2007 3/4 ton Suburban changes.....

[Silvertwinkie]

No, there isn't a diesel yet and yes, it is more like an Escalade, but I just was at the Chevy site and it now appears that the 8.1L is NO longer an option for the 2007 3/4 ton Suburban. This would seem to support the rumors that GM is limiting it's big block offerings. Not sure what this means for the '07 Silverados yet...could mean something, could mean nothing.

The '07 3/4 ton Burbs have a max tow rating of 9500lbs using 4.10 gearing.

Anyone that plans on getting a 30' or larger (newer) Airstream that have GVWRs upward of 9,000 to 10,000lbs, and wants to tow that with a Suburban, you better pick up a 2006 that still has the 8.1L (and 12k tow rating) or a used Suburban because the 8.1L with the 12k tow rating looks gone after the '06 model year.

[Airstream25]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

I just was at the Chevy site and it now appears that the 8.1L is NO longer an option for the 2007 3/4 ton Suburban. This would seem to support the rumors that GM is limiting it's big block offerings. Not sure what this means for the '07 Silverados yet...could mean something, could mean nothing.

I heard that the big SUVs are now coming under the new gas mileage requirements. This is probably why the 8.1 L has been dropped.
I think the big pickup trucks are still exempt.

[Silvertwinkie]

I've heard the similar talk. Problem is that are putting themselves out of a segment of buyers unless the get somthing in there with a higher tow capacity. Right now talkng strickly newer Airstreams, that means you can get a max of a 28' coach with a family. Anyone that wanted a 30', 31' and wanted to bring the family with them is gonna be pretty hard pressed with the 2007s and a crew cab pickup isn't really a great option if you have 3 kids, regardless if you get the DVD player or not. That rear interior cabin space make for great places for kids to play, sleep, etc. You can't simply throw a top on the pickup bed and say, hey kids, go back there while we're on the road and have at it.

It appears to me that given the fact that GM now has the LLY (not the newest generation) Duramax in the 2500 work van line (possibly with a 4L80e behind it), that it may be headed for the coming model years for Suburban, which frankly, IMHO, would be a great idea for two reasons:

1) Better fuel economy that they are looking to get
2) Better tow capacity for families that want to tow a larger coach getting them back into the section of the market they appear to be abandoning for now.

[CanoeStream]

I'm sure there will be a lot of interest after Airstream has some practical experience under their belts with lighter coaches at Airstream Europe. Lighter frames make some sense for smaller travel trailers -- it might be harder to implement for the longer segment of the line. I don't know that there's a hybrid on the books you'd want to be towing with ....

NYTimes had a recent article about how the Big Three have been putting technological advances into performance and not mileage. Serious haulers in the 3/4- and 1-ton range might remain available, but at what premium? Anyway, coming mileage standards will apply to both SUVs & trucks. Here's the article:

Light-truck mileage goals hit big SUVs hard
By Sholnn Freeman
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The federal government for the first time Wednesday set gas-mileage goals for the largest sport-utility vehicles and said minivans, pickups and SUVs as a group must increase their fuel efficiency by 11 percent over five years.

Big, gas-guzzling SUVs are hit hardest under the rule. The 3-ton Hummer H2, for instance, which now gets an average of 13.8 miles per gallon, will have to achieve 22 mpg by 2011. The Ford Explorer SUV will have to increase its fuel efficiency from 17.7 mpg to 25.2 mpg, while a Dodge Caravan will need to inch up from 22.7 mpg to 23.5 mpg.

"No SUV gets a pass," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said. The new standards represent the most ambitious fuel-economy goals for light trucks — SUVs, minivans and pickups — ever developed in the program's 27-year history, he said.

Nevertheless, environmental groups derided Wednesday's announcement, saying the rules are too modest for an administration that has called on the nation to kick its oil addiction.

