Theme
Bare Necessity Truck 
I didn’t think we’d design a truck as part of the Eco Initiative project. After talking to environmentally concerned and fuel-price-shocked truck owners, we had to.
This project is a real challenge. The people I spoke with used their trucks for EVERYTHING!
We talked to truck owners who were taking personal responsibility for the environment. They were cleaning up city parks, converting their homes to solar power, taking on real projects to do their part. These projects demanded a truck. Their current trucks got less than 20 mpg. They wanted a better way to get the job done without burning so much fuel.
The Bare Necessity Idea that we tossed at these folks (the concept that people would be willing to make some sacrifices to live more efficiently) hit the mark! The people we spoke with said they needed more efficiency, but they weren’t going to give up their truck altogether.
Bare Necessity Truck was born.
People do everything with their trucks. They haul big items, dirty stuff, tow trailers and sometimes have four or five people to carry.
Our engineers recommended a couple of different hybrid engines and some great weight-saving materials. The designers had to do our part to make this truck perform efficiently AND look efficient (it is kind of embarrassing driving around a large truck when there is empty space behind you).
How could we do it all with less? It meant designing the truck with fewer parts, eliminating un-necessary features, and scaling down the size of the vehicle. It also meant using more environmentally -friendly materials AND more durable long-lasting materials that don’t need to be replaced for a long time. Having two doors instead of four reduces vehicle weight and parts. Having a single piece bed simplifies the truck too.
It also meant shrinking the truck without giving up capability. Quite the challenge. Sharing space between the cab and the bed seemed like a logical place to start since there is often unused space in either the cab or the bed of a pickup. The bulkhead of a current truck is the back wall that separates the cab from the bed. To share the space between the cab and the pickup bed, the bulkhead has to move.
Our Chevy Avalanche does a nice job of opening the bed into the cab for occasional use while keeping the vehicle length down. I wanted to see if we could build on this idea. The idea was to devise a bulkhead that always keeps the cab separate from the bed and effectively moves the partition forward or backwards.
After a considerable amount of sketching, cutting and pasting, I came up with one crazy idea that I thought might work, the reversible bulkhead.
Yes, the bulkhead flips 180 degrees and reverses itself. The cool thing is it swaps about two feet of space between the cab and the bed. This means we could remove up to two feet of length from the truck, quite an amount of length and weight. Now a truck that’s the length of a short cab pickup can do the job of a crewcab truck. One person can transform the truck from two rows of seats with a very short bed to one row of seats with a medium length bed in under 1 minute. We came up with several other approaches to this problem, but this one will generate the most discussion.
Bare Necessity Truck is just a rough idea right now. It’s a good time to weigh in if you’d like to provide constructive feedback.
The big questions are what does do it all with less mean to you? What do you need in a truck?
511 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:53 am GoFastGoLight said:
Excellent idea. I am a firm believer in being as efficient as possible. Most people drive trucks for the “just in case”. Most of the time we don’t need the full capacity of our trucks or suv’s. If you have no intentions of every owning a very large boat or pulling a fully packed horse trailer you probably don’t need a vehicle with a 7,000lbs towing capacity.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 3:21 am RockstarServicesLLC said:
it’s good to see that someone is at least paying attention to what consumer REALLY want.
Gen X and Y’s are getting a little older. We’re buying houses, living in the ‘burbs, starting/owning businessesand have family’s now. Being a Gen X’er that owns a business, fuel economy and versatility is my biggest points. My other recently has been, I WANT TO BUY AMERICAN. I don’t need a Silverado. The Colorado doesn’t get the fuel economy I want. The HHR would work but, I can’t haul a motorcycle in the back or a car door. (I’m in the automotive/motorcycle business) The only thing that would meet this criteria is a Dodge Sprinter. Have you priced them? NOT CHEAP! Besides that it’s too big!
My love for German cars will never die, and they will probably always be my daily driver (also for work) but I need a truck!
GIVE ME THIS TRUCK!
I need:
4 passenger seating (would like 5)
DIESEL engine or hybrid (can’t you pull a diesel from Europe)
easy access and entry (bad back)
composite fenders and bed (no rust)
optional inexpensive navigation (under $300 please! like Garmin)
automatic or CVT only (keeps cost down and you aren’t going to sell enough manuals)
optional roof airbags
optional AWD
optional traction control on 2WD
MANUAL WINDOWS (save weight and wiring)
MANUAL STANDARD SLIDING REAR WINDOW (we all need it, give it to us)
STANDARD AC (who buys a car or truck without it really)
SEATS THAT ACTUALLY SLIDE UP to get in the back (look at the New Beetle seats)
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 3:03 pm AliensWanted said:
Wade,
I am a regular on VWVortex and have been following this thread over there for a while. Here are some thoughts I posted over there.
Wade,
As a kid I played with Lego’s all day and I came up with all kinds of cool designs. This is what I mean by modular.
Maybe (and this isn’t a joke) you guys should start messing with some Lego’s for ideas. I remember designing a two shock suspension for a car when I was twelve. Wish I had kept it and remember what I did, but the body stayed rail flat. We added a motor and a remote control….couldn’t get it to tip over.
I had another thought and the Lego idea caused it….LOL
What if the floor of the bed was reversible (like Lego hair…..folllow me here) and the other side had compartments or could be modularized to be whatever you needed it to be? For a painter, you had areas to hold your paint cans and tools, for other walks of life like mine, rails for motorcycles built in, you name it. But being modular, you can build it the way you need it.
One side flat, one side modular. The bed floor can be flipped to accomodate what you need.
Just a thought.
I’m 41 years old. When I was a kid, the coolest little trucks were the Datsun/Nissana’s and the Toyota’s. Every year they came out, we all waited to see what was coming next. They were lightweight and purposeful. Nowadays, I drive a 2001 Frontier V6 4 door that gets 14-15mpg in town, with a light foot (and A/C on, it’s hot here). That sucks!
We need to go back to basics. Trucks are trucks. They are not passenger cars. They shouldn’t be. How is it that a 37 year old carburated truck gets the same mileage? Porkiness. Creature comforts. Blea, this is a truck.
I live in Texas, where lots of people drive trucks because it’s the in thing to do. I drive a truck because I ride dirt bikes, have dogs and that kind of stuff. I actually use the truck for the purpose of being a truck.
But it is also my daily driver. So I have to decide what’s important for me. That’s the key here. Customization.
When you go shopping for a stereo system, you can add any component to it, all the way down to cusomized wiring….so why not for this? If people REALLY want to make this something that’s their own personal vehicle, the dealer has to be the one to install it, not at the factory. Our culture demands everything fast, yesterday, even.
So back to basics.
When I was 18 I worked in Davisville, RI at the port unloading cars from the docks and A/C’s to be installed into Dodge/Mitsubishi cars (Colt/Mirage). At the port, we did all the work and the dealer told us what to install. We even did the pinstriping…LOL..not the dealer. So why not more?
The techonolgy is there, so make the customization there as well.
If I want rear seats, add them at the port. If I don’t want rear seats, don’t add them. Simple. It’s like in my wife’s minivan, the seats go away when we don’t need them. That way I have the space I need. Have floor mounted lockers below the seats. This is why BOF won’t work. You need the room.
Also, anything except 4WD….that’s factory (and honestly, I think standar, but that’s another story). Everything else should be modular. Plug and play. No carpet yet, add that after you install everything to hide it. Make sure there are grooves for whatever wiring you need/use for each modular piece. The carpet covers it all up. In my opinion, I think that a light coating of bedliner material in lots of places makes sense, too. Wash it out.
Airbags, those need to be standard, but also plug and play (in the seats).
The engine options should be two engines, gas or diesel, that’s it. One transmission…not two. Automatic. I know that upsets some purists, but for the sake of simplicity, just one.
Colors? Choose between four or five basic colors…no pearl effects, not shiny paint, just simple, basic colors. Heck, I’m for flat paints…no shine to jack up here. It’s a truck.
As for body materials, make them modular as well. Plastics. Cheap and nasty. Literally cheap and nasty. Color is built into the plastics so no retouching is required. Just like little kids toys. You can buff a scratch and not lose the color, hence the flat colors. Make doors removable like a Jeep if you want. No power windows, go aftermarket if you want that. Except the drivers door. Weird thing, going to drivethrus and tollbooths, this should be the only power window.
Stereo. Just like a car audio shop. Pick what you want and have it installed. Stock? Nothing but an antenna and speaker holes.
No BOF. This is supposed to be efficient. The Ridgeline comes to mind. That truck, as odd as it is being FWD, is stiff. I like that idea. Which is why I like the bed idea they use as well (storage, spare, lockable area). That works for me.
Doors. As I mentioned, removable. Pockets everywhere. No locking compartments, everything is within reach, except maybe a locking center console, like Jeeps. i would find a way to place the spare vertically in the side of the bed between the inside and outside of the bed, hidden away. It doesn’t need to be a fullsized spare, make it a donut. It’s a spare only.
As far as I am concered, for stability, a rollcage. Seriously. This is a purpose-built truck, make it look that way. People like Hummers because they look all big and bad, not because they really take them offroad. But take these puppies offroad, yeah, you get the drift.
Regarding a modular design, here are my thoughts. You can literally go to the dealer and get the modules you wish to add. It’s really a matter of plug and play design.
Let’s say I want to add rear seats. I go buy them, plug them in and I am done. Then I decide I need to have the room for a camping trip. I take them out and have my flat floor module (or module that allows for storage compartments that are built in). The possibilities are limitless and the aftermarket can make all kinds of mods for this.
You could even design your own modules. I’m thinking like the Apple App Store…..seriously.
Let’s say there is a group of cyclists who want the inside of their truck to be able to house all of their riding gear safely and securely and they get together and either design (or have someone design) a module that works for them. The Module Store then sells that module to that particular group.
As it stands today, these people must find a niche vehicle that suits that application but no other application the way they want their vehicles to. By simply buying the module, they fulfill the need. Then if their needs change, keep the vehicle you have and then purchase the module you need at the time.
Even for family members that share a vehicle, these people can swap modules.
Makes sense to me.
Anyway, those were some of the posts I had over at VWVortex and wanted to share them here. I think you guys are onto something and would love to get involved on some level if at all possible.
Have a great day!
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 10:33 am AftonJay said:
I agree. I want a bed to haul stuff garbage (i have to make weekly trips to a dump) the 4 wheeler, bikes etc but 90% of the time i just use it for commuting and want good mpg. I think it is time for chevy to bring the Mexican Tornado to the US. I think this truck would be perfect good mpg, decent cargo cap, and a decent size interior.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm BruceD said:
I still live in a rural area where people don’t buy trucks for “just in case”. We all haul something with it, including me (a 33′ travel travel at 5700lb. dry weight). My 22 year old college son on the other hand, who wants to get back into a truck, would love this concept. He currently drives a Saturn Ion because the fuel economy but, he has talked to me about buying a bare-bones full-size regular cab truck so he can haul an ATV. A truck that could haul an ATV or 4×8 material with the tailgate down and got good fuel mileage would make a buyer out of him. He is definitely sold on the plastic outer shell like his Saturn since, that was one of the selling points for him on the vehicle.
to this comment On November 6, 2009 at 2:06 pm Ratt said:
The flexible cargo/Passenger space is a great idea. Mix the new advances of technology like the flexible cargo/Passenger space and a small light duty truck that is electric can suit the need of some customers like the Volt.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:57 am Andrew Seaga said:
AMEN! I’ve been waiting for something like this for a long time. Now all you have to do is get the price under 30K so that people who need it can afford it. This shouldn’t have to be for the escalade crowd to show off in. I need a truck that has enough space and power to haul my stuff and get dirty, but transform into a family car when I have to pick the kids up from school. Turbo diesel / hybrid is brilliant,… never understood why only the heavy duty trucks got diesel, we could have been saving gas dollars from years ago. The new GM is starting to really impress me.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm Wade Bryant said:
You sound like one of the truck customers we spoke with! I think there has been a long-standing need for a do-it-all, personal pickup truck. One of the questions we’ve been asking people as we developed Bare Necessity Truck was how much they needed the cargo function vs. the passenger-carrying ability. What are your passenger/cargo needs?
RE: the new GM – the change IS amazing. I’m glad I’m getting the opportunity to share these projects and learn from you.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:57 pm Matt said:
I am a general contractor that does everything from small jobs to large additions. I need a truck for all seasons. Currently I have a 1999 Z71 that weighs in at 7,000 lbs. It will pull my bobcat and trailer…not willingly but it will. Can a diesel electric pull 10,000 lbs up a 20% grade? AND stop it on the other side before hitting the family car?
If you sacrafice cab for cargo where does the crew go? In the other car. I’m currently looking at the 1 ton and the 4500 series from GMC for my next vehicle. If something that got better mileage (20+) and preformed like those I’m looking at then you might have something. For those who need a truck “sometimes”, go rent one and drive your 230 MPG Volt the rest of the time. You’ll still come out ahead.
