By the year 2025, General Motors is planning to streamline its vehicle platforms from nearly 30 to a grand total of four flexible vehicle sets. Internally called Vehicle Set Strategy, of VSS, the initiative has a completion date of 2025 – by which time all GM vehicles will use one of the four sets.
Following is a detailed account of what we know about GM’s VSS undertaking, as available via GM’s own presentation available here (PDF format).
Overview
VSS has been in play in one form or another since the 2013-2014 timeframe and carries several major benefits, including:
- Decreasing development time/time to market
- Improving efficiency in engineering, manufacturing and purchasing
- Increasing margins
- Unlocking greater pricing power
- Improving relationships with key suppliers
During a 2014 presentation to analysts, GM product development chief, Mark Reuss, described the move as an “evolution of architectures” that is driven by customer demands.
The Four Sets
The four GM vehicle sets include a set for front-drive cars, rear-drive cars, crossovers and trucks/ladder-frame-style SUVs, as follows:
- VSS-F for front-wheel-drive cars
- VSS-R for rear-wheel-drive cars
- VSS-S for crossovers (high-roof, high-clearance cars)
- VSS-T for trucks and (body-on-frame) SUVs
The four sets, in turn, are believed to have subsets for differently-sized models. For instance, we have it on good accord that VSS-F was to have the following three sub-sets at some point during development:
- VSS-F A for A segment cars (city cars like the Spark)
- VSS-F B/C for B segment cars (like the Chevrolet Sonic) and C segment cars (like the Chevrolet Cruze)
- VSS-F D/E for D segment cars (like the Chevrolet Malibu) and E segment cars (like the Chevrolet Impala)
The four sets cover every product in GM’s current vehicle portfolio. The only models that the sets might not cover are specialized sports cars such as the Chevrolet Corvette, which might remain on a “dedicated” platform in the traditional sense of the word.
“We’re designing across segments to get scale we never (had) before,” said GM product chief Mark Reuss (via WardsAuto), citing B- and C-segment vehicles that will share common suspension components, for example, but feature different tuning depending on ride and cost targets. “This is the key to unlocking scale and specific customer requirements around the world.”
Benefits
The transition from global and regional vehicle platforms/architectures to vehicle sets is a significant undertaking that is expected to carry equally major benefits.
For starters, it is intended to simplify and shorten the time needed to engineer and manufacture future GM vehicles while enabling the automaker to better tailor individual models to regional markets and specific segments and sectors around the world.
If it succeeds, VSS could eventually save GM billions of dollars in engineering, production costs including tooling, purchasing/components, and other manufacturing-related expenses. That is despite initial expenses and investments involved in tearing up and retooling assembly plants, which will likely cost in the billions. But once that’s done, “the economies of scale will be massive – if everything works properly”, according to senior manager of forecasting at research firm LMC Automotive, Bill Rinna.
The reduction to four core vehicle sets will also give GM enormous pricing power while creating volumes for vehicle programs that will allow it to develop better relationships with key suppliers.
Perhaps most importantly for customers, GM will no longer have engineering teams dedicated to wringing costs out of existing models, squeezing margins for suppliers, which puts them and the automaker at risk.
“We had people working on things going out of production,” said Reuss, referring to the misallocation of resources that VSS will redirect toward developing all-new models. “We want to (get pricing right) the first time. That’s what we have to do.”
GM CFO Chuck Stevens states that the automaker has developed better cost modeling to pursue “opportunities on a win-win basis with suppliers.” He told analysts that the automaker expects a material cost savings of $900 million per year.
Technically Speaking
Despite sounding relatively simple, GM’s Vehicle Set Strategy is actually quite complex.
At its core, the strategy involves modifying three primary vehicle modules – the engine compartment, the passenger compartment, and the cargo compartment. GM is engineering the four sets with provisions to change specific hardware such as engines and suspensions to match vehicle size and type, as well as market segment and geographic region.
Reuss describes the undertaking as “a pretty amazing transformation” of GM’s processes. “This is the key to unlocking scale and (meeting) specific customer requirements around the world.”
In that regard, even the vocabulary associated with the technical side of the automotive sphere is changing. Joe Langley, principal analyst at research and consulting firm IHS Automotive, refers to the concept of “Lego-like component sets (that) redefine what the industry traditionally referred to as platforms.”