Mineta's announcement comes as gasoline prices are nearing a six-month high, with a gallon of regular averaging $2.50 per gallon, or 35 cents more than it cost a year ago, according to the Department of Energy. At the same time, General Motors is staking its turnaround in profit this year on a new batch of large SUVs.

Mineta said the new rule is being phased in over five years to lessen the impact on the "fragile" U.S. auto industry, hit by declining market share and huge financial losses.

The new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards aim to improve the fuel economy of the light-truck category to 24 mpg by 2011 on an industrywide scale, up from 21.6 mpg on 2006 models.

The rule could force automakers to spend $6.7 billion to update light trucks with fuel-saving technology needed to meet the new regulations, Mineta said. He added that the rule will save 10.7 billion gallons of gasoline over five years and help the overall economy, outweighing the expense to automakers. The system also closes a loophole that excluded the largest and least-efficient SUVs in the industry from the fuel-economy rules.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry's primary lobbying group, said meeting the standards of the new rule will be a "challenge" for automakers.

Environmental groups continue to seek tougher standards.

"The biggest single step that the president could take to cut our oil addiction, curb global warming and save consumers money at the gas pump is raising [fuel economy] standards substantially, and that's not what they're doing," said Dan Becker, director of the global-warming program at the Sierra Club. "They are tinkering around the edges rather than using the most powerful tool they've got."

Becker and other environmentalists also complained that NHTSA retained a fuel-economy exemption for the industry's largest pickups. Vehicles such as the Ford F250 and F350 pickups are excluded.

GM and Ford Motor depend heavily on profit from large SUVs. Demand for the vehicles collapsed last year as rising gas prices roiled the U.S. market for new cars and trucks. The resulting slide in profits has led to a major restructuring in the industry.

GM and Ford have announced turnaround plans that include cutting billions in costs and eliminating as many as 60,000 jobs over the next few years. Executives at both companies have said developing more vehicles with greater fuel economy is essential to fixing the companies' financial problems.

Chris Preuss, a GM spokesman in Washington, D.C., said the run-up in gas prices already is shifting consumer demand toward more fuel-efficient models.

"As fuel economy becomes more of a part of the purchase equation to consumers, it proves to be easier to deal with at the manufacturing level," he said.

Mineta said the 2011 deadline for the more fuel-efficient SUVs gives automakers enough time to act. Rules affecting minivans, trucks and smaller SUVs will be phased in starting next year.

Mineta said NHTSA is studying ways to improve the fuel economy of passenger cars.

The average mileage requirement for all cars has been stalled at 27.5 mpg since the 1975 Energy Policy Conservation Act was signed by President Ford. The law set initial fuel-economy standards after the OPEC oil embargo.

[2airishuman]

did you miss this statement bob?

"Vehicles such as the Ford F250 and F350 pickups are excluded."

so it appears the 3/4 and 1 ton segment still will not count toward cafe average mpg figures....for another round at least.

and baby hummers get longer, land rovers get longer, and all luxo suvs get longer....

these new standards continue to push a moving targer bigger...

just like the now dead tax rule that plumped vw/porsche/toyota, gm, ford suvs over the 5000lb curb weight notch....

we are going to see more usage of diesels as haulers and tow'rs....it just may take ge'em a few years to catch up with mercedes/vw/ford/dodge...on this....same for toyota...

as they divest from isuzu....for the big burners....

diesel will rule towing soon....but it's gonna cost.

cheers
2air'

[Silvertwinkie]

I heard on the radio that the new MPG standards for SUVs will add up to $400 per truck.

I agree though, the big block is dead. Looks like enhanced small blocks and diesels will be it moving forward. So says CARB, so says the nation.

[Pick]

'Tis a shame to see the Big Blocks demise. When you consider the sticker price on a new Duramax is around $7500, that is 2500 gallons of gas, or fuel for 30,000 miles of driving.

[Silvertwinkie]

I just heard that the restyled Avalanche 2500 for '07 has had the 8.1L pulled (unconfirmed). No one seems to know if the truck line will too find itself in the same boat when the body refresh is done, but I'm with you Pick, the 8.1L clearly had a market until CARB came to town.