Why make a diesel only run on diesel. Why not allow veggie oil or ….. something. I’m not saying reinvent the wheel just put different air in it. What other fuel options are there.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:07 pm Chris said:
This is a great looking truck. I’ve wanted a small truck for awhile and all that seems to be on the market these days are monsters. Having something that is versatile enough to carry things and people while getting great mileage would be perfect. Please make this truck happen, and make it cheap enough that the decision to get one is a no-brainer.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:25 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for supporting the idea. How much do you think Bare Necessity Truck should cost? The biggest cost would come from a powertrain that could deliver decent towing and cargo-hauling while delivering 40MPG. If you could live with poorer MPG, the price could come down quite a bit. 40MPG for $28,000?, 32MPG for $23,000?
What fuel economy number is high enough to get you excited about having an efficient truck?
Thanks for commenting, keep your thoughts coming.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm Kevin S said:
32 MPG would be good enough for me. Any large vehicle that gets over 30 MPG looks amazing in the public eye. 40 MPG would be even better, but that might be pushing it powertrain-wise if you still want to incorporate some tow/haul capabilities.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:05 pm Odineye said:
I’d also vote for at least 32mpg. A small diesel seems like a reasonable solution to me, particularly if it’s capable of running biodiesel out of the gate.
This would provide a truck that could reasonably commute when needed, and still provide much needed weekend utility. Combined with the convertible passenger cabin, the idea really begins to compete with the idea of needing an old truck for utility, and a gas sipper for commuting, replacing two vehicles with one.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:56 am Paul Anderson said:
Wade Bryant said:
“40MPG for $28,000?, 32MPG for $23,000?” – I really think if you put a truck out there that got 32 MPG for under 25k, you’d get a lot of heads turning. (including mine). I’d really like an all wheel drive option to deal with the snow. Another thing that I care about is a quiet cabin. I don’t want to feel like I’m driving in a tent. Also, keep in mind that Americans in general aren’t known to be the smallest people on the planet, so don’t make the truck to small. If I’m not comfortable, I’m not buying.
“What fuel economy number is high enough to get you excited about having an efficient truck?” – 40 MPG is great for headlines, but if you have to cut to many conners in order to get there you’ll end up with a toy-truck, that can’t do anything. I’m interested in seeing what you can do at the 32 MPG point, while retaining as much of the capabilities of the vehicle as possible.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm jeremykhn said:
If GM cann build the BNT (Bare Neccesities Truck)(I hope I spelled that correctly), on an existing platform, they can make the vehicle cheaper.Like the Explorer Sport Trac, it is built off its SUV counterpart. Obviously it didn’t work out for Ford, but there is one thing I have notice. Women.I always see a women driving the Sport Trac. It is great for single moms all because of the 5 passenger seating and the little trunk and ice chest in the small bed. It is great for soccer moms. The problem with the Sport Trac though was fuel economy. It only got a topping 23 mpg. So if you can get the BNT to have all those things, you will have a succesful truck.
I say give it the options you find in a normal vehicle. By having start as the basics. Most truck buyers like nice trucks, but there are those fleet sales that always sell as the basics.
By giving a fully customizable vehicle, you will have one very satisfied customer.
If there is one thing I know is that, even if the vehicle has everything, not all of those things are wanted.
So my point is, build a vehicle such as the BNT,make it fully customizable, and you will have a very succesful truck.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:00 am Greg said:
32 mpg is the bar…above that and its a home run.
rear wheel drive keeps the power train simple and durabile with added ease of maintenance. Where is the 10 year durability or in-expensive replacement items. Weight is the killer on a truck look at alternative materials, something that could even be R&R by the home owner, bed rail gets dinged replace it and recycle the plastic in municipal waste systems. Diesel is like beta max in the US the best form factor lost out to marketing or CARB in this case. Adding a diesel to the small truck line works everywhere else in the world except the US. Is it CARB? I think we can do better.
I am all about DIY stuff, i get more enjoyment trying stuff myself than paying somebody to do it. It might cost me more take me longer but antiques are not created over night and neither is a HOME IMO. Decent load carrying ability is great but I use the bed of a truck for play as much as work, DIRT, Bikes, Tile, Laminate, Plywood, Sheet Rock, Mulch, etc…. I would use the 2nd row seating option occasionally (in florida AC works better) and primarly for weather or security of items that are to big to fit in the front. Could you fit a bicycle in the cab behind the front seats for security in this truck? Not a 15inch MTB, more like 20inch MTB the average american male.
Currrent trucks don’t work as primary means of transporation because they just don’t get the MPG, cost of ownership is to high, a station wagon or SUV works in a pinch. You can’t get bare cars, trucks unless you go commercial. Good seats comfortable and supportave, optional armrest that turns into a bench, A/C and good radio, manual gauges and simple durable switches and nobs that will last 10 years of use. Rubber seals that could be replaced around heavyily used areas. A floor that is not covered with plastic but a durable washable material. I invision a truck that is so fixable that resale values would go up because things don’t brake and if they do parts are easy and relatively priced. I am sick of the parts suppliers selling JUNK from china. I have a SUV which has been a great for 10 years, now the replacement parts last 1/4 of the originals. I would prefer OEM if I new the items where fairly priced. Eco is not replacing homes and cars every 4-6 years but keeping them. I like your concepts.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm jeremykhn said:
This is a reply to Greg.
You have a good point.A family member owns a 1997 Chevrolet Tahoe. Great vehicle, and it is a great hauler for groceries, but it has quality issues. I was getting into their Tahoe and I needed to open the door of course, so when I grab the latch and the door knob started sliding out of it’s slot!! The vehicle is only 12 years old. GM needs to make vehicles last a long time.My mom currently owns a 2006 Nissan Altima. She got it brand new in 2007. Only a few months after buying the car, the bottom plate that covers something had fell off. Then later on, her car needed a headlight change. What was stupid is that that was only a few months ago. The dumbest thing I had ever seen. She went to Auto Zone to get a light, and she found out that they had to take the bumper off!!
She ended up paying 260 dollars for fixing a light bulb. My point is, GM, make your vehicles easy and cheap to repair, make all the parts long lasting, and most of all, never make a vehicle where taking off the bumper is needed.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm AliensWanted said:
Here’s my argument for MPG and against MPG…..
At 40mpg, you are suggesting a retail price of $28,000.
At 32mpg, you are suggesting a retail price of $23.000.
$5,000 difference.
With 40mpg, at 15,000 miles per year, you are using 375 gallons. At $3.00/gallon, that’s $1,125.
With 32mpg, at 15,000 miles per year, you are using 468.75 gallons. At $3.00/gallon, that’s $1,406.25
The 40mpg saves you $281.25/year. With a $5,000 difference in price, it would take you 17.77 years to break even.
Stick with the 32mpg. It’s a lower cost to buy and the truck will have fallen apart before you recoup your money.
Also, everyone asks for diesel. Is that feasible? I am all for a diesel engine, provided it is cost effective. I don’t want to have diesel just to have diesel, it has to make sense not only financially at the pump but also with maintenance, and with all the regs for diesel nowadays, this is probably not the right vehicle for a diesel, unless it is a small displacement diesel that requires little to no modification and provides a huge return in economy.
That said, I would opt for the lower cost option. It’s a truck, so the engine must be up to the task asked of it, which makes the small displacement diesel a strong choice. But again, at 32mpg, not the 40mpg if the pricing stays at the proposed $5,000 difference.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:49 pm Brad said:
I’m liking the Avalanche’s ‘expandable’ bed concept in a small, efficient truck. But concerned about the reversible bulkhead, mainly bringing what was on the outside inside. I’m not a lazy man but I would rather not have to wash my truck every time I haul something in it! I’m aware of the added cost and added moving parts associated with a sliding or folding bulkhead so I understand why GM would be leaning toward the reversible but I’m not quite convinced yet that there isn’t another solution or possibly a marrying of both?
I’m a single young homeowner and a DIYer, why pay someone else when you can do it yourself! I have 2 main vehicles – my car for commuting and traveling and my fullsize truck for hauling just about everything you can think of. Replacing 2 vehicles for 1 that can do just about everything and fuel eficient is a major plus for me.
A small turbodiesel that gets around 32 mpg, with a payload around 1500 and tow double that and haul 4 ‘adult’ sized people for less than $30,000 is the truck for me. I don’t need all the options my Cadi has but AC and power windows are a plus and an option for a manual or auto trans. I do like driving a manual but I would opt for the auto since driving in rush hour with a manual is no fun plus I got other toys for joy riding.
For me the price would be the main decision factor, if it costs me more than $30k than I’m out.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 10:56 am R said:
I do not understand why mileage is sacrificed for payload and towing capacities. Why not limit the payload / tow capabilities to increase mileage as default?
The more powerful engine / stronger frame could be part of the tow package. Those that want it have it as an option. You could even have two tow options; heavy and light duty. To accommodate those that aren’t willing to sacrifice too much hauling abilities for mileage they could have the light duty tow as the best compromise.
I am a bit skeptical of this whole project to be honest. it seems to me GM is engineering a solution to a problem that shouldn’t exist. The three-quarter, half-ton and quarter-ton formats worked well for years. Get people thinking in these terms again and end the truck-size, ‘I-can-out-haul-your-truck’ arms race.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 8:41 am John said:
40 MPG for $26K
32 MPG for $21K
Don’t be in the ballpark. Hit it over the fence!!!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm HotCarNut said:
I love the idea. Simple, yet functional and efficient. It needs a good solid small diesel engine paired to at least a 6 speed transmission in order to give you the towing capability that you want and the efficiency you need to really pull the project together. Great job!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:20 pm zr2s10 said:
I like the idea of a compact Avalanche style truck. As long as I can still haul an ATV in the bed and it would be offered in all-wheel drive, that would be my vehicle of choice. A used Avalanche, until then, will be my next vehicle.
The reversible bulkhead seems good at first, but I can foresee a few issues with that.
First, to be light enough for one person to flip around, it will be difficult to make it strong enough to withstand the impact of a load shifting under braking or in an accident.
Second, the rear windows (you’d need two) would need protected when in the lower cargo level position. It’s basically the front panel of your bed. Maybe having a panel and piece of glazing that can be switched out by hand would work for this.
Third, hauling most cargo is a messy task. It’s inevitable that mud/dust/etc. will get on the front of the bed wall, which will become the inside of your cab in an alternate mode. If you don’t have a hose available to clean up before you need to switch, I can imagine your rear passenger will be none too happy with the dirt on their clothing.
Personally, I would work on finding a way to make an Avalanche style midgate on what will obviously be a uni-body style vehicle. With a lighter load rating, it would not need to be quite as heavy as the Avalanche midgate.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:43 pm BrianCastillo said:
I see that somebody mentioned carrying an ATV in the bed…for me, personally, the real “litmus test” for truck utility is the ability to carry a 4×8 sheet (e.g. drywall or plywood) with relative ease. (By “relative ease”, I mean it’s OK to have to put it flat on top of the wheelhouses, or to rest it on the open tailgate, but it’s *not* ok to have it hanging way out of the back of the vehicle, or to have to tilt it diagonally and resting on one edge of the bed, or other things that require lots of rope and patience to safely secure the load.)
I’d be interested to know if I’m the only one who’s sensitive to this issue, or if other people feel the same way. Any thoughts?
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:06 pm AliensWanted said:
Here’s another thought. Make the truck wider than a current Ranger but keep the other proportions similar (long bed/regular cab). This way you can create a unique bed that allows storage (I would include the spare tire in a vertical storage area in front of the rear wheels and have storage compartments galore in the bed area). I remember when the Nissan Titan came out, the coolest thing was the fact that it had a lockable compartment in the exterior portion of the bed. Also, I really like the original Hummer H3T concept where there were doors in the front portion of the bed.
This needs to be a simple truck, though, instead of a one size fits all model. There are other trucks out there for other needs. This should be a workers truck first with excellent economy, excellent modularity, low cost of ownership and flexible to modify.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm Wade Bryant said:
Good comments on the reversible bulkhead design challenges. We did develop removable shields for the glass that is in the lower bed position (our videos didn’t show them). The inside-out dirt issue would be a concern in some situations. We talked about that issue and decided that if you get the bed area REALLY dirty, you’ll just have to wash it out before rotating the bulkhead. Hopefully a Bare-Necessity customer could deal with this to enjoy the benefits of the bulkhead’s flexibility.
We do consider the Avalanche midgate as an alternative to the reversible bulkhead on this project. We actually did show both options in an online research event. A vast majority preferred the reversible bulkhead because it sealed the cab from the outside weather in both modes. I guess the main reason we pursued the reversible bulkhead is because we already have the Avalanche solution in our hip pocket.