Development
VSS development commenced in the 2013-2014 timeframe under Mary Barra when she headed GM’s global product development department before she succeeded Dan Akerson as CEO in January 2014, and as Chairman of the board in 2016.
“It’s something we’ve been working on for more than a couple years,” she told reporters (via Reuters). “We’ve done extensive benchmarking (and) there’s been tremendous progress made already.”
Timeframe
In 2015 and 2016, GM had 14 core platforms and 12 regional architectures (for a total of 26) in play. The automaker is targeting calendar year 2025 as having its entire vehicle lineup utilizing the four aforementioned Vehicle Sets.
The first two Vehicle Sets – VSS-F and VSS-T – will roll out in 2020. At that time, GM will be using the two sets along with 11 core platforms and two regional ones.
Comments
Smart
Makes sense in the transition from gas-powered to electric-powered architecture.
Rather than power plants (‘engines’) sitting up front (most vehicles), or in the middle/rear (‘C8’ mid engine Corvette), this architecture will likely make allowances to accommodate electric motors at all 4 corners, or in the middle of axles or whatever configuration is needed to leave room for the battery compartments of EV architecture.
Was there any mention of electrification in the presentation? Like it or not, electric powertrains are the focus moving forward (and also fuel cells). I would imagine these will all be electric friendly platforms.
This sounds very similar to VW’s MQB and MLB platforms; scaleable and highly versatile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MQB_platform
Correct. The biggest differences are that the MQB and MLB can support crossovers.
From what I know currently, the GM equivalents (VSS-F and VSS-R) can not support crossovers… hence the existence of VSS-S. Not sure why GM continues to make separate platforms (or in this case, vehicle sets) for crossovers while the rest of the industry derives crossovers from cars. Seems to be more unnecessary complexity.
One more noteworthy point is that it does not appear that VSS-R can underpin CUVs… meaning that future Cadillac crossovers will all but certainly be underpinned by the front-drive-derived VSS-S… the same set that will underpin crossovers from Chevy, Buick and GMC. Quite a sad reality when Jaguar, BMW, and Mercedes are continuing to offer sporty crossovers derived from rear-drive architectures.
This may possibly, in turn, keep certain cars alive which would otherwise have to die.
If an Impala and a LaCrosse were (really and very nearly) an extremely similar car, the justification of keeping one around might keep both around.
Perhaps the need for VSS-S architecture is a function of the VSS ‘pillars’ which protects certain spaces in the architecture??
If you have a protected space on the VSS-F or VSS-R platforms (say internal wheel arches and their projection into the cabin space – probably not a good example, but I’m trying to illustrate here.) that contradicts the Customer Use priority in the VSS-S platform (eg. big open, interfered/uninterrupted floor space) then it becomes apparent why there is a differing platform. It’s a clash of consumer need with engineering, possibly.
But the customer wins out ultimately, because sales fund future investment and new products. Engineering, while important, has to take a back seat to consumer need.
D2XX and E2XX support SUV-configuration. Maybe VSS-S will be able to support FWD and RWD layout.
Not just sportier, but with more capability and powertrain choices available.
If this is the case, it’s criminal how:
-Cadillac’s CUVs will all be forced to use the same nose-heavy layout, with the same 2.0T and 3.6 engines, leaving them with ‘meh’ performance at best in what will be the most visible segments
-Buick and GMC (especially Buick) can’t go-all out in features and luxury because they must avoid stepping on Cadillac’s toes
-GMC won’t get a hand-me-down platform to TRULY compete with the Jeep Grand Cherokee
-The competition Chevy gets from other mainstream automakers (without mid-tier divisions like Buick-GMC) will continue to force Chevy’s higher trims into Buick-GMC territory
-Once automakers realize that people DO care about a car’s character and driving experience, and will pay top-dollar for it, it will be too late for GM to compete
Alex, I hope you’re wrong, and that VSS-R is ENTIRELY flexible, or that GM at least left the door open for there to be a VSS-S/R
I tthink you are wrong! 1% of the people care about what platform a car is On! Most people don’t even have a clue, or couldn’t tell you what the name of the platforms are and wha t different types of cars are built on them!
