21 Week Vacation Coming To GM's Truck Plants

Inventory reduction more than plant updates or both?

Both.. But I think more on the update side

I was thinking both too. With the down time it is not a bad time to have some truck in reserve.

I wonder with the Ecoboost not selling over 100,000 units this year if GM will have a answer to it?

The MPG claim or new technology marketed well it is selling a lot of truck in a combo many claimed would never sell.

Wow....

If we're talking Ford, I'd still rather have the 5.0 over the Ecoboost. Cheaper to purchase, simpler to maintain over the long haul, and similar real-world fuel mileage. Ecoboost has sold because of dazzling marketing, not actual, tangible benefit to the customer.

The fact remains that the public paid $895 more for a Turbo V6 engine that accounted for 100,000 units 40% of production. With that being said that is a lot of money that is being left on the table by GM and Dodge that they could make on a already highly profitable vehicle. The public has shown a want to spend more on an engine many figured would never sell.

It would be intersting to see how many of these buyers were Ford owners and how many were GM and Ram owners. I suspect most were V8 owners as if you were a V6 buyer it was because you did not want to spring the extra cash for another engine and wanted a cheap truck.

I wonder how many Chevy V6 trucks were sold last year with a price mark up on their half tons? I bet the V6 did not even account close to 40% let alone make make any extra money on any V6 sold.

Ford I think took a risk and it paid off by showing that people are willing and able to buy this package in large numbers. The option to stay with the 8 is there so it did limit the risk. The question is will GM have a response to this package in time for the 2013 release. Just offering the V8 I suspect will not draw in the buyers as the new combo did.

Not matter if it is Dazzling marketing ploy with little benefit or not the bottom line is it sold trucks. While it may have only added 1 MPG to their fleet status it is 1 MPG better than they were as a company and they made money doing it. It may not be a package for everyone but the V8 was still there. The fact remains it was a package that brought in money, buyers and still added 1 MPG to the fleet vs taking any away. Where is the down side?

As far as I see it it was a good move and Ford should be given credit. They have figured out a way to sell the smaller enginer and get people to pay more for it while still offering the V8 engine. Sounds like someone was thinking at Ford.

The bottom line is GM needs an answer for this engine in the 2013. GM also needs to up MPG in future trucks too, even if it is only 1 MPG.

.

Turbocharge the 4.3 V6.

Turbocharge the 4.3 V6.

You are a funny one! LOL!

Turbocharge the 4.3 V6.

They did that 20 years ago...

I wonder if the base engine in the next full size truck will be the 3.6 V6?

You know what would be both really nifty and really unique in the segment? A turbocharged, direct injected Atlas I-6. They were pushing close to 300 HP in N/A form. Direct injection and Turbo-charging would put them well into the Ecoboost's range. The larger displacement (over the Ford) would probably also make for better torque. Even if they had to drop it to 3.9 or so liters, it would still be worth it. The additional journal bearings that an I-6 has over a V6 should quell any concerns of "stress" that certain members here have regarding turbos.

You know what would be both really nifty and really unique in the segment? A turbocharged, direct injected Atlas I-6. They were pushing close to 300 HP in N/A form. Direct injection and Turbo-charging would put them well into the Ecoboost's range. The larger displacement (over the Ford) would probably also make for better torque. Even if they had to drop it to 3.9 or so liters, it would still be worth it. The additional journal bearings that an I-6 has over a V6 should quell any concerns of "stress" that certain members here have regarding turbos.

I thought the Atlas was going to be the base engine when it came out but it never happened. I later found it was not a cheap engine to build and as we all found it was not all the fuel efficent so keeping the 4.3 looked like a better idea for a entry level truck.

The fact is the 4.3 was always a good engine but never a great engine. I have owned pre Vortec and Vortec versions. The last was good but not a great engine. MPG was ok but not great and the power was poor.

A I 6 Turbo would be a great engine but I think to do it right for the present market they would have to do an new engine as the Atlas as it was would never cut it in todays market. I wonder if one could add 2 cylinders to a Ecotec? They did make a V8 with the Quad 4 once.

As it is Ford has gotten people to buy a V6 in a loaded up truck that is anything but entry level. I just don't see many taking a 4.3 in a loaded up truck,

And Yes Chevy tried the Turbo on the 4.3 in several prototypes and it was not a good idea then nor is it now.