If you had a small truck like this that could morph between cargo and passenger modes, which mode would you leave it in most of the time? I’d like to know more about how you’d use this vehicle.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm Rory said:
Hands down, I like your new bulkhead better. because when you have it in ‘cargo-mode’ the cab itself becomes shorter, helping with the motorcycle issue i brought up, i’ve never loaded a bike into an avalanche, but considering the design and that when i do, it is pinned against the front of the bed, the midgate would cause lots of head scratching.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm Tom Thompson said:
To build on this I would say I use my full size crew cab pickup 75% of the time as a passenger vehicle, 10% for trailering my jet ski and 15% of the time to move or haul something large or messy. The reversible style bulkhead is a great idea for my type of use. A full size truck is over kill for what I need it for…something like your design is great for the urban DIY/weekend warrior type of truck user I am. The Ford Sport Trac (which I used to own) almost filled my needs with the exception of the extremely tiny bed (I needed a bigger bed 60% for the time) and the poor gas mileage (my full size truck gets just as good mileage as my Sport Trac did). I also looked at the Honda Ridgeline but is suffered with the same ills as the Sport Trac….thuis my full size truck. On the gas/fuel mileage side I would say anything that would double the 15-16 mpg I get around town would be a blessing! There is definitely still a market for the full size truck (contractors, etc.) but your average joe DIY home owner, gardener, weekend warrior types need something like this. Keep up the good work and bring something to market that will make us proud of GM.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm Rory said:
Start with a 4cyl engine, perhaps the one from the equinox, and keep it under $20k. I would pay right at 20k for this truck with a small diesel. If we are talking bare necessities manual trans, manual windows, manual locks. I want to be able to put my 600lbs. motorcycle in the bed. As long as it can handle that, I don’t care if it is unibody front drive, or body on frame rear-drive. I just want a bump up to 30+mpg highway from the 27 I get in my ‘97 chevy s-10.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:03 pm Ryder Step said:
I really like the idea of a truck that gets great gas mileage but is usable. I think the biggest issue is making a truck that has power when needed and efficiency when needed. The best solution I can think of for this is a turbo diesel engine with different fuel maps. The default map would be general purpose, such as highway cruising, or city driving. The turbo would put out minimal boost, You would make less power but operate in a very efficient manner. I do not think that 40mpg is a lofty goal for this (depending on the aerodynamics of the final design.)
The second mode would be a towing/utility mode, one that gives you more boost and thus more power. Of course you could implement 3 or more modes, but since it is the “bare necessity truck” I doubt you would want to complicate things too much.
Variable fuel maps have been around a long time in the aftermarket but I haven’t seen a good implementation that combines efficiency and capability (when needed) from a vehicle manufacturer, and I think it’s long overdue.
My last thought is that making this have a hybrid drive train would make things far too complex and expensive. Skip the batteries: make a simple inline 6 cyl clean diesel, your customers will thank you for it.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm Rory said:
I agree about hybrid being too complicated. In addition, however, the same type of people who want a ‘bare-bones’ truck are the type to change their own oil, spark plugs, etc. Hybrids make this a no-no.
option 1: 4cyl diesel
option 2: 4cyl gas w/ all the newest trickery (direct-inject, stoplight shutoff…. maybe someday HCCI)
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:12 pm HotCarNut said:
I agree that the 4 cylinder turbo diesel is the way to go with this design. It’s the most compact, efficient, and logical choice you can make, especially if you want to tow anything. If they can keep the weight down, 40 mpg on the highway is doable for this truck. The only other issue (as always with a truck) is aerodynamics. How much ground clearance would somebody really need for this type of truck? Could it be lower than a standard pickup to help with aerodynamics? What about active aerodynamics utilizing materials that change shape when an electic current is passed through them? It could be used in a front splitter that lowers above 30 mph to increase the fuel economy by improving airflow, yet still allows for reasonable ground clearance when the truck is going less than 30 mph.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm mnmavrik said:
vehicle coefficient of drag (or cd for short) is a very big reason why it is hard for larger trucks to attain higher mpg’s because as speed goes up, your wind resistance goes up exponentially. i think a truck can look agressive and still be aerodynamic as well. i think the drawings do a great job of this. as for the bulkhead idea, the simpler it is for the consumer the easier. however, good idea generating.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:25 pm csven said:
I’d like to see some charts showing the impact of various truck shapes on both the Cd and on resulting fuel efficiency. And if the charts also provided profile drag data, that would also be helpful.
Anyone have links to generic data?
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:19 pm AliensWanted said:
Speaking of aerodynamics, I know this sounds remedial, but instead of flaunting I am simply acting like a kid when I say stuff. Amazingly, kids know more than we give them credit for.
Racecars have all kinds of aerodynamic reduction systems underneath to reduce drag and reduce lift, holding the car to the ground. Why not apply the same principle to this truck? Who says we can’t? It’s simply a matter of creating a removable panel for access to work on the vehicle, right?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm Paul C said:
Amazing concepts! They are both something that I wouldn’t have expected to see, but I’m thrilled that they’re here. I really hope these concepts can make their way onto the dealer’s lots, and into my garage.
For my lifestyle, the Bare Necessity Truck would match me perfectly. A fitted optional (and removable) box cover would be a great addition to the product.
I’m all for getting great fuel efficiency out of a vehicle, but since this is a truck it will still need to be able to tow and haul a half decent load. There’s no use for a great looking vehicle that can’t perform as expected.
Great work so far! I can’t wait to see these in the marketplace, and I’m excited to see the a full model line-up of this concept. (midsize sedan, sports coupe, SUV and Crossover will rejuvenate the new GM).
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:29 pm Wade Bryant said:
We targeted a 1500 pound bed payload, ability to carry 4×8′ sheets above the wheelhouse (like a midsize truck) and 3000 pound towing capability.
Would this suit your needs?
Let us know what you need to tow and haul.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:20 am RB1 said:
3000 LB. towing limit is not high enough. People who tow need more capacity. I have a mid-size folding camper whose GVW is 3070 LB. Some cushion above that is needed.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:15 pm HotCarNut said:
I would think you should shoot for 5000 lbs or half the capacity of the Silverado. That would handle most pop-up tent campers, small boats, jet skis, motorcycle trailers, etc that people would tow. 3000 lbs max is pretty low for even small boats (with gear stowed inside them) and a pair of motorcycles and gear on a trailer.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 10:52 pm GARRETT said:
Even the Ridgeline has a 5000 lbs payload. I know it doesnt get 40mpg, but I would be willing to give some of that up for 5000 lbs.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm Richard said:
Dear Mr. Bryant,
I applaud the fact that you have created a forum for feedback on your developping idea. I am a young homeowner who enjoys owning a truck. I make great use of the vehicle and consider it to a certain extent my “bare bones” truck. Small, simple, better consumption that most other trucks. I think it is a good starting point for a modern “bare bones” truck. I apologize if this makes it unable to post this letter, but the truck is a ford ranger sport v6 manual. 12.5l/100km city. 18000can, 0% financing. I guess I represent the market that doesnt want a huge truck. A truck similar in size and capacity, with a more efficient drivetrain and a weight saving chassis design is what I want. I love the reversible bulkhead, but there have been some flaws pointed out. You are to degree limited by the weather (freezing rain, snow) and recent truck duty (picked up a load of compost) as to when you can use it. If my ranger could seat kids it would be great. My question is..have you considered and expandable, sliding bulkhead? Thanks and good luck with the rest of the project.
Regards,
Richard Toma
P.Eng., M.A.Sc.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:16 pm Wade Bryant said:
Yes we did consider sliding bulkheads too. One of our engineers had a couple different variations that could work. Like the reversible bulkhead they need a lot of development work to address issues like weather sealing and most of all, ease of use when transforming the bulkhead (they tended to require more moving parts).
I do believe there are others like you who really want a small truck with flexible space. We just need to determine the best way to achieve the goal.
Thanks. Keep the conversation going.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:13 pm Thomas Konen said:
What An idea!! I’m desperate for a vehicle like this…
I need a truck I can drive to work during the week and a truck I can USE during the weekend.
As much as I like our 900’s the size and price are just too much.
A truck is a utility vehicle and I want to utilize it to the best of my ability and still
Be conscious of the effects on the environment and my pocket book.
I’d love to be a part of something everyone NEEDS. The WANTS will follow…
Get that design infront of Bob Lutz he knows how a vehicle should be used
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:35 pm JOSE ALBERTO CASAS said:
amazing , i think this idea opens a lot of opportunities , becasue literally you have a four passenger truck and a 2 passenger truck , giving you a lot of otions and diferent usages.
Here in mexico mostly all the people need to choose between huge trucks or small trucks but they always buy huge trucks that are not very practical for cities , and the reason is because they have big families and a lot of stuff to move , but not always at the same time.
So this means people need to deal with the huge truck with or without passengers/cargo , wasting gas and space , so this truck offers both of options without wasting anything.
I really like the idea and the design looks dymnamic and attractive , good work
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm Wade Bryant said:
great insight! We didn’t do any specific customer studies in Mexico for this project. I did notice a similar dilemma (passenger space vs. cargo space) in China when I was there last fall. They face similar choices in the mini-truck segments with cab and bed lengths.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm chevyfam said:
Please do not put a diesel in this truck. If you want an eco friendly truck and a reasonable price diesel is a very horrible way to go. We have to pay an extra 8600+ for a diesel package. Drop the turbocharged inline 5 you have sitting in the Colorado concept.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:20 pm Rory said:
That I-5 is a crap engine. You might as well buy a Silverado with the gas mileage it gets.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:22 pm Wade Bryant said:
I tend to agree. We haven’t made any determination about the powertrain for this concept (we haven’t determined ANYTHING actually – it’s just one proposal) Of the different options that our engineers considered, the diesel-hybrid was the most energy-efficient AND the most expensive. We need to find the right balance of cost, efficiency and performance for this truck. There are some other options that seem more compelling to me.
What would you want?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm Rory said:
like I posted above,
basic small I-4 turbodiesel or whizbang DI, stoplight shutoff gasoline I-4, 6 speed manual is a must; without it, all the fun will be sucked out of driving.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:55 pm Jay G. said:
That is the most amazing thing I have ever seen. Surely would be the replacement for my Canyon. My only concern would be structual integrity. It’s nice to see that form doesn’t take priority over function. I leave you with two words: Build It.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm AlexD said:
This is an incredible idea. I love the reversible bulkhead and definitely like the idea of an efficient pickup. What I NEED in a pickup: a smart interior function/layout, something that drives good, intuitive cargo management, and something that is extremely fuel efficient. And of course I would like it to look awesome too
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm Raymond W. Smith said:
You are heading the right direction. I have been driving pick up trucks for 30 plus years. My all time Bare Necessity favorite pick up was a 1986 Toyota that I bought new. The entire inside was vinyl. It had no radio, A/C or even power steeering. It was 4WD and had manual hubs. The truck was indestructable! I would love to find something this basic again with a basic diesel engine. If priced under $20K I would sign up in an instant. Your design is nice but for me I want the basics. Fancy bulkheads and other items such as those are just one more thing to break. Keep up the good work. I’ll be watching.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:44 pm Wade Bryant said:
Similar to your Toyota, my first new vehicle was a 1987 AMC Jeep Comanche pickup, manual transmission, no radio, no A/C, but I was “forced” to order power steering with the 6-cylinder engine. It was delivered with a 2×4 bolted to the back to stand in for the rear bumper that I wouln’t pay for
The diesel dilemma will be interesting. I could have had a Comanche diesel in 1987 but it would have added over 20% to the cost of my truck.
The situation is still similar weighing the cost/benefits.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:50 am Raymond W. Smith said:
Good point about the cost benifit analysis. Maybe if you could get the cost down a direct injected turbo four cylinder gas engine would do the trick. You should still be able to get the wide range of torque out of one of those. As someone who keeps their vehicles a lot longer than they should I would worry about how long it would last though. I would like to see a service life of at least 300K miles.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:03 pm moses jenkins said:
This truck is a great idea which is right on time, if not overdue. I am the owner of a ‘99 s-10, which is still rolling along, but I know sooner or later I will have to retire it. I want to continue to “buy american”, and this would be a nearly perfect vehicle for me. I only have three questions; 1) pricing, 2) milage, 3) how long from concept to reality?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm Therese Tant said:
Moses thanks for the feedback! For this truck to suit you perfectly what would the price and mileage need to be? Is 40mpg perfect target? When does it need to hit the road to still be relevant?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm Wade Bryant said:
The answers to all three of your questions are variable at this point. This truck is just a proposal at this point. Reaction the the Bare Necessity Truck concept on this site might determine the answers to all three of your key questions.
We have looked at ways to build this truck on existing platforms to speed the process, should it get the go-ahead. It could be built on a frame or as a unit body vehicle.
The price and fuel economy numbers will vary inversely. QUESTIONS FOR YOU:
How much would you pay for a 40 MPG truck? How much for a 34 MPG truck?
I’m glad your S-10 is serving you well. Jason Drews (designer in the BN Truck video) just bought a used S10 that he referred to as his Bare Necessity Truck. I’m glad your S-10 is serving you well.
Thanks for your interest.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:08 pm Kevin S said:
My family currently owns a ‘98 GMC Sonoma, and we’d love to replace our truck with something like this. It’s a great idea, innovative and efficient. Build it, GM, and we’ll come.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm Ron Vaseleski said:
Great idea! I think the reversible bulkhead is great. I am waitng for the next generation of small trucks to come to market. I currently have my full size truck sitting for just project work and drive a Scion everyday to work. High gas prices are coming back and trucks need to be ready for that reality. A small,smart design with 30 or 40 mpg is what I am looking for. If VW gets their truck to the states with a diesel and 30 mpg I will jump on it. Keep up the great work you are truly on the right track!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:09 pm usa1 said:
Great idea! I would buy one. I’ve always liked the Avalanche, but it is simply too big at 220 inches long. When I test drove one, I drove it home to try it in the garage. Way too big and filled up the garage.