So with this in mind the decision to to this a brilliant and will make GM a leader in the industry. Forcing the rest of the industry to copy GM’S lead and reduce platforms!
The engines that get used will come and go over time, the performance of these engines will be tweaked to make the cars they get installed in competitive.
1. The platform doesn’t matter and most people do not care about it. This is correct.
2. Whether or not it’s 1% is something you can’t actually say with any level of confidence or conviction… these polls and figures simply do not exist… so let’s not throw in baseless figures.
3. What does matter is the driving experience… and this is what people *do* care about. They might not know about the technical/mechanical elements, but they sure as day know the difference between a nose-heavy XT5 and a well-balanced BMW X3 when driving them for a day or more.
4. You assessment that GM is leading the industry in reducing platforms is woefully incorrect. GM still has more platforms than anyone else right now. The VSS initiative will address that, but call a spade a spade – VSS is not about getting ahead, but rather about keeping up with the industry. The likes of Toyota, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, BMW-Mini, Volkswagen Group, etc. have either already done something like VSS or are in the process of doing it, like GM.
This. Most people don’t know what a platform is, or care which wheels drive the car, but what auto manufacturers and we auto enthusiasts DO know is that those things directly affect what people DO care about.
If a vehicle is gonna set you back $70k+, it darn well feel special to drive, come with as many cylinders the customer is willing to pay for, and look like a million bucks. Most FWD-based vehicles can’t do this with their average to sloppy handling, a cap at 6 cylinders, and awkward proportions. For further evidence, I direct you to the Cadillac XTS. Sure, it sells decent, but does it sell ANYWHERE near MSRP? What’s the average transaction price?
Agreed. I’ve always said that most people know nothing about cars but that doesn’t mean their automobile purchases aren’t still influenced by the people who do. As a car enthusiast, I’ve been asked by most everyone I know for car buying advice. I’ve steered numerous people to certain cars and away from others. Likewise, magazine writers for the four prominent enthusiast car magazines have a profound impact on purchasers. Lastly, the uninformed often tend to “follow the herd” and at the head of the herd, there are knowledgeable leaders.
Thus, to say that GM can sell inferior products because people “won’t know any better” isn’t really an accurate assumption. GM is going to have impress me, the writers at Car and Driver, and countless other ‘influencers’ before their fortunes will improve.
If a person is buying a car because they spoke to someone or read a magazine then he’s a fool
VW has led the industry in this. Had it not been for the Diesel scandals, good press would abound.
This sounds like a recall nightmare. This set up means that one poor engineering choice will doom a massive, multi segment array of autos.
I wonder how involved Russelheim is in this? Opel has made the best GM products over the last decade.
Opel is gone. Duh!
They’ve been sold by GM to PSA, but they are still tied to GM (existing platforms, drivetrains, powertrains, components, etc.). Those haven’t disappeared with the sale of Opel, and are still relevant in the near term.
Let’s keep in mind that GM’s vehicle development processes have changed drastically over the past 10 years as led by Barra and Reuss… and we haven’t really seen the complete impact of these changes in the current products. Everything from the way they do business with suppliers (highly important but very behind the scenes) to the engineering processes have been rethought and improved. Outside of the Omega architecture for the Caddy CT6, the VSS initiative will be the first true showcase of these changes/improvements.
But let’s not pretend that Opel is/was the only competent GM product development organization. Yes, they did great work… but that was for a reason.
Specifically, Opel was tasked with making premium-class mainstream cars based on European market needs and expectations. Despite the Astra and Cruze being on the same platform, the Astra was more desirable because it used more premium materials and had more premium features compared to the Cruze. The circumstance was the result of the Astra selling for a premium compared to the Cruze. The same can be said of the Insignia vs. Malibu and other platform mates between Opel and Chevrolet. So this wasn’t so much Opel making a great product… but rather of Opel building a better, higher-priced product that it was tasked to do in the first place.
Today, the balance of things has shifted: GM US (mostly in Warren) can make as good or better a vehicle as Opel… as long as they are assigned to make such a vehicle. Case and point: the entire Cadillac sedan lineup.