[Steve Heywood]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

I just heard that the restyled Avalanche 2500 for '07 has had the 8.1L pulled (unconfirmed). No one seems to know if the truck line will too find itself in the same boat when the body refresh is done, but I'm with you Pick, the 8.1L clearly had a market until CARB came to town.

I think you mean CAFE for Corporate Averate Fuel Economy, CARB is the California Air Resourses Board.

[Silvertwinkie]

Na, I really meant CARB. Those pesky CARB tree huggers in California (no offense meant toward Californians in general) seem to get the whole country in a pickle over emissions....the saying goes as of late, so says CARB, so says the nation. I know CAFE is what is causing this issue in the SUV line, but I can't help but feel that there's been some CARB influence or halo effect as CARB has been a leader in adding pollution control and other standards (adopted by other states and viewed nationally) that in effect are circumvented daily, but make maufacturers jump the flaming hoops and cost the average consumer $$$.

[Steve Heywood]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

Na, I really meant CARB. Those pesky CARB tree huggers in California (no offense meant toward Californians in general) seem to get the whole country in a pickle over emissions....the saying goes as of late, so says CARB, so says the nation. I know CAFE is what is causing this issue in the SUV line, but I can't help but feel that there's been some CARB influence or halo effect as CARB has been a leader in adding pollution control and other standards (adopted by other states and viewed nationally) that in effect are circumvented daily, but make maufacturers jump the flaming hoops and cost the average consumer $$$.

Just so you know, I think CARB is a royal pain!!!

Say what you want but I REALLY appreciate the clean exhaust of today's vehicles. As for CARB costing the rest of the country money, maybe...then again maybe not. Instead of CA only vehicles what we really need is to have ONE STANDARD for the entire US which in the end will cost all of us less $$$$!. I'm sick of drivetrains not being available in CA because it's not worth the $$$ to the get the combination certified for 10% of the market. The Europeans have the right idea, with few exceptions 100% of their vehicles meet CA standards which lowers their overall costs and make it much easier to get an out of state vehicle.

[2airishuman]

Originally Posted by Steve Heywood

I'm sick of drivetrains not being available in CA because it's not worth the $$$ to the get the combination certified for 10% of the market. .

hey steve.......

the powerstroke is now 50 states legal/certified....
took awhile to get the current engine data accepted...
but now it is....no changes in the powerplant....just the approval...

cheers
2air'

[Silvertwinkie]

It's a double edged sword. In one hand, standards would be helpful. OTOH, it would be difficult to get all 50 states to participate as they would have to meet the CA standards, which in fact are the highest in the nation. States being strapped for cash aren't gonna go for the universal standards and you can't ask CARB to lower their standards cause they actually need them for the most populated state in the union. The big three also won't touch it unless it's madated by the feds.....given the added costs (which they can't afford).

I agree fully that getting vehicles for CA has been a PITA and that's why I feel CARB's halo effect may be a slight bit why the big blocks are gone.

I agree, haze free cities are great, but think about this for a minute....

Compare the 50s, 60's and early 70's before we got into the emissions game. Gas was cheap, performance was there and then the embargo hit, the party was over and in the 80's the hangover loomed. Power gone, style gone, emissions controls everywhere and everything downsized.

Compare the number of vehicles on the road today to back in say the 50's and 60's combined. I would estimate that there are at least 10x more cars out there now. Yes emissions have helped, but if you look at the numbers closely, what you may find is that we in fact have only slightly reduced our emissions. Even though there are less nasty things coming out of the tailpipe, there are a heck of a lot more tailpipes out there, though it is true, it's better than it could have been without these things in place.

The only real way to curb the problem is by getting alternate fuels (hydrogen, electric, hybrid, etc). Anything less IMHO and all you are doing is putting a band aid on a wound that needs 25 or more stitches.