If you make this vehicle, consider it being at or under 190″ in length. That’s the average size of a sedan which is what many garages are sized for. The less length, the better. Don’t worry about making it look “tough” with a huge hood that ends up with a lot of under hood wasted space. Make it about functionality first. I don’t see the need to make it fit a 4′x8′ piece of plywood flat in the cargo box. Make it so that plywood could be put in, but at an angle and overhang the tailgate a bit, but still be stable. Provide a cargo strap or clip as standard equipment to address the plywood form factor.
I don’t care about towing, nor do most truck buyers, so offering a 4 cylinder (2.4 DI for high mileage) would be a good option for people that want to haul the occasional bulky item, but don’t need huge towing capacity. Offer a V6 for the few that need it. Put lockable storage nooks EVERYWHERE the the sides and bottom of the bed. Perhaps even over an Avalanche style cover panels to make for a large weather tight trunk. The more versatility, the better.
Good luck guys. People are rooting for you.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:17 pm gag0102 said:
i’d buy this truck. form should follow function. with this truck your function takes precedence, the way it should be.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm GARRETT said:
Sorry, but I disagree because theres no reason why you cant have both.
Now I know thats a new concept to GM because yall are use to offering neither, but after seeing these concepts I have faith in the New GM.
thanks,
GARRETT
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm Blake2454 said:
One thing that I have always thought designers of a truck should do would be to have a standard cover that goes over the entire bed ot the truck to reduce drag. It could fold out in 2 foot width sections that span the length of the bed and fold simply and neatly into one side of the truck bed when you need to haul something. This would reduce the drag of a truck. Also there could be a truck lift gate that can fold in 1/2 in the back also so that its stance while driving isn’t as high and catch all the wind. There should be a flat bottom underneath the truck also since its higher more wind gets caught slowing the truck. These are just a few ideas that I would consider if I were making a EcoFriendly or Highly Efficient Vehicle
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:43 pm Eugene said:
are you guys considering an EV powertrain with range extender like the volt for this truck? i would buy that.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:09 pm Wade Bryant said:
Actually, that’s exactly where this concept started. It IS possible, but towing and payloads are reduced. Unlike cars, trucks need to accommodate a wide payload range which made sizing the battery-pack and electric motor difficult. If you’re OK with very modest towing, it could work.
The 230 MPG Chevy Volt is pretty compelling, isn’t it?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:02 pm Eugene said:
that would be the perfect vehicle for me, a truck that is fuel efficient for commuting, but has the benefits and capabilities of a truck (more comfort for long trips, ability to go offroad/sight seeing, and transporting a dirtbike,ski equipment while still having room for 5 people etc)
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm edvard said:
The thing is that there’s already a company about to release a truck that pretty much fits the bill of being a bare-bones, fuel efficient truck, and that would be the upcoming Mahindra Appalachia. Its a smallish/mid-size truck with a 2.2 liter turbo diesel engine that will get anywhere from 30-40MPG. The truck is pretty ugly ( looks like a 70’s Datsun) but does exactly what I want to do: Haul lots of stuff cheap and do so efficiently.That and its not going to cost that much.The truck will be here this fall.
Secondly, I own a 96′ Tacoma with a 4 cylinder engine that gets over 26MPG. The thing is as stripped as they come: cloth seats, boring plastic interior, 5 speed manual, manual locks, 2 door reg. cab, and so on. Its perfect. There’s no stupid plastic covers over the engine. The engine is easy to service with everything easy to reach, plus it actually hauls a lot for its size. That’s all I need.
So to me the issue is that GM needs to think seriously about a small truck again. All you have to do is look back to the past and remove all the clutter modern trucks have and just make a small, no-nonsense, fuel efficient truck.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm M. Smith said:
Very good concept. Now make it an electric powertrain with small gas assist constantly running at max effectiveness whenever the truck is moving or manual overide to recharge at rest.(the converse of todays’ hybrids). But do give tall drivers headroom and NOT lean the windsheild back into their foreheads.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:41 pm Chris said:
What a great concept! I’d buy something like this in a heartbeat. I’d use this truck for things around the house (i.e. a yard of mulch or topsoil, new appliance, an ATV, load of lumber or a 4X8 sheet of plywood). I’ve had a couple of trucks in the past. I’d be attracted to this not only for the functionality and fuel economy but also because trucks are just cool! This truck looks cool! At first I thought I’d keep it in the 4 passenger mode but after looking at the pictures, I might cruise to work in two passenger mode. It looks awesome! It might just depend on my mood. What great functionality and utility!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm Wade Bryant said:
We thought that the 2-passenger mode would be the “normal-mode”. I like the way it looks with the shorter-cab too.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:54 pm Bill said:
I currently drive a Subaru baja and this is the first concept vehicle I have seen that may be a good replacement. The baja is a great vehicle for me except the bed is fairly small. We own horses and I can only get haul 8 bales of straw at a time without a trailer. The baja can only tow 2400 pounds. Several times a year I would like to tow a tractor that weighs about 3000 pounds with the trailer. The baja also only gets 25 mpg. That’s much better than most pickups, but not great. I commute 60 miles a day to work.
The AWD on the baja is great. We have a 600 foot gravel up a 14% grade and live in Wisconsin. My wife has front wheel drive and she can’t park in the garage for most of the winter. The versatility of the baja is also very good. It can carry 4 passengers and I can open the midgate to carry a 90 inch model aircraft wing. I can carry waste oil or gasoline in the back without worrying about the interior.
My preferences would be for a turbo diesel warrantied for B20, AWD, and manual transmission. I know many people prefer an automatic transmission for towing, but this isn’t going to be a high performance vehicle and a slow vehicle with an automatic would be awfully boring.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm Frank said:
I love these new ideas coming from GM. I feel that the main reason for their downfall is that for so many years they had no way to interact with the public. Here, now more than ever, GM needs to listen to their customers and seriously take their input to heart. As a current owner of a 2002 Chevrolet Camaro I love a drivers car. Why can we not have this kind of performance in a much smaller package? Reduce the weight of the car by using high tech eco-friendly materials. Use a small displacement engine with lots of forced induction. This is the next concept I would love to see you guys pursue. Check out the Ariel Atom. This car will destroy the most advanced performance cars but still gets 32mpg. Give me something along these lines that I can afford and I would be more than happy to move away from V8 performance. Heck it could have half the power of this thing and still crush my car. Its all about the power to weight ratio. With the wind in your face and the intake sucking air past your ear there is no need for air conditioning, gps or a radio. Bare necessity performance!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/new_car_reviews/article1590848.ece
http://www.arielatom.com/
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm Bryan said:
I thought this was a pretty nifty idea when I first saw this but then I started to think about this. Now I have owned a small Supercab Ranger and recently upgraded to a full size extended cab Silverado. I really like the idea of being able convert passenger room to additional bed space, but I have a few issues here. Even as a casual pickup user, I dont need the cargo room all the time. However when I needed to use my truck bed the majority of the time I needed to use the full length of my small 6ft flareside bed. In my opinion any bed shorter than 6ft is useless. If you can make the the cargo mode box equal 6ft without the tailgate down I think that this will definitely grab the attention of people like me who drive a pickup but don’t always need one.
Also the question becomes what kind of material is this bulkhead made of and how will it tolerate the battering that happens to a normal truck bed will it be coated with some rubberized paint like a spray in bed liner, and what will that do to the interior aesthetics of the truck.
Finally the question becomes what if you are out with the family and you make a purchase that is too big for the bed in passenger mode. I think the better solution would be to try to find ways to vary the size of the cargo box with out impeding on the cab. Basically allow the cargo box to be expanded 3-4 feet based on the necessity. This way when the bed is not needed it slides within itself to be 3-4 feet long and then when you need to carry a load the box be expanded to be 6-7 feet long. I realize that this will take quite a bit more engineering and adding such a feature combined with a reversible bulkhead design like this could turn a 4 passenger truck with a 4ft bed into a 4 passenger 6ft bed and then even more a 2 passenger 8ft bed.
Sure a vehicle like that could be over kill for some people but in would be the ultimate lifestyle pickup that could change as you need it to.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm Bryan said:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/06/cargo-fold-up-urban-delivery-vehicle-concept.html
This link is for an urban cargo delivery truck but the same sort of concepts could be applied to a project like the Bare Necessity pickup.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:36 pm Wade Bryant said:
We are proposing a composite material for the bullkhead that is pretty tough. Your concern about interior aesthetics is a valid one. Hopefully a bare-necessity-minded customer would appreciate the functionality and accept some rugged-looking surfaces inside. I might also mention we were proposing uncovered painted steel surfaces inside the cab as well.
I think a bed extender, like we offer as an accessory today would help solve the passengers with long-cargo dilemma you brought up. If this truck becomes reality, we’ll need a lot of customer-use information to determine the bed size(s).
One of the toughest decisions to make is when to put the limit on how much a vehicle can/should do. When you keep adding functionality you end up with another large, over-contented vehicle.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm Joaquin said:
I love trucks. Im young(Senoir in high school) Live in south Texas Country. I see all kinds of trucks from
subaru brats to topkicks as daily drivers
I personally drive an 89 b2200 Had a 4.3 Silverado
I love smaller trucks and this idea has very big potenail! Im tired of seeing 6.2 crew cabs long bed trucks being used as daily drivers and never even get close to the dirt. I use my truck as a truck! for my band and work and projects at home. Im glad to see finally GM is thinking like me and yall!
I just need a small strong enought truck not a monster!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:35 pm Anthony R said:
I completely agree with Joaquin. I just want a truck that I can haul people and bikes around in, and would be willing to sacrifice the usual levels of towing capacity and horsepower for better mileage. 4 cylinder is fine.
I had my eyes set on the earlier (up to ‘04, I think) Toyota Tacoma extended cab before they made it as big as the earlier Tundras.
I love the barebones idea; If you could make the interior as utilitarian as older (’72, say) Land Rovers, I would be very grateful.
Wade, please bring back the small-midsize pickup. The number-one selling point for me is the 40 mpg (crucial!), and the adjustable bulkhead needs to make it into the final model as well. This concept is amazing. Please make it happen. I could settle for $30k.
Kudos on the design!
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 6:52 pm Joshua Richey said:
I have long wanted a truck, but felt constrained by MPG, and potential passenger space. This is a design that makes sense, and is efficient enough that a city dweller who doesn’t always need the premium cargo space can justify the purchase. Keep up the good work. Keep refining the design, and bring it to market ASAP. It will be a big winner.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:18 pm CM said:
Listen, this is a great idea for the full size crowd, but what about us who want a smaller truck?
I said it when I worked for you (former GM engineering intern here), and I’ll say it again: A simple small truck would sell like hot cakes. The following would be needed:
1) Small truck (Current Ford Ranger size, possible a little bigger in width, more aggressive stance for 4×4) with an avalanche type integrated mid-gate
2) Stellar power train: 4cyl turbo diesel with TORQUE, avail with a MANUAL trans and a MANUAL t-case. No auto shifting transfer case crap – no one wants that….the engineering exists to make a manual transfer case shift properly over the life of the vehicle. Reliable front axle (that doesn’t go through the oil pan), solid rear with decent load capability.
3) Bare bones interior (by today’s standards): Radio with CD/USB connection, A/C, Cruise, Power windows/locks/mirrors and nothing else. Full manual HVAC controls and seats. No complex/expensive NAV unit. Throw in an aux switch board for owner add-ons.
4) Rhino line/line-X the thing from the factory. Not only the bed, but do the rocker panels and the INTERIOR floor as well. While we’re inside, design the floor pans with multiple drains and slope them so you can hose the inside out.
5) STEEL WHEELS! Sure, they’re heavier than Al and detract from MPG, but they’re simple to repair and don’t break; Additionally, you won’t have the corrosion issues with Al wheel coatings that currently plauge every GM vehicle that is 6+ years old (and lead to tire bead leaks). Plus when they bend, they’re cheap to replace
6) Price accordingly. A truck like this priced higher than current class vehicles would sell – the bare bones idea of having reliability with the convenience of being able to hose it out/throw things in the bed without scratching would sell.
7) Corrosion protection – your NVH dept. seems to be responsible for a lot of cab corners and third doors rusting out (Via their insulation holding moisture)….utilize more expensive coatings that not only work but add to the value of the truck
This should be common sense…..a truck that people can USE and should be capable of 30 MPG. What is so complicated about this??? I’m an industry insider who deals with the EPA/NHTSA on a daily basis, and even with all their ridiculous meddling regulations, it’s still entirely possible.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 9:51 pm Wade Bryant said:
Good thoughts.
This concept isn’t a full-size truck. It’s about the same overall size as a regular-cab Chevy Colorado or Toyota Tacoma. The idea is “scale-able” if it needs to be larger or smaller.
You’ve obviously thought about this market segment quite a bit. Would you consider the vehicle you outlined, just right for you?