So it’s more about the initial assignment than it is about building great cars: Opel was assigned to develop more premium vehicles as a result of the market it competes in… GM U.S. (and Korea) was assigned to develop cheaper vehicles because of the market it competes in. For this very reason, Opels are (mostly) not sold as Chevrolets but as Buicks, where they can potentially garner a premium/higher prices compared to Chevrolet.
On the other hand, Volkswagen struggled in the U.S. because of this. For years, it pushed its European products in the U.S. to little commercial success because of prices that were higher than the competition as a result of being developed for European market needs/expectations. But people here just didn’t see it relevant to pay a premium for (what were mostly) small cars. VW also made the mistake of not de-contending its vehicles for the U.S. market at that time to hit a lower price point. Now, the tide has swung the other way: small cars are “in” in America… and consumers are paying good money for them. But VW is making less competitive products specifically for America just to hit a lower price point (NMS Passat… Jetta, etc.)
To bring an end to this long-winded reply: GM can make as good or as bad a car as it wants to. It all depends on the segment in question. But the GM of today is not even close to the GM of 20 or even ten years ago.
My primary concern is that, as we all know, European tastes and specs are the global benchmark. For years, the Japanese used VW, BMW and Opel (the current Civic was benchmarked against Astra). Russelheim and Opel privided GM a cat birds seat. There is no doubt that not on paper but holistically earned far more than it list as Opel technology and product spread around the globe as Chevrolet, Buick, Holden and Baogun. Warren, Russelheim and Korea is what I’ve the last decade transformed General Motor into Global Mobility otherwise known as the new GM.
In some ways Buick may benefit from the sale of Opel. Opel products were “Oldsmobile” good, not luxury good. Product like Astra, Adam, Insignia compete more with One Ford and probably belonged badged as Chevrolet with extra costs mitigated by volume.
This is not smart it is going to be required to retain cost.
The companies that fail to do this will fail.
The key is to make them as flexible as possible. Make them with hard points that can be easily moved.
While EV and fuel cells will be growing but ICE will remain the the majority player and it will pay the bills till the cost come down on EV models.
In the past this was a tough thing to do. But today with the computer design and GM updating platforms more often this should not be too difficult to do.
The changeover will happen much faster than most people think.
http://www.teslarati.com/automakers-come-acceptance-ev-revolution-begun/
So the next gen Silverado/sierra is going to be vsst?
That’s an unknown. It might be or it might go to an intermediary platform.
Currently unclear whether the T1 bones for the next gen Silverado and Sierra will be a set or a platform.
Because I just think it wouldn’t be too smart if both trucks are going to be still on the T1xx and then now they’re talking about vsst that’s rolling out in 2020 where the new trucks are coming out sometimes this year or next year in which vsst is coming out in a year or two
VSS-T does sound a lot like “T platform”, doesn’t it?
VW’s 2 modular construction sets differ not by front drive or rear wheel drive, but by the orientation of the engine:
• Q from “quer”, German for transversal or as crossbeam, withwise
• L from ” längs”, German for longitudinally or lengthwise
L is used in the larger Audis, which, while having the engine longitudinal, are still primary front drive, with the “quattro” four-wheel drive option
This is not too wise. From an accounting standpoint it makes perfect sense. The old Henry Ford “You can have any color you want as long as it is Black.” syndrome. GM nearly put Ford out of business painting cars in colors.
I am sure there are arguments on both sides. GM’s history tells me they will screw it up. The Chevy people will say Why buy a Cadillac, it is on our platform. and the Cadillac owners will say, Why buy a Cadillac when it is on a Chevy platform.
To do it right, you start with it as a Cadillac platform, and let Chevy use a “De Contented” version, that will work, but not the other way.
The “Cadillac platform” will be VSS-R… and it will only be shared with the next Camaro as is currently the case with the ATS, CTS and Camaro.
So long as there is a “Cadillac platform” in play – which there is with VSS-R – the issue you’re describing is moot… it doesn’t exist.
Great!
Sounds like a good plan if you are going to downsize a corporation. Good bye to Cadillac, Chevrolet and Buick . One brand , GMC, like Toyota, BMW etc. A bean counter Wall Street plan were you lease disposal plain white vehicles to the world masses. This is a social response with computers, high technology and people loosing their love of automobiles. Something to think about. It may sound far fetched but look around at the current signs for tomorrow ‘s world.