Keep in mind NONE of this takes into account China which is the most populated country, and is as addicted to petrolium as we are, yet has nearly zero emission controls. It also doesn't take into account the handful of smaller countries that pollute at will to nearly 1/4 of what the US puts out annually. I guess what I'm gettin' at is acting locally, but dropping the global ball.

Though helpful, I just can't help but feel it's one big game......and the latest casuality is the big block with the first shot fired over the SUV bow. To me that's sad, cause there's no diesel burb and if I want to go to a 31' Airstream in the next year, if I load 'er up and start a family, the current situation won't work. The Excursion is gone (or going away). So that leaves diesel pickup trucks? Not that there is anything wrong with pickups or crew cab pickups, but for a family of 5, pets, etc?

[SilverToy]

Eric etal -

So that poses the question - if you needed a NEW TV today for the family of 5 plus jumbo trailer and accessories, What would it be??

I ask since I am starting the 'new TV' thinking and this possible dearth of motor situation may accellerate my thinking. Would like to stay with GM but could go elsewhere if need be.

Curious on your thoughts, and understand that individual mileage may vary.

Axel

[Silvertwinkie]

I haven't done a lot of research on it cause I'm not in that situation....yet, but if I were getting a 30' or larger (and newer type) Airstream, had a family, I'd be looking at either a new 2006 with the 8.1L or if I had to do it later, looking for a good used one. In retrospect, if I had to do it all over again, I'm not sure I'd by new for a mass produced with most options type truck again. They loose their value like a guy in a whorehouse with a fist full of fifties..... It might not be a bad idea to look pre-owned....lots of great Burbs with the 8.1L with low miles for about $30k (new can be upwared of $51k retail).

If for some reason one liked Fords (no shame, admitting it is have the road to recovery ), I suppose they'd be in the same boat, although I do recall the Expedition getting a bit more meat, it was a far cry from the Excursion and for your 34 footer not sure I'd consider the Expedition anyway.

If I was sticking to 25' or 28' (smaller, and a good 1/2 would do) the 6.0L 3/4 ton Suburban would still be a good choice for a TV with chidlren IMHO.

[Steve Heywood]

Originally Posted by 2airishuman

hey steve.......

the powerstroke is now 50 states legal/certified....
took awhile to get the current engine data accepted...
but now it is....no changes in the powerplant....just the approval...

cheers
2air'

How did the Ford Powerstroke wander into this thread?

FWIW my 05 Powerstroke has CA emissions, it IS NOT a 50 state truck.

[CanoeStream]

Thanks for pointing that out 2airishumin. Wish I had time for every last detail. If I err it is only because I too am human .... Let's digress to the real story --

I don't doubt that GM will support diesels that they have installed. National party politics go pillar to post when we heard how gas guzzlers were an American right not so very long ago. The tea leaves have been leaning to conservation for the last year or more and the latest federal SUV/truck MPG guidelines certainly make that clear.

Get it while you can? Ya gotta wonder about GM's commitment to heavy haulers (a.k.a. diesel) when you see today's article in the NYTimes: G.M. Sells Isuzu Stake for $300 Million (this link will remain active for only a short period; free membership may be required). This isn't necessarily/only a MoHo issue. See: ford diesel vs. chevy d/a

Perspectives that build on the Big Three's commitment are welcome.

From today's New York Times:

G.M. Sells Isuzu Stake for $300 Million

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: April 11, 2006

Filed at 10:11 a.m. ET
TOKYO (AP) -- Cash-strapped General Motors Corp. is selling the shares it holds in truckmaker Isuzu to two Japanese trading companies and a bank for about $300 million to fund its turnaround in North America, the U.S. automaker said Tuesday.


"Disposing of the Isuzu stake marks the latest retreat for a company besieged by staggering losses, labor problems and mounting competition from Asian automakers. The move also highlights GM's rapid pullout from Japanese partnerships it has built since the 1970s.