You’re right 30 MPG would be fairly easy to attain. Is that high enough?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:44 am Steve said:
A super idea. Your full-size trucks have outgrown their usefulness to me in an attempt to meet the needs of customers who want maximum size. My first-gen S-10 was nearly perfect. Too bad the second-gen truck didn’t work as well. 30 mpg is fine. The truck should be adaptable. Make sure it has stake pockets or some way of conveniently attaching a bed rack so I can carry my kayaks. Keep tie-down hooks near the top of the bed so it’s easy to use them when the bed is full. Keep the bed height low enough for easy loading of motorcycles. Get serious about accessories. Include racks and caps and USB and places for optional sound systems. Build in storage boxes. Make sure it has a well proportioned sense of style and a clear cleverness that isn’t confused by trying to do too many things for too many people. It will be hard, but if you can keep from making the tires and wheels too large in a quest for fashion, the package size will come down and the usefulness will go up. Keep the beltline low enough that I can rest my elbow on the door with the window down. RWD and yaw control is fine with me. AWD is to heavy and expensive and uses fuel. Keep the interior open. I have quit buying cars that have a center console where my right knee would like to be placed. Make sure the filler cap is on the left.
Looks like the Mahindra will be your closest competitor, unless it’s completely dreadful.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:13 pm CM said:
The vehicle I described would be something I’d be interested in. But, I think more importantly, it’d be something a ton of people are interested in. Diesel engine, stick, lever actuated T-case, fairly small with a usable bed….that’s it. I’ve got years in the service side of the industry, and will say a lot of customers in the end wish that’s what they could have purchased as the non essential items break.
Keep it bare bones, cost down, fairly rugged, and reliable and it will sell. This means no “sealed for life” components, fuel pumps that last, cab corners that don’t rot, intake gaskets that work, wheel bearings that don’t fail, etc.
Some times technology is great – other times the ol’ KISS method works best (keep it simple stupid)
And, FWIW the rhino lining on the interior would be a novel idea……
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:08 pm Jamil said:
I totally agree with the above. I must interject though with some refinements of my own. Where i work we have a gmc cab-over 4500 with a dinky little isusu turbo diesel. great engine, runs smooth enough power for the truck. take one of those and mate it to… and don’t laugh… a hydrostatic drive system with adjustable pumps and motors. skid steer loaders (ie: bobcats, case, john deere, etc.) have been using very similar drive systems for forever. by doing that u can make it as efficient as u want, have great cursing speed mpg, and enough torque as the wheel studs can handle. it also frees you from drive shafts and gives a lot of freedom as far as suspension travel and articulation. It will also eliminate shift shock and need for a transfer case. sure the hydraulic oil will weigh a little bit, but it would even out when the weight of the trans, its oil, transfer case, its oil, drive shafts, and clutch. not to mention if serviced regularly (ie; filter) it should be a no worry system, great for repair bills gm wold have to pay when the truck is under warranty… for 100,000 miles.
By the way make sure u cater to the heavy duty truck guys. we are loyal in that we know we need heavy (hauling) trucks year in and year out. other than the average light truck owner who uses it to haul… well lets face it not much.
that bulk head thing is a good idea and all as well, but i could for see some trouble with the sealing surfaces after a while. try sealing it again and again, wth rain, dust, dirt, grease, sand, etc in the sealing area building up over time and make sure it works. otherwise just focus on the body on frame idea with a modular bed.
If this concept is badly executed i guess i could always fall back on a good ol F-350.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 12:59 pm R said:
This type of drive-train is a neat idea; the body can be lower for better aerodynamics and without the differential still have decent clearance. I’d be worried about breaking a hydraulic line and being stranded or driving in circles, literally.
If the Volt type of hybrid drive is used is there one electric motor per drive wheel? Does the Volt type of power-train also eliminate the differential?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:48 pm jlcii said:
I think that the BN truck is an absolutely good idea. The only thing is I hope the vehicle(s) will be as price-efficient as they are eco-efficient.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 7:53 pm msheekhah said:
I love trucks because I am a tall bodied person who feels cramped in a car. This is a wonderful design. This is something I’d drive. If it was available in hybrid as well, it would be EPIC WIN.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:19 pm KevinS said:
The way I see it, most people who own trucks aren’t exactly looking for luxury, at least the ones who intend on using the truck as a truck. Granted, some standard conveniences like power locks/windows should still exist on a truck such as this.
What are the chances of something like this making it to production? Could we possibly see this sort of idea (reversible bulkhead) integrated into other trucks?
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm AlexD said:
The Bare Necessity truck needs to feel like one: a simple and useful truck, without making it feel cheap or appliance-like. The overall vehicle needs to feel light, uncomplicated but also confident and enthusiastic. Take the wrench for example: an extremely useful tool, yet it doesn’t feel cheap or half-hearted. It does its job, and does it well. This is in interesting project.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:16 pm Jason Drews said:
I couldn’t agree more AlexD, well put. Thanks for your input.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:09 pm Jetman said:
This truck would fit me perfect. Build it with a solid rear axle, a four pot diesel and a six speed manual tranny and ya got my money. I am a contract aircraft mech. and as such my tool box goes with me when i move to a new jobsite. so i need a six foot bed only a few times a year but owning a truck is almost required. Also please keep this bulkhead design over the avalanches midgate its so much more innovative. Just one more thing though if this truck makes it to production with a FWD layout or hybrid drivetrain count me out this does not have to be a prius with a bed just the most efficient truck it can be in the most reasonable size. 40 mpg would be great but not at the risk of losing the capability of a real truck i would personally be happy if it got 30 mpg which is completely possible if the chassis uses high strength steel and a diesel powertrain. thanks GM for showing ya still got some stones left i hope yall the best over the next few years and thats coming from a die hard ford man.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:17 pm Gary said:
A small truck that can either haul a lot of people or a lot of cargo is brilliant. It’s not very often that people do both at the same time.
It seems that Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dropped the ball on not green-lighting the Jeep JT or Dodge Rampage concepts for production. A small, cool-looking pickup that’s this flexible would sell like hotcakes.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:35 pm Dean Hall said:
After 12 years with a ‘96 Saturn SL2, I would really want this truck to have the plastic side panels that Saturn used to tout (assuming they are lighter and environmentally equitable to metal skins).
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 10:50 pm Stephen said:
Back to basics–the perfect idea for a more practical minded generation. I like the idea behind the Mahindra as a target.
Here’s my “basic” suggestion:
1. In addition to the reversible/midgate idea, offer a standard two-passenger regular cab version at an even lower price.
2. Two engine options–a DI gas engine (28-34 mpg) and a torquier, somewhat higher mpg turbodiesel at a $1000-1500 premium. Six speed manual standard with both engines, six-speed automatic optional. 2wd standard, 4wd optional.
3. Equipment: A/C, power steering and brakes, ABS, and a radio. Two trim levels–”work truck” (rubber mats, manual windows & locks, etc) and “Cheyenne” (cloth seats, power windows & locks, cruise control and a little chrome trim). NO street-racer stuff, no fake baja gear, etc.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:58 am Wade Bryant said:
excellent ideas.
we did discuss the idea of offering a fixed, shortcab version for low-cost or commercial use.
to this comment On August 11, 2009 at 11:32 pm Steve P said:
Yes. Yes. Yes. If everything described can be done this is a great concept for a pickup. Great looks, efficient and just the right size. If it can reach 80 and get there within 15 seconds, even better. This is what would get me back into a GMC truck. I have an 86 and will sell my 2001 soon as I am moving to an Infiniti.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:34 am Greg Bramblett said:
I also am looking for a small truck like this that I can commute with also haul stuff. I spent 3 years in Japan, and observed their minitrucks doing hard duty every day. I would buy one today if the damned DOT wouldlet ‘em on the road. Great mileage but very functional. When I returned to the US, I was dissappointed to find that theTacoma had changed to a midsize, but I bought one anyway.
Speaking candidly, I have always thought that GM vehicles were overall too heavy. The Japanese seem to have found the right balance of strength and weight, and still make it safe. When I step on the brakes of a GM vehicle, it seems to have to work too hard to slow down all that momentum, and harder still to get it moving again. The Japanese vehicles have a feel to them that I describe as “tight”, by which I mean strong, light, precise machining. I have often thought that these are put together so well due the simple fact that they use the metric system. I was building something the other day and I still find using fractions to measure stuff so awkward and inaccurate compared to regular intervals on the base 10 system.
My suggestions
I know this is sacrilege, but switch over to the metric system. Your parts will fit with smaller tolerance, and you won’t have squeaks and rattles developing at 30,000 miles. I know this is probably asking too much, but I don’t think we will ever build something to match German or Asian fit and finish until we do. I’m done, and I feel better now.
Synthetic bed like in Tacomas. Doesn’t rust or scratch. Lighter.
Try some similar material for the body, or at least the lower part ( rockers)
Hybrid powertrain for those who don’t need to tow, diesel for those needing more power.
Your artist concept drawings are really cool, but when vehicles go into production they usually exchange cool for boring. See the Volt.
I hope there is a real change happening there. My pop worked for GM for 32 years. As an executive, he tried to suggest changes that might have helped keep GM from ending up the way they did, but they weren’t ready to listen. Your approach to this by listening to us suggests a really new GM.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:11 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for all the good comments including the candid one’s.
Reducing weight is a goal of Bare Necessity Truck. We are proposing an all-composite bed that would be durable and long-lasting (looking at a couple different eco-friendly resins)
We are 100% metric! (transitioned in the late 1970’s I believe) We just use inches to describe vehicle dimensions to US public (4×8 foot plywood is a widely-known commodity) You wouldn’t believe the tiny tolerences that our computer design/engineering software works to.
You are correct about the “new GM”. It’s a different world here.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm Kelly Pitt said:
Metrics have been the standard for decades. It took a while, as they didn’t immediately change all of their engines (that’s why you saw cars that were mixed for some time) but I don’t think that there are any SAE engines left, with the possible exception of the 4.3 if it’s still around. I’m not counting the 3.8, as it’s all but gone.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:16 am Paul Stoller said:
Please make this vehicle, and bring it to production as soon as possible, you won’t be able to keep them on the lots.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:52 am Noel said:
I think the powertrain should be something exciting/exotic. Why not go with the diesel electric hybrid? Make it front wheel drive normally, and use the electric motors to power the rear wheels. Put in an independent rear suspension for good highway ride which is important for 99% of users.
As for capacities, an ATV has to go in the bed because more people haul toys than building supplies… at least in my area.
Include a lockable hard tonneau cover for when you’re in 2 row seat mode so you essentially make a trunk out of the bed. Throw in a tailgate step like in the new F-150 and you’re in business.
Personally 32mpg is great REAL WORLD mileage which means it would have to be EPA of 40. I’d pay 30k for such a vehicle.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm Jason Drews said:
Great feedback Noel. I think the idea of being able to haul an ATV in a small truck would be a great design challenge. What type of ATV do you have? Any recommendations as to other things you haul and/or how you haul them?
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 12:25 pm Noel said:
I have a bombardier ATV, it weighs like 550, or 600lbs wet. Other stuff that I move semi-regularly is firewood and stuff like that.
Another challenge is when I go hunting we need truck caps to keep the weather off of the gear. I use a collapsable type, like a tent and it works pretty well.
I’ve read some more posts and I agree that a 3000lb tow rating is too low. Any family sized pop top trailer is going to blow past that number, 5000 would be more reasonable. In this same vein, people have talked about how it is hard to tow with an independent rear suspension because of axle squat, why not go with an air suspension setup like on a big rig? That way if somebody puts something heavy into the back of the vehicle, it just pumps up the air springs and levels it out. Air springs last for years and have been proven in other industries.
I admit though I don’t envy you guys, you’re getting size and capacity ideas that range from souped up Smart Cars to Fullsize SUV’s. Good luck, the original concept is a good one!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:06 am Michael Hayes said:
Coming from the ID world, I know this concept is at least 5 years out if it even ever gets built, but this is an awesome concept. I currently own a Tacoma access cab that fits my needs very well, but irks me that I cannot carry passengers when the need arises. I am considering a crew cab Tacoma with a long bed so I don’t have to compromise on either fronts. This adds 12″ to the overall length (and wheelbase) of my current truck, which isn’t too bad, but not too good either. There is a real lack of truly versatile useful mid-size or compact trucks out there. You’ve got either a work truck (regular cab – 8ft bed) or passenger vehicle that happens to be a truck purely by coincidence (crew cab with a short, useless bed). Please, Please Please build this thing!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:38 am Omar Aguilar said:
As a whole i think this project is great! I agree with Raymond W. Smith, It reminds me of the small/basic trucks from the 80’s like those offered by Nissan and Toyota. They were cheap, simple, great on gas, reliable, and did their job. You guys should make these elements your priorities. It would definitely be a great alternative to all the “small trucks” currently offered. I do have to say however that this truck’s price tag shouldn’t pass the $20,000 mark otherwise it would defeat the purpose of buying a bare necessity truck (why buy this truck when you can get a Tacoma with more options for around the same price? http://www.toyota.com/tacoma/trims-prices.html#?view=showroom&vehicle=1). Also, i like the design of the truck except for the front end, it kind of looks like those of recent ford trucks with the three bars.