You seem to be completely missing the point of what is taking place here.
The four architectures will support every single GM vehicle in production now… and then some.
So now, this has nothing to do with downsizing… it’s all about optimizing the organization and being able to do the same as or more than they are doing now but with less… and doing it all faster than before. Translation = being more competitive.
Good for economy of scales. In my opinion GM can use the next Alpha2 for more cars and brands. For example, the the long alpha can underpin the CT5, Impala, Montecarlo large coupe and the short Alpha can underpin the CT3, Malibu, Camaro, Regal and Regal GNX. the difference will be in the design and interior of each brand. The next Omega could also be shared with Buick for the Lacrosse.
That is their failing. They look at GM the way Marx looked at the economy failing to understand the nature of the human spirit. They are going to throw their market away to foreign brands, and lament, no one wanted them anymore.
An interesting study is the aircraft industry. Engineers in charge, make tons of money and grow, put economists in charge they go broke quickly. Just before going BK, they would put an engineer in charge to blame the failure on, yet the company would recover and become profitable again. Only to be handed back to a controller. All industries failed for the same reason. It is philosophy of business.
Like the head economist of 3M told me 30 years ago, the difference between a dead economist, and a dead dog is there are no skid marks infront of the economist.
Here we go, more gm is doom, funny!!!!. Scott3 your right in your statement.
I am glad GM has the balls to do this and not wait until the rest of the industry forces them to!
The rest of the industry either has already done this or is in the process of doing this. So in effect, GM did get “forced” to do this.
Reminds me of the Chrysler K-car in the 80s. Back then everything from their mainstream value-priced Plymouth Aries sedan, to their sporty hatchback Dodge Daytona, to the luxurious top-the-line Chrysler New Yorker was based on the same rudimentary FWD platform. They even developed their very successful and segment creating “mini-vans”, the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan, off the K-car platform.
Sounds like GM will have the equivalent of four K-cars (or a 4K Strategy); one for FWD cars, another for RWD cars, a platform for FWD Crossovers, and a fourth for RWD trucks, cargo vans, etc.
When the entire industry builds mostly just electric vehicles, what happens to people who live in apartments or condos that do not have a garage to recharge their cars because unless cities tear up their streets to build infrastructure where parking spaces become recharging stations; the only people who will buy a Electric Vehicle is someone who owns a home.
Now stop asking questions that are forcing them with to use logic they don’t want to think about. This is a one dimensional world to them. Stop confusing them. They almost made it through the 4th grade.
I can see a point in the VSS-R, and VSS-T platforms. The Cruze, Camaro, Impala, Malibu, and blazer should all go on the VSS-R platform and the Colorado, Traverse, Silverado, Tahoe and Suburban should go on the VSS-T platforms. There is never a point to having a front wheel drive car when you can have a rear-wheel based all-wheel drive setup.
Just focusing on the Chevrolet platform alone, GM could save themselves a ton of money. Drop the Spark, Sonic, the Equinox and the Trax. Move the Cruze to the VSS-R platform, give it the option of either rear wheel drive or all wheel drive and offer three engines, the turbo diesel, a 2.0L Turbo 295hp/310lb-ft torque, and at the top the new 2.7L Turbo-4 with power levels at 350hp/350tq. Put the 10-speed auto transmission behind those engines with an optional Tremec 6-speed. The car should be available in hatchback only along with offering a performance AWD SS model with the 2.7L Turbo, Brembo brakes, Recaro seats, dual exhaust, magnetic ride 1LE type suspension, aggressive styling, etc. Next up would be the Malibu which would offer AWD only on three trim levels, Premier, RS and LT with the engines being the turbo diesel, the 1.6L Ecotec and the 2.0L Ecotec I-4 engines. From there we have the Camaro. The Camaro does need a few changes such as better visibility and a larger trunk (at least equal to the mustang). From there the Camaro should offer the base I-4 with a Berlinetta AWD package focusing on Buick Avenir-level luxury with the 310hp/350tq 2.7L turbo, a 10-speed auto and all-wheel drive. Next up from there should be the RS Camaro with the new 5.3L V8 boasting 405hp and 400lb-ft of torque. Staying under the Camaro SS package, the 5.3L RS package should have dual exhaust, 18″ wheels, 4-piston Brembo brakes all the way around, sport cloth seats, 10-speed auto/6-speed manual, 1LE performance package, 4″ lip rear spoiler, optional RS Appearance package ground effects and special wheels and a few other specific RS pieces. Above that