"GM said last month that it was selling the 7.9 percent stake it held in Isuzu Motors Ltd., or about 90 million shares, but will keep its business partnership with Isuzu, such as joint development and manufacturing of trucks and diesel engines.


"Previously, the Detroit-based automaker had been the top stakeholder in Isuzu.


"Mitsubishi Corp., which has a joint venture with Isuzu to make and sell trucks in Thailand, is purchasing 40 million shares at 16 billion yen ($135 million), raising its stake in Isuzu from 0.2 percent to 3.7 percent.
Itochu Corp., which has a partnership with both GM and Isuzu, is also purchasing 40 million shares at 16 billion yen ($135 million), raising its stake to 4.2 percent, and Mizuho Corporate Bank, which works as Isuzu's main bank, is acquiring 10 million shares for 4 billion yen ($34 million), the companies said.


"GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said the sale was needed to strengthen GM's balance sheet during the revival effort and would not end the alliance with Isuzu.


"''Our relationship is strong and getting stronger, and we look forward to our continued partnership,'' he said in a statement.
Shinji Kitayama, auto analyst with Shinko Securities Co. in Tokyo, said the shares were going to businesses that already had ties with Isuzu, and made sense.


"Earlier this month, GM sold 17 percent of Suzuki Motor Corp. for about $2 billion, leaving it with a 3 percent stake. That followed last year's sale of GM's entire 20 percent stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, the maker of Subaru cars.


"The GM-Isuzu partnership covers the development, manufacturing and distribution of pickup trucks in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. They make diesel engines for cars in Europe and pickups in the United States.


"GM acquired a 34 percent stake in Isuzu in 1971, and raised that to 49 percent in 1998. In 2002, GM lowered its stake to 12 percent, and to 7.9 percent last year.


"Isuzu's shares, which have doubled in recent months compared to a year ago, rose 2.6 percent in Tokyo trading to 440 yen ($4). Isuzu and General Motors made their announcement after trading ended in Tokyo.
General Motors, the world's largest automaker which lost $10.6 billion last year and plans to close 12 facilities in North America by 2008, also said earlier this month that it's selling a 51 percent stake in its finance arm in a deal expected to generate $14 billion."

[Silvertwinkie]

Ok, I saw a 3/4 Chevy van (2006) today with a Duramax (LLY version).

GM is clearly putting the second generation Duramax (not the current 3rd generation Duramax) into the work van line. I took a peak under it and clearly, there is no Allision transmission. Looks like a modified 4L80e. Bell housing didn't look like cast aluminum either.

I wonder how long it will take to put this into the Burb? I can't see it being far off now.

[Frank S]

Hi--My experience has been all Chevy small block, 3/4 ton window vans (not conversion vans which always have 3.42 or smaller rear), and 1/2 ton Suburbans. Started in 1971 with vans, when the kids were smaller, and switched to Suburbans in the late 1980s. I like both. The vans are a lot more versatile (can fit in just about every thing and every body) and new are about $10K less for the same running gear. Switched to Suburbans, because they were less expensive over all due to minimum depreciation (no more), and a little better ride. Would not hesitate to go back to a full size van if I needed more engine than available in a Suburban. In fact I've been toying with getting a 155" wheel base 1 ton commercial van with a big engine, opening windows in the curb side, and rear doors, and building it into a mini motor home, A/S TV, for my 27' Overlander. Guess I strayed a little off topic, but it would be silver.--Frank S

[wahoonc]

Get Honda to build it for ya! IIRC everytime a new set of proposed CARB standards have come out Honda has always had a vehicle that could meet the proposed standards...NOW! Honda has always been on the ready edge of the clean air standards, with their CVCC engines in the mid to late 70's(without a catalytic converter) and one of the first to bring a hybrid to the mass market. They also had an automatic control system using video sensors that keyed off of the highway stripes...Unfortunately Honda doesn't seem to have a stake or interest in the diesel market.

Aaron