Overall though i think you guys should keep everything basic and simple, a reliable fuel efficient 4 or 6 cylinder with a 6 speed tranny would be great. A lot of people like myself just need a real small truck without the excess size, weight, interior options and engines today’s “small” trucks have.
One question i do have is if this truck makes it to production, what would happen to the next generation colorado/canyon models? The reason i ask this comes back to the price issue, if the bare necessity truck is to be cheaper, wouldn’t it have to be a lot less than a colorado and canyon?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:19 am Wade Bryant said:
Your comments and questions really do get to the heart of the matter in terms of making a business case for this idea. Our vehicle planning group would help us determine things like price and portfolio fit (how it would complement or compete with our other products).
As we get more definition around what this vehicle should be (input about size, capability, price) then we will have to answer some of your questions for ourselves.
Your suggested price (under $20,000) would require us to “pare-back” on some of the vehicle capabilities.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 11:18 pm GARRETT said:
Build this!
Why not make two different sized trucks with these capabilities. Maybe one Chevy and one GMC. One Ridgeline size and one S 10 size or even smaller. I think a lot of people really like this idea, but about half of us probably wouldnt be willing to pay over $20,000 for it. I know you already have the Avalanche, but with gas at its price I cant imagine it competing much longer. And by the way anything over $20k doesnt qualify as a bare necessities truck; my Ram 1500 v8 was $16k.
And MORE LEDs
thanks, GARRETT
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:15 am Ronald Hernández said:
In Europe as CHEVROLET, would be an attractive product and with market, because the offering in trucks is limited to Japanese designs.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:52 am Odineye said:
Wade has asked the question several times, so let me answer it directly:
30-32 MPG would be more than good enough.
While we have vehicles (cars) out there that can do better, this type of mileage out of a real-world, functional pick-up truck would be exceptional. Further, I suspect that this mileage target could be obtained with a minimum number of exotic materials, keeping the price attainable.
I suppose one could push for 40mpg in a concept vehicle, but I’m personally uninterested in the “capabilities” of a concept. I firmly believe GM needs to be focused on putting out real world product that people are interested in (and over a fairly short time frame), not simply teasing with concepts.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:16 am Rasmus R said:
Manual Transmission. No, not some retarded heavy-batteries EV/Hybrid bullshit, nobody needs that. Small turbo diesel for entry level, 1.4 liters is more than enough. even a 2.0 turbo diesel with a 6 speed could EASILY haul 1500lbs around in the back, honestly, while seeing 40 miles per gallon… at 55 mph
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:57 am John McKell said:
I first saw an Avalanche prototype at the San Diego fair. I don’t remember the year, but it was about 12-18 months before the Avalanche showed up in showrooms. I was very happy with the concept of the movable bulkhead that the Avalanche employs. I like the idea of being able to change the configuration of the vehicle: sometimes cargo, sometimes passengers. I’m looking for a truck that is not overwhelmingly more than it needs to be. I was VERY disappointed when the prototype I saw on an S-10 frame morphed in to a monster based on the Suburban frame. What a shame! Way more than I need. Big for big sake only.
As for specifics, the bed size mentioned in comments/responses seems to be OK: 4×8 sheet of something. Yes. Engine: Power enough to get you there, and maybe out of a tight spot, but not huge. Gas mileage matters, but so does hauling capability. Need to be able to tow SMALL stuff; not a vacation trailer, or a 4 horse trailer, but maybe a snowmobile or ATV trailer.
The movable bulkhead needs to be simple, weather-proof, cleanable, etc.
My current truck is a 96 F-150 straight 6. My current car is a 08 Smartcar. Lets morph the two! (I had a Sprint and a Metro and a Suzuki Swift over a period of 12 years).
—John McKell
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:11 am Phil H said:
I love this thing. I was hopefully watching the Toyota A-Bat hoping tit would get produced but no luck. I dirve 60 miles per day and would love a pickup that gets 40 mpg. I am also fairly handy and love to fill my weekends doing projects around the house. Most of the time this invloves borrowing a buddy’s pickup.
I would like the convienences for my commute (satellite radio, iPod connectivity, automatic climate) and the ability to turn the vehicle into a work truck on the weekends.
Build it already!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:12 am Phil H said:
I love this thing. I was hopefully watching the Toyota A-Bat hoping it would get produced but no luck. I dirve 60 miles per day and would love a pickup that gets 40 mpg. I am also fairly handy and love to fill my weekends doing projects around the house. Most of the time this involves borrowing a buddy’s pickup.
I would like the convienences for my commute (satellite radio, iPod connectivity, automatic climate) and the ability to turn the vehicle into a work truck on the weekends.
Build it already!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:21 am Jesse Taylor said:
People are more responsive to the styling of other companies. Could you start making cars that don’t have styling cues that are so reminiscent of the GM cars of the past? GM can certainly design brilliant cars – that back to the basic car, or the new Camaro – why not aim to make all of your cars absolutely brilliant? Then, how could you fail?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:24 am CJH said:
Very cool idea. The market has been screaming for an up to date small, efficient, capable truck. Alot of people moved up to larger trucks because they didn’t like the outdated smaller ones. Most people don’t need to tow large amounts of weight (the large trucks are for that) but should be able to pull a small trailer to the lumber yard or a snowmobile, etc…..
I could evision this as a great first truck, an urban truck for people that enjoy the outdoors, or for “handy” people that don’t need the capabilities/towing of a large truck. I think mileage on the highway in the 30’s is sufficient for the standard truck for most people. Then have engine upgrades available that could push up HP or mileage, depending on people’s needs.
I don’t agree with CM. I don’t think the cab needs to be that spartan. You could maybe have that available as an offroad package or option, but the average buyer wants decent seats, radio, HVAC, and power windows/doors. They are just things that are expected nowadays, and I don’t think you are going for a stripped down/hard core Jeep Wrangler type vehicle. That’s a niche and most people wouldn’t want that. However, the interior should be durable and stain resistant.
Love to see it replace the Colorado.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:27 am zr2s10 said:
I know I already chimed in, but I wanted to add that I also think the DI motors from the new Equinox would be the best engines for this. Also, a manual trans should DEFINITELY be an option. I think this has been a GM shortcoming for quite a while, limited manual trans options, especially in cars. I also liked the recommendation on spray-on bedliner inside and out. That’s definitely got to be easier and cheaper than carpeting, also provides corrosion protection. When I re-do the cab corners on my truck, I’m going to use tinted bed-liner coating to re-do the two-tone bottom color. If you don’t use plastic body panels (like someone mentioned from Saturn), that would be another recommendation. But definitely make sure there is no place on the back side of panels for water to get trapped. Seems almost every manufacturer overlooks this, but GM had been screwing up extended cab corners on the fullsizes for a while. But luckily that’s the only major defect on my truck at 210,000 miles.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:52 am Matt said:
The market has been missing the small truck for some time now; they seem to be getting bigger and bigger. Ground clearance is one thing (a good thing), but big fluffy body panels are overrated. I don’t care what my truck looks like, but I want it to be as efficient and as utilitarian as possible. It needs to have 4×4 as an option, it needs to have decent clearance and moderate underbody protection, it needs to be able to haul a full 4×8 sheet, and it needs to get better than 30 mpg on the highway. I like this concept, and I especially like the idea of a turbo diesel powerplant. Let’s make it happen.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:55 am Brex said:
I think that the Bare Necessity Truck is an interesting and practical concept if not just a bit pie-in-the-sky at 40 mpg (but aiming high is laudable). I believe a diesel hybrid powertrain was mentioned which could likely produce those numbers but for less than $30k sounds like a tricky proposition.
I can’t say that I’m your target customer but I am a car fan. I drive a small coupe now that has limited practicality but my next car will likely be a sedan or wagon that is simply capable of towing a small trailer for my DIY home projects.
The flippable bulkhead is a novel idea. I’m sure your addressing how it functions after hauling a load of mulch whose remnants might make rotating and sealing difficult. It would be a pain to have to REALLY clean out that area to get it to work properly.
Kudos for involving the public. Go GM.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:59 am Patrick Murphy said:
Build it yesterday. If it can tow at least 7,000 lbs I will buy it today.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:02 am KevinS said:
Was thinking about this last night, and thought of something that may need to be addressed. The reversible bulkhead design needs to be made weatherproof. In addition, some form of noise reduction would need to be incorporated.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:08 am Jeff said:
It think the market ready and waiting for a truck like this. Nobody makes a compact four wheel drive pick-up anymore. Here in Michigan four wheel drive is a must for the winter. So here is my suggestion. Start in the 2.0 to 2.5 liter I-4 turbo diesel with a 6 speed manual rear drive. Make the front wheels motor in hub electric drive. This type of system would give you the part time 4 wheel thats needed for bad roads and launch assist. With out the weight of a transfer case and front drive system. Add in a small battery pack and generator on the engine and sha-zam. 40 mpg hwy and 4 wheel drive. If you can keep the whole thing to about 3,000 pounds your in.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:16 am steve said:
I like my 6 cyl tacoma, but if fuel prices go where it looks like they will it’s not a practical road trip machine. I use it for dirt bike hauling, ski trips and as a dd. The quality that i appreciate most is the refinement, it feels like a quiet well engineered car. It drives really well also.Take something like that and double the fuel economy and it would be a winner
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:34 am BigD24 said:
I love this idea. I am a 24 year old student from a small town in northern Ontario. Owning a truck is almost a rite of passage where I’m from. My first vehicle was an 88 dodge ram 6cyl 4×2. It did everything I needed it to. Most people, especially those in the 16-25 demographic, aren’t contractors or farmers but do desire trucks, especially for recreation. I know I used mine for carrying loads of stuff ranging from surfboards and hockey equipment, to fertilizer or garbage, but most of the time it was empty. I think you are definitely onto something with the reversible bulk head. As long as I can hose any dirt off before flipping it around. I see this truck being extremely popular with the younger demographic. The ability to haul your stuff off to college, but also take 3 friends to hockey practice with the truck in passenger mode and still get very respectable mileage so as not to stretch the college budget to thin.
This truck would be 4×4 correct? Ground clearance would be good as well? I know these would sacrifice fuel economy but are things truck buyers are interested in. I think start-stop tech would definetly help in the city as well.
I really hope there is enough positive feedback for this idea to become a reality. Priced in the low $20’s and at least 32mpg would be bang on.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:35 am bswanson said:
I love the idea so far. I like the bold designs.
Here are some suggestions:
1. Make the bulkhead removable and add an option for a sunroof.
2. Make the back bed panels out of carbon fiber. Maybe look into making the whole bed out of carbon fiber. I know that this is expensive proposition but it would lightweight, strong, and durable. Putting money into bringing the production cost of carbon fiber could yield dividends for other products as well.
3. (this is for GM as a whole) create an API and connection that allows me to mount/connect my GPS, phone, MP3 player to the vehicle instead of having a built in radio/nav/etc. Create an electronic eco-system where I can pop my GPS into the dash and the direction announced over the front left speaker, plug in my iPhone and be able to use steering wheel controls to select music or make/accept calls.
4. bio-diesel ready engine. I think this should also be available across your eco-line.
5. I agree with the carpet optional idea. The Toyota CJ can be rinsed out with a garden hose which is great.
6. Back seats fold flat and flush so I can haul items that I don’t want exposed or left out unsecured in the bed (mult-stop shopping trips, luggage during rain storms, etc).
7. Large lockable storage. Big enough to hold a 15 inch notebook or other items like insulated lunch cooler.
What I need in a truck isn’t really a truck. A light duty vehicle that can hold 4 people occasionally. Run around town to clients and shopping and on the week end haul stuff home from Home Depot or to the dump/recycling. Once in a blue moon I might need to help a friend move something. I don’t really need 4WD and would be happy with MPG over 28MPG for a reasonable price.
Living in FL I would love to have the option to remove the bulkhead and enjoy a more exciting open environment.
(By the way how do you protect the bulkhead glass in the lower position from damage?)
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:42 pm Wade Bryant said:
I wondered if anyone who didn’t really need a truck would see this vehicle as a good fit. It could perform most transportaion functions quite well.
Therese suggested we find a way to make the bulkhead removable for open-air driving. She worked on an alternate bulkhead idea that achieved that goal. It would be like driving a vintage K5 blazer with the rear top off.
RE: protecting bulkhead glass – we were proposing snap-on covers for the glass that ends up in the lower part of the bed.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm bswanson said:
“I wondered if anyone who didn’t really need a truck would see this vehicle as a good fit. It could perform most transportaion functions quite well.”
I am not a truck buyer. The closest I have come is my wife’s Jeep Liberty Limited.
I see what you have designed more of an Urban Utility Vehicle or maybe a Light Utility Vehicle. Market it as a truck and people will judge it against a truck. Create a new type of cross over and people will have different expectations.
The idea of a basic vehicle that provide versatility, good MPG, at a reasonable price would be a winner.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:35 am Derek Heath said:
I *really* love that reversible bulkhead idea. Could that be used for a car too?
Most of the time, I need a two-seat car with a boot (trunk) as I have to transport me, my wife and some shopping, or some cases if we’re going away.
But sometimes four seats would be handy, if I need to give some friends a lift, or we’re just going for a day out to the coast or a theme park etc.
I could have the car in ‘reversed’ mode, with maybe a roller cover (like a shutter) over the trunk. Then roll the cover back, turn the bulkhead and pull down the rear seats. They then occupy the space that was the trunk.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:56 am Jim Walker said:
Watch out for head-space in the bed with this idea! This sounds like Subarus forgotten Baja, the major limit on that vehicle is that the rear door was not tall enough to fit larger objects through the pass-through door, and that the pass-though allowed the outside inside the vehicle when opened. You can also take an avalance and devise some type of convertable top behind the pass through door to separate the bed from the truck while in truck mode for bad weather to keep costs down from a steal partition, since this kind of truck would transport people first, cargo second. Just keep it capable, allow it to haul, tow and have class leading off road abilities (what New GM vehicles can say that?). Allow it to have low-range gears for towing up a slippery boat ramp and off road situations. Make its frame a hybrid between a full frame and a current uni-body light truck platform to retain rigidity for the rear pass-through. If it has an independent supsension, make sure it has clearance and design it so it can be easily modified by the aftermarket so people can easily personalize their vehicle by making it higher or lower with lifts and lowering kits (unlike a GMT360 front drive axle that goes through the oil pan). Ensure good suspension travel so the vehicle has good traction in all situations. This is a truck, so it should be able to handle truck situations and not emphasize on ride as much. It should handle well, but again it is not a car. Honeslty, do what is needed to attain this even if it means solid axle(s) in the suspension. Also look at current trucks, why is that old, pathetic 4.3 V6 still used when there is an award winning 4200 I6 that doesn’t have a home anymore? Waste of engineering money there. Direct inject it (maybe a light pressure turbo) and a V8 or two can easily be trimmed from the current lineup as well, as well as increasing gas mileage.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 10:59 am Dri said:
I’m from Brasil, so I prefer to write in Portuguese..:-)
Muito boa a idéia de vocês!!! Assim vão poder vender muito, afinal vêem o que os clientes preferem e daí projetão…Estão de parabéns…pena que se estes veívulos vierem pro Brasil virão bemmmmm depois que todo mundo tiver…bjo a todos
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm Wade Bryant said:
HELP! my tiny bit of Spanish isn’t enough to help me interpret your Portuguese comment. I hope you said something nice.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:02 am Jeff said:
Had another thought that might help with the fuel economy. Seems to me GM had a load leveling suspension system a few years ago they used on cars and trucks. If you put a system like that on all four corners configured so that when you are running a highway speeds and set the cruise, the whole truck would lower it self down into the suspension out of the wind. Less wind = less drag = more MPG. just a thought.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:04 am Matt H said:
I currently own a 2005 Toyota Tacoma regular cab 4×4. Roll up windows, manual door locks, 5-speed manual transmission, 4 cylinder engine. This level of cost cutting brings the MSRP in at under $20k. Having a manual with a four cylinder allows me to get 23+mpg (much higher than the EPA rating, which I attribute to driving style and a manual transmission).
To me the best part of this truck is its simplicity. It has over 100,000 miles now, and will easily run another; maybe 200k. With fewer components, there is little that will break on this truck. That is what I see as a “Bare Necessity Truck”.
Hybrid powertrains remain an incredibly complicated answer to a fairly simple question. I see pure EV’s as having their place, even hybrids in some applications, but for a truck a simple internal combustion engine should always remain the preferred option. If this truck were delivered at low $20k’s with a manual transmission and fuel efficient (preferably diesel for mileage and towing and power) turbocharged 4 cylinder engine, with things like power windows, power adjustable seats, additional electronic safety and other devices, and automatic transmissions as options for those who want to pay extra and take the associated extra weight on; I could possibly be convinced to let someone else put the next few 100k miles on my current truck in order to gain the flexibility to carry additional passengers.
Stay true to the concept. Follow the practice of KISS (keep it simple, stupid). As an engineer myself, I strive to follow that in everything I design.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:24 am Andrew Wyatt said:
I can see this working, with a couple conditions.
1. the bulkhead is removeable.
2. the base model is available without carpet, and is capable of being hosed out without damaging any components
3. the build quality is higher than GM of late
3. at least one model is available for 15,000 or less
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:37 am Ihor said:
Johnny and Rick O back in PickupTrucks.com have it right, GM must build a a no-frills practical truck for a low price and for maximum MPG. It will be the only way out of bankruptcy, not the Volt which is a nice idea but not at 40K!. Every model GM produces from now on should start as a basic vehicle and then progress through options to a point of luxury, even trucks. But I bet only a very few will opt for the jewel box poser truck model. The Bare Necessity concept (whose kid posed the Disney ‘Jungle Book’ name?) flip rear is odd for the reasons already stated. Every concept does indeed seem to be more pipe dream rather than dream truck. Hey, GM design crowd, DO YOU NEED INSPIRATION?? Try looking at design history, choose the most utilitarian elements, couple with cutting edge technology, delete the most expensive bits and swap flash for practical(lose the power windows for a high geared crank for example. I take issue with anyone who thinks they NEED power windows and locks. Why, is the little button or crank too complicated or heavy?) and zowie!! you’ve built my idea of a truck. Max MPG mandatory via a diesel powered stick shift, GVW light enough to get 35 to 40 highway. Price it where 75% of buyer won’t cringe and just walk away. GM has to do this else they’ll just be a memory, trailing millions of rolling artifacts.My ‘96 S10 has 335K, hurry and build something great!!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 12:33 pm Carrie Crawley said:
Thanks for your feedback and simple strategic ideas! I know this ‘thinking’ is always a hot topic around here, but it means more coming from the public than us….part of the reason this site is important. Hmmm, too defend Bare Necessity, which I know some of you truck fans have laughed at…I think we just wanted to name the category something that everyone would immediately understand. Being mostly visual people sometimes we struggle with the right words. Any suggestions?
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:51 am numba1assassin said:
Hello everyone. I believe the bare essentials truck to be a good initiative, and therefore I would like to contribute some points for your consideration in the development of this truck. To me, the high efficiency of a bare essentials truck can be achieved by light weight materials, low drag coefficient, and efficient drivetrain. To me, a bare essentials truck is a commuter vehicle with a truck bed. Commuting to and from work everyday, and still being able to haul gardening supplies from home depot on the weekends (mulch, lawn mower, sod, tool box). Hauling boats, jet ski’s, atv’s, and equipment isn’t necessarily bare essentials, nor is such an efficient drive train needed. The majority of consumers needing an efficient truck do not have such requirements. Their needs more closely resemble needing to move televisions, furniture, or other tall objects that a car can’t.
Low drag coefficient: Although you have some good appealing designs, I feel that it isn’t enough. The highest efficiency possible is better attainable from a more aero-dynamic car based truck. The perfect direction for this project is the re-introduction of the El Camino. A brand new, revamped El Camino with a rotating passenger bulk-head would really hit home with the light duty truck market. To me, this is what more closely resembles bare essentials.
Efficient drivetrain: I feel that two drive trains need to be offered for this project. The first is the most efficient possible geared towards commuters with light duty requirements such as the ones I have stated above; or just hauling a family of four made possible by the rotating bulkhead. In my opinion, the best possible powerplant for this would be a 3 cylinder diesel, such as this one:
http://www.atzonline.com/index.php;do=show/site=a4e/sid=4163379204a82ccfe3684e477792673/alloc=3/id=2522
3 Cylinders is absolutely perfect for commuters, and diesel has always been preferred for hauling.
The second, more heavy duty powerplant can more closely resemble the 32mpg offering that your project is offering. This would be better suited for the consumers in need of towing boats, jet ski’s, ATV’s, and construction materials that the others have indicated on this site.
In summary, I understand that it is impossible to meet the needs of everyone needing a more efficient truck. But when considering the bare essentials and what this project was founded on; the best possible and truly needed candidate for this project is a 3 cylinder diesel El Camino with a rotating bulk-head for family. The ideal price point for such a bare essentials El Camino project would be between 17k through 19k for the commuter, and 20k for the more heavy duty offering.
I hope to hear feedback on this idea
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm numba1assassin said:
The commuter would probably need to have slightly better options inside inside the cabin. This is because commuters spend so much time in the vehicle, and need the additional comforts.
The heavy duty variant however could be more bare-bones. However, it would need the options for slightly bigger tires for better ground clearance on construction sites. Also of course, a tow package. Another nifty idea would be a better tailgate with an extra durable flap. When the tailgate is lowered, you can unlock a flap that could flip up, and locked in position to lengthen the bed even further. That would give you an additional foot in the truck bed. Perhaps some nets extending from the sides that can attach to the flap.
Both offerings need to have some kind of sliding bed cover that can accomodate both positions of the bulk head. The cleanliness issue of the outside bulkhead coming inside can be easily solved by keeping some baby wipes, or armor all wipes in the glove compartment.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm Wade Bryant said:
We’ll have to grapple with the ride-height / vehicle-height question. The lower the vehicle the better the aero efficiency, but when does it lose some of it’s truck appeal (ground clearance, visibility)?
In the first go-around we chose the “tough-truck” stance and assumed 4WD would be optional. Our projected fuel economy was based on a truck with similar aero (shape and frontal area) to today’s Colorado 2WD. (room for improvement, for sure)
Thanks for the thoughts-
I’m compiling a list of questions from all these comments that we need to address:
ride height
vehicle price
powertrain type
fuel economy
cargo capacity
towing capacity
etc..
We did previous research that answered some of these questions but I’d like to re-calibrate what we think we already learned.
Stay Tuned.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm numba1assassin said:
I suppose that I wasn’t looking at this from the “truck appeal” standpoint. To me, a truck (light duty) has always been a vehicle with a utility bed. Something more along the line of:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/falconute_b.thumbnail.jpg
I drive a Toyota prius with a taller vehicle height than my co-workers 80’s mazda truck. However, even though his truck’s height is shorter and has better ground clearance, my vehicle is more aero-dynamic. Chevy already has plenty of truck offerings that satisfy “truck appeal”. However, none of those in my opinion are bare essentials. An aero-dynamic El-camino on the other hand would be an excellent unibody bare essentials truck. Anything bigger would just be a revamped Colorado with a more efficient engine.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 1:32 pm Slavko Miladinovic said:
Great web site idea!
Pick-up trucks is a culture onto their own, especially the passenger and racing culture.
I remember the first brand new pick-up truck we had when I was a child. It was a full size pick-up, but I am not sure if it was a 1/2, 3/4 or full ton. It was mainly used as a passenger vehicle, but was great for going to the cottage.
Then I remember the second brand new pick-up when I was 16 years old. It was a small pick-up for business and passengers. I loaded the bed with grass sod waste making it look like a pyramid on wheels! I turned it into a low rider! I definitely needed at least a 3/4 ton pick-up. I learned firsthand the limits of pick-up trucks and the needs of its user in various construction field use.
I’ve got some ideas and criteria I can share in the near future from my own personal experience.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:14 pm Slavko Miladinovic said:
It looks great and its a great idea. I would buy it. Saving four feet of length is very innovative. I’m sure you’ll get the dimensions right on this vehicle. The design alone would make this vehicle sell! It looks like it can maneuver and be parked inside a condo garage.
Voltec option:
Perhaps a Voltec option with a battery weighing less than 100 lbs, and have an option to use the battery exclusively for stop-and-go traffic as one of the options. If not then a 6 speed automatic geared with a sixth gear that would be ideal for 60 to 65mph highway fuel economy with a decent 4 cylinder engine. This would keep MPG at a very good rating, yet have enough torque to haul up a mountain with thin air, if the cost of a 6 speed auto can be reasonable though.
My only concern is the seals are adequate after flipping it 180 degrees in all types of climate. I had a brand new vehicle with a T-Roof that would leak water in one area. Perhaps an air pump feature to compress the entire seal into place so heavy wind, rain and minus 40 degree freeze would not be of concern. And since you would need an air-compressor to compress the seal after flipping then you might as well have an extra air-shock option for heavier payloads or bottoming out feature, which can also serve as a luxury or sport ride suspension feature. Every other option on the vehicle should use the fail-proof free kinetic energy option of the right or left hand. Air-conditioning should be an option with a two crank windows down at 60mph (2×60) as standard.
I have plenty of more ideas, and criteria, but not for this web site right now, since it could apply to other trucks.
This Bare Essential Truck would be a big seller. I am very enthusiastic about it.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm raypro said:
It’s an interesting concept. Usually, though, vehicles that try to do too many things generally aren’t very good at anything in particular. Myself, I own a small 4 cylinder compact that I drive most of the time but I also have a full size, v8, 4 wheel drive truck that I use when I need it. The gas mileage doesn’t matter much, even at $4 or $5 per gallon, because I don’t drive it very much. When I need it, though, there’s really no way to replace the capabilities of a full size truck. I could see this concept working for some (too bad you can’t convert the engine along with the bed), but I can’t see where there’s enough margin in a vehicle like this to make worth producing. Low frills, basic transportation is a great way to enter the market, but you can’t make much money off them. I do, however, like the idea of sliding price scale based on MPG. We’ve essentially done that for horsepower for years, why not increase the vehicle’s price with each step up in MPG? Then let the customer decide what price point and fuel efficiency makes the most sense for them.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:36 pm Ihor Sypko said:
Sliding the cost of a vehicle based on MPG effectively excludes the most efficient vehicle from the people least able to afford high fuel costs. Expensive to buy should not mean cheap to run, and it hasn’t. Porsches and Ferraris don’t get 35 MPG, they get 7. Your idea would price a Testarosa at about $19K. Back on Earth this concept won’t fly. Economic frugality has to apply to the whole concept, from design to manufacture to operation. It’s these simple ideas that many designers fail to grasp and apply effectively. Granted that early adopters pay a premium for new technology, recall the dawn of electronic calculaters and computers. But the improved automobile doesn’t have to rely on new technology, just the new application of time tested concepts: simple, light, durable add up to economical to build, buy and use. Save the over-the-top engineering for the next Car Show and the disposable income crowd. Ninety per cent of the world lives and works on a basic level. Start the designing there.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:02 pm David Ziemer said:
This concept takes a number of steps in the right direction: fuel efficiency, reducing size, options of passengers and cargo, and general usability. The usage estimates below are approximate and obviously overlap. Mostly I commute but there are no good options but a pickup for the other essential trips.
I haul plywood, sheetrock, 2×4’s (10-12 feet items fit through sliding panel window) and other home re-modelling and yard projects items — dirty stuff. The marketing guys’ cutsy slanted bed rails (as on the subaru and ridgeline) make the bed useless for the above since there are no flat surfaces for tying things down. (10% of trips)
I need to put books, laptop, groceries inside (read extended or dual cab) — out of sight and locked up. (90% of trips)
I sometimes need to take 2 or 3 others (5-10% of time) I frequently need to take one other plus purchases (locked up) (20-30% of time)
I need to commute (read QUIET ride, SAFETY features, responsive handling) (70% of trips). There are slippery trips: occasional N GA (mountains) snow, drive stuff to the dump or get compost from the dump (mud). So, AWD or 4 WD would be really nice.
I want AT LEAST: 30 mpg; the ability to haul small trailer– say 2,000 lbs; Inside, secure space plus one passenger; MUST be able to handle 4×8 plywood/gypsum board. The bed sides should accommodate an expansion bar to help secure items. I would not mind flipping & cleaning a barrier if it is secure, leak proof, and maintains a quiet cabin, but I want to be able to see out through it.
My extended cab 1989 B2200 was murdered by a taxi running redlight. Fuel efficiency rivaled most of the currently available “small” pickups; it bested them for suitable size and handling. I have tried the Saturn Vue hybrid — inadequate fuel efficiency, no place for dirty stuff, roof racks difficult and too small. I am planning to get the Mahindra diesel if it even approaches my needs: the mpg, 4×4 and flat bed rails. If you can beat their fuel efficiency and meet the other needs, you might be the purchase after that.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 3:08 pm jwreed said:
I loved my small trucks (Chevy LUV, Datsun, Mazda B2000) and treated them as 2 seat cars that I could carry stuff in when I wanted to. I don’t need a big work truck, but understand that other people do. When I started to look for my previous new car, all the small trucks had become “TRUCKS” with bigger engines, beefier suspensions, etc and poor gas milage and high prices. In other words, they were no longer the truck equivalent to a economy car. They were no longer an option at current and projected gas prices.
Now they are marketed to truck people who expect them to be smaller version of real working trucks.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm chevydiver said:
I agree keep it simple and versatile. Vinyl mat floor, FWD 1.8L gas turbo engine, manual or automatic transmisison. Unibody construction. Line bed area with a grained durable plastic and have a storage compartment under bed. Tailgate that both drops and pivots to access bed (a big plus for the vertically challenged). Rails on top edge of bed to attach optional soft bed cover, a sliding hoop bed enclosure or a possibly a tent similar to the Aztek. Attachment points for bed accessories, such as bike rack, cross bars to allow 4 foot wide material above the wheel wells. The folding partition like the Avalanche is a great idea, sliding buk;head might be too complicated for price point. A sliding partition would possibily be the best of both worlds. Extra secure interior room when you need it, and extra cargo space when you don’t. A roof rack availible for cab roof, for additional storage would be a plus. The potential owner could order the vehicle as their budget allows, then add features as they go. Towing capability would be a plus, I would not go for more than 2,000 lbs. Large wheel openings would be another plus, allowing maxium choices for wheel options. 30 MPG highway and a combined number in the low 20’s should be imperative for this program. Diesel and Hybird would most like push the price point beyond the target audience. I think of this as the Jeep Scrambler, Nissan Xtera, Honda Element and Ridgeline meet the Chevy Avalance and would be attractive to both male and female buyers with active lifestyles.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:08 pm chevydiver said:
A partition wall that has 2 mounting postions instead of sliding might be a most cost effective approach.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:15 pm Trip said:
Hi Wade and crew,
When you get the time, head over to PickupTrucks.com and take a look at our responses to the news about your project:
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/08/gmc-bare-necessity-concept-is-a-green-pickup-truck.html
The site is full of users who are quite similar to those here, and I am quite impressed and encouraged by this thread, especially those who offer up concrete, practical ideas, such as CM’s post above where I pretty much think every one of his points is spot on.
Getting specific, though, first off, great overall effort. Any areas that I don’t like so much mostly relate to how similar some of the flaws are compared to the Toyota A-BAT concept of last year. Does it really need to be that swept back in its aerodynamics? Can’t high MPG be reached just as equally with drivetrain and engine innovations alone? And does the belt line really need to be that high, and the windows so small? It seems that this is a trend in every vehicle design out there today; why? Does more sheet metal and less glass just get you easy safety points these days? Can’t we revert several years back towards more up-right and usable designs such as those the 70-series Toyota Land Cruisers or Land Rover Defenders, where the pillars are narrower but built stronger and the glass canopy provides infinitely many times more visibility?
Second, I think the bulkhead idea is one of the best innovations to come about in a long time. But in my opinion, a surface that is meant to be both bed-facing and cab-facing is probably more trouble than its worth when you think about the *real-life* practicality of trying to keep it clean. Also, when you convert from 2-seat/short-bed to 1-seat/long-bed configuration, the bed is cut off from the cab. If you’re a camper like me, or just someone who wants to have the entire space enclosed for whatever reason, maybe for super long objects that would extend from the bend all the way to the dash over a folded-up passenger seat, then having the spaces 2 connected with possibly a camper shell or topper on the bed would be a real design key. Take a look at this basic drawing I came up with (sorry for it’s too crude or confusing):
http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5412/expandabletruckdesign.gif
As complex as that looks, you simply have a metal mid-gate whose cab side serves as the backrest to the back seat and whose bed side is just that, the front of the bed, finished in the same material as the rest of the bed. And here are the steps for conversion from 2-seating rows to 1 and a longer bed:
Step 1: The head rests telescope down into the back rest. The seat rotates up into the gap in the backrest. Then the clear window (which has a single pane sliding clear portion between 2 outer panes) rotates up towards the ceiling of the cab. Then, of course, the whole mid-gate assembly itself rotates down and towards the back of the front seat.
Step 2: The interior sliding pane of the folded up clear window slides along the top of the ceiling to lock into place and creates a barrier between the ceiling and whatever will be put into the extended bed. Then, a hinged rotating panel that is now on top of the folded-down mid-gate (which was previously the front wall of the bed) will rotate up and lock into position.
Step 3: The panel that was just folded up will slide forward on rails embedded into the mid-gate center body and lock into place right behind the driver/passenger seats.
Step 4: A window pane inside this panel will telescope up to the ceiling of the cab, as would a normal weather-sealed window.
Step 5: (This part is a little hard to conceptualize based on my drawing, sorry, didn’t have time to go all 3D). 2 side-folding panels, whose backs contain the tracks that were used in Step 3, and are hinged at opposite ends of the folded-down portion of the mid-gate, will fold up towards the sides of the newly created bed space, and telescoping panels rise out of these to lock into place where the sides of the cab meet the ceiling.
From start to finish, that process takes 12 separate movements to be completed. That is quite a lot, so that’s why I drew the 3D model of the bed space, as a simplifier. The basis of this is a 2-part bed where, in my drawing, the orange/gray part would slide on top of the white part. The gray front bed panel would still contain the seat back, head rest and seat bottom of the back row, but would be hinged at its base slightly in front of and beneath the orange piece. The user would then have a choice of being able to first fold down the gray panel and slide the orange piece over the top of it, thus creating one giant connected space when the bed is expanded, or keep the gray panel in place and slide it along with the orange piece towards the front of the cab, creating a closed-off long bed. By combining in elements of my steps 1 – 5 of my first idea with concept of this idea, I think it beats the idea of a bulkhead.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Trip
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 4:40 pm Jon Moraal said:
Im tickled that a domestic car maker is taking direction from the end users. You could literally build anything and as long as it didnt rust out, or require obscene dealer maintenance costs for “barely out of warranty” repair, you would sell millions.
Finite service life parts such as sealed ball joints, unserviceable EGT valves, and other things that are non repairable should be banned as harmful to the environment as poor use of materials. Sealed non repairable parts that carry insane prices are what makes modern domestic trucks a non option for many
Im sorry to say this but my 87 toyota landcruiser diesel has had the same basic parts for a model run of nearly 20 years or something and even with 427000 kilometers it still gets 8.5L/100Km and can carry a metric ton. You can get any part large or small for that truck, and thats what makes it great. It starts in the -40c weather every time. Domestic guys laugh at this truck all the time.. untill i show them the parts that its made out of. No chain drive in the valve train or in the transfer case, and 9.5″ differentials. I know that this truck is a copy of some older domestic stuff because I am a mechanic. There are many refinements to the basic technology that make this truck better than those older trucks.. thats a direction that the domestics should have followed instead of allowing the bean counters to extract more money from the customer for poor parts design, less metal and more plastic, less beef and more filler. Effectively Mcdonalds- izing the modern domestic truck.
I understand that plastic has its place, but not in fuel injection components, engine components or anywhere else other than the Dash, especially in cold climates. And for those of us bare necessity guys out there… who needs a dash?
You dont have to look very far to find massive Blunders in domestic engineering. Unintentional flames spitting from tailpipes, Chronically cracked heads, Completely Carboned engines from extra injection cycles.. i could go on.
Wheres the beef GM? we are tired of Gimmicks in vehicles and the latest toys. a bare necessity truck would be exactly that from a technical point of view, build it right, not complicated and useless and expensive.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:04 pm retiredtj said:
I’d like to see a truck about midway between the 1500 and the Colorado. Don’t have the gimmicky passenger compartment, too much added $$ and too many rattles and leaks. Must have a small diesel available with manual tranny, 4 WD also required with a center differential, skid plates and ground clearance.. A couple of thesse can be options but don’t make the options packages too large. Offer a bare bones version, manual trans,crank windows etc. Will need large towing cap and payload. Let’s make this something that can be appealing and affordable. We need a winner !!
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 5:58 pm JPTrucker said:
Wade Bryant,
My first “new” vehicle was an ‘89 Jeep Comanche 2.5L 4 cylinder (had 500 miles on it) bought in December ‘90. I still drive it and just turned over 235K miles.
I give you all credit for thinking of this concept. I have wondered myself if improvements could be made to the current truck situation. You either go with an extended cab to get a decent bed length or add about 500 lbs. and get a crew cab. My family recently rented an ‘09 Silverado crew cab 4×4 to go on vacation. Big old thing. Wanted to rent a 2wd but not available for rental. The 4×4 was less than stellar on fuel economy.
I am not anti-environment, last time I checked I still needed to breathe. I do think in terms of being reasonable. Make good choices, make improvements as possible and practicable. I am against the cap-and-trade bill before the Senate, it will hurt EVERYONE in this country. Make good choices as technology and money and time allows.
My point is this: put PEOPLE first. 6 billion plus people in the world and they all need to live. They ALL need to eat and have an income and provision. Take care of the environment, but don’t get too extreme or bent out of shape about it. I don’t live in a mud hut nor do I ride a bike to work.
That being said, my comments about the BN concept:
I am against a flip anything. I would be for a sliding section, like a bumpout in a camper or RV. The sliding section should be slightly higher than the bed of the truck to keep water out of the cab. I think you’ll need the cross-strength of the sliding section for torsional support and to keep a load from ramming into the cab (think Ridgeline). If you can make a flip section do all this then the flip section may be all right.
Make the crew cab able to seat 6! Yes, 6. I don’t understand the center console in any vehicle limiting the vehicle to only 5. Again, put PEOPLE first. Also, don’t forget the baby boomer generation riding around with their kids and grandkids in these things, they need to be able to get out easily, seems like you’ve got the doors big enough for this. Make the crew cab about like the Tacoma crew cab. Forget the Colorado/Canyon, too small for me.
Ride height: about like a Tacoma, need step bars.
Price: low to mid 20’s.
Powertrain type: gasoline, no diesels here. Too heavy. 3.5L V6 or similar minimum, all depends on final vehicle weight, etc. 5 or 6 speed automatic with lock-up torque converter and limited slip differential as an option. No hybrids. I have wondered why no one has tried dual 4