should be the SS package with the 495hp 6.2L LT1 V8 of course with the optional 1LE package. Above that should be a new Z/28 & Z/28R package Camaro, bringing back the 7.0L V8 with 530hp/510lb-ft torque with the R-package stripped for hard track use and the regular Z/28 having the track equipment (DSSV suspension, Carbon Ceramic Brembo brakes, unique tri-y mid-length headers, ultra high flow exhaust, etc.) but having a full interior with all creature comforts of the Camaro ZL1. Above the Z28 should be the ZL1 Camaro and ZL1 1LE. Both cars should have the LT5 750hp supercharged V8 and that be that. Next car in line should be the Impala and the return of the Impala SS with the 495hp LT1 V8. Truthfully there should be an impala with every engine the Camaro has, which would probably lead to the return of the Impala Z/24 with the 7.0L (which would pay homage to the 67 SS-427 Impala and it would also go head to head with the SRT-392 Hellcat Charger (but be a lot lighter) and a better equipped car with Big Brembo brakes, Z/28 aerodynamics, wide 20×10″ wheels, DSSV suspension, Brembo brakes, Recaro seats, mid length headers, dual mode exhaust system, full interior, etc. At the top of the line for performance there should be a 750hp LT4 Impala Redline with all of the ZL1 equipment in a four door sedan. At the other end of the spectrum should be a 5.3L LTZ luxury class Impala SS with the 10-speed auto and bred for comfort with AWD and lastly the base impala LT with the 310hp 2.7L Turbo I-4. The last vehicle on the VSS-R platform should be the Blazer SUV and of course with the base 2.7L 310hp Turbo I-4, a Premier variant with the same 2.7L Turbo I-4, the RS version with the 5.3L w/ 395hp and 400lb-ft of torque and the SS Blazer with the 495hp LT1. AWD should be standard on all of the models along with the 10-speed auto.
Moving up to the VSS-T platform, you have the Colorado and the Traverse. Put the Traverse on the Colorado platform, offer both vehicles with ZR2 off-road packages with the V6 Duramax engine and the optional 2.7L 310hp/350tq I-4 turbo, High Country Luxury packages with the 2.7L v6 310hp/350tq and lastly the RS trim with the 350hp/350tq variant of the 2.7L I-4 turbo. The Traverse should compete with the Toyota 4-Runner including the 4-Runner TRD. The Colorado should have the Sports Cat option in the USA just like it does in Australia. Above that should be the Silverado 1500 series pickup truck, which is absolutely fine except it’s missing three trim levels, a Retro inspired Cheyenne with the 5.3L V8, cold air intake, dual Borla exhaust system, the two tone graphics, 20″ wheels, comfort-weave style seats, bed rails, a tonneau cover that has rails inside the bed so the bed rails will still work, etc. The next option would be the SS package which should be lowered, have Magnetic ride, Brembo brakes, 22″ performance wheels and tires, active valve exhaust, mid-length headers, a 510hp 6.2L LT1 variant with the 10-speed auto, All wheel drive (not 4×4) performance interior with Recaro seats, alcantara steering wheel and upholstery, premium stereo, privacy glass, sunroof, short bed, dark housing lamps with LED/HID, performance hood, upgraded aerodynamics, etc. Lastly should be a ZR2 package 1500 with the Duramax V8 diesel, Allison transmission, Dana axles, off road suspension, 33″ tires, 20″ bead lock performance off road wheels, high flow dual stack exhaust, skid plates, high flow intake system and snorkel, performance hood, body armor, etc. This isn’t designed to be a dune jumper but a serious off roader. The Tahoe should get an off road package that’s more capable than the Z71 midnight package but not as serious as a ZR2. I believe it should be the Tahoe Z71 Trailblazer 4×4 package that does offer 33″ tires, bead lock wheels, a 2″ lifted off road suspension a 5.3L V8, 10-speed auto, 4×4, independent front and rear suspension, a washable interior, etc. Of course, the Tahoe should also get a true RST package, meaning a 495hp LT1 V8 with the mid-length factory headers, magnetic ride, Brembo brakes, better handling, fully lowered performance suspension, improved aerodynamics, privacy glass, active dual exhaust, performance interior, etc. Lastly the Tahoe and the Suburban need a High Country package as well as moving the Suburban to the 2500 Platform and giving it a full Duramax Diesel V8 as well as an optional 6.2L and standard 5.3L while the Tahoe stays on the 1500 platform and should receive the 2.7L turbo as the base engine while going up to the 5.3L, the 6.2L. The Silverado HD needs a cool package besides the Midnight packages as well. Something with Stacks, a lift 22″ HD wheels with a Dually setup in the back with the option for the super single wheels with a luxury interior that would be like a mix of a high country, a Z71 and the Midnight edition. Cadillac-level leather interior, infotainment and luxury all while still being a Chevy truck. Now that would be a cool lineup! Not only would it save money by dropping the useless models but it would also make Chevrolet’s lineup absolutely desirable.
