ve never understood brand loyalty but to each their own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE YETI]

Hopefully they get it right this time... oh wait, did i say that out loud?.... my bad

They did, but they called it a Ford Expedition