And Yes Chevy tried the Turbo on the 4.3 in several prototypes and it was not a good idea then nor is it now.

They actually put in production 20 years ago..remember the Syclone?

And Yes Chevy tried the Turbo on the 4.3 in several prototypes and it was not a good idea then nor is it now.

They actually put in production 20 years ago..remember the Syclone?

Yes it slipped my mind. I was also thinking about all the show cars and the Corvette GTP. I should have remembered as I almost bought a Syclone years ago.

The Atlas has to have been one GM's shortest lived engine architectures..the 6 cyl version is gone, I assume the 4 and 5 cyl versions will be gone when the Colorado/Canyon get replaced.

just putting a 5 or 6 speed behind the 4.3 should help alot....if it's staying.

the 3.6 has economies of scale and refinement people would look for... and not really be lacking in torque either compared to the 4.3L.

if we're going atlas... update the 5 Cylinder...maybe a light turbo charging.... but i have no experience with that motor.

will the new v8 be ready for the first year of these new trucks?

The I5 had better power than the 4.3 but is was just never a smooth engine. It felt as unrefind as the 4.3. So I would call it a good engine but just not good enought for today.

I suspect some form of the new turbo and non Turbo HV V6 will be used. These engines are going into many many of GM's future cars and they will do fine. They now have enough power with very flat torque bands. Their only question was would people accept them and based so far with Ford sales they seem to.

Not sure on the V8 as the word was the 2014 Vette was to be the first to get the new engine. As it is the new trucks look to be ready before that. We may have a year carry over on the old engines just to confuse things. I suspect we will also get a carry over with some truck like we normally do too. The Old classic deal that makes people buy the bug shields for the wrong body style for a one year.

Turbocharge the 4.3 V6.

Modded right-It would work.

Really.

Turbocharge the 4.3 V6.

Modded right-It would work.

Really.

Modded just right my Fiero could be a Ferrari killer too but that still does not mean that it would be a good idea.

The 4.3 like the Iron Duke and 3800 all lived and productive lives and now it is time to move on and do a more modern engine from a clean sheet of paper. GM now could afford to do it correctly for the first time in a long time. Investment in a new engine would be wise as it see greater use in the future.

I'm going to guess that either the Chicago or New York auto shows will be where the "show trucks" are debuted. Likely Chicago, as many have mentioned that is the traditional truck show, but NY has also been known for GMC releases in the past too.

I don't think clean sheet means what was done before couldn't be revisited,

Going to go on record here and call the debut of the 2014 GMXs: 2012 Texas State Fair in October. They will be sold after January '13 as '14s much like the '07 GMTs were sold in early '06.

I have a feeling TX state fair too. That is the largest truck market and it where most of the new trucks tend to show up.

I want to know what the new truck will weigh in at. GM needs to lose weight starting with this truck and continue with the next next several generations. Ford is reported to be looking at Aluminum body panels.

Going to go on record here and call the debut of the 2014 GMXs: 2012 Texas State Fair in October. They will be sold after January '13 as '14s much like the '07 GMTs were sold in early '06.

I have a feeling TX state fair too. That is the largest truck market and it where most of the new trucks tend to show up.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but I still say that a show-version or pre-production truck will be shown in Chicago or New York to let the cat out of the bag. Then after that I can see the entire lineup debuting at the Texas State Fair.

Going to go on record here and call the debut of the 2014 GMXs: 2012 Texas State Fair in October. They will be sold after January '13 as '14s much like the '07 GMTs were sold in early '06.

I have a feeling TX state fair too. That is the largest truck market and it where most of the new trucks tend to show up.

I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but I still say that a show-version or pre-production truck will be shown in Chicago or New York to let the cat out of the bag. Then after that I can see the entire lineup debuting at the Texas State Fair.

Sounds good. So a 90% show truck for Chi town and then release the production model at Texas in time for the Deep Fry contest.

GM really needs to do this because of Ford's success with the EcoBoost v6 in their F-series. GM is leaving money on the table if they do not follow suit. http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012/01/f-150-again-tops-chart-as-truck-sales-rebound/