Just as I mentioned above with Buick becoming a rival for BMW, Cadillac should be the natural American rival of Mercedes Benz. GM has the right idea with consolidating lineups with the Vehicle specific sets but also targeting certain European vehicles in Competition of sales. This is not a full attempt to stop the sales of high end European vehicles but to take large chunks out of the import market.
The first item on the menu for Cadillac is the Corvette. The Corvette should fall under the Cadillac umbrella as the Corvette ushers in an all new design of a rear engine vehicle and it should have its sights set on Lamborghini. The Corvette needs to be an AWD vehicle but the LT series engine should drop out to make way for new DOHC twin turbo V8 engines pushing a minimum of 650hp with a fusion of Corvette and Cadillac styling. that should take the car to new levels.
Beyond the Corvette, Cadillac has already ushered in the new DOHC V8 twin turbo V8. DOHC V6 twin turbo and DOHC V8 twin turbo engines should be under the hood of every Cadillac Vehicle, with Cadillac focusing its sights on Mercedes cars such as the C-Class, E-Class, the CLS Class, the S-Class, the GLE Class, the GLS Class and the G-Class. The VSS-R class should carry all of the cars along with the GLE SUV while the GLS and the G-Class should be handled by the VSS-T chassis. The New Escalade should directly compete with the G-Class Mercedes SUV, carrying the brands edgy, sporty, sophisticated appearance with all new engines, a DCT transmission, AWD, independent suspension, Brembo brakes, magnetic ride, and all of the bells and whistles, ride about 2″ lower to the ground have a good sounding exhaust system, ultra premium Cadillac interior and still ride and perform like a Cadillac. The SUV to slot under that should be the XT7 SUV which should be a vehicle to compete with not only the GLE Class SUV but with the Porsche Cayenne, and the Range Rover lineup including the SVR. As far as the cars go, the new CT4 coupe, CT5 sedan, CT6 sedan, the Elmiraj full size coupe and the Escala all need to be put into production effective immediately with models that bench mark the AMG vehicles.
Another thing that GM could do is really start taking more of an interest in their GM Performance & Accessories lineup. There are so many companies that they could partner with and offer factory backed options with warranties (provided the parts are installed by a licensed and approved GM Dealer or shop). GM Performance could partner with companies such as Holley, Magnaflow, Corsa, Edelbrock, Comp Cams, Magnuson superchargers, Rockford Fosgate, MTX, AFE, Vossen, CCW, Forgeline/Raceline wheels, MHT wheels, Borla, and a few other companies to enhance their presence as a manufacturer that understands that to some, a car is more than just a car, its a passion. So many people still modify their cars and as a result, enthusiast still want to be able to modify their car along with keeping their warranties. So if General motors had offerings from some of the outside companies that people use to modify their cars with as “factory backed options” with the disclaimer that the parts need to be installed by licensed dealers, GM would increase their profit margin along with putting them in a position that no other company does here in America. And the idea wouldn’t be too far fetched because Holden HSV (General motors, Australia) already does similar things with some of the companies down there. There is a huge market for it here as well so it would make sense for GM to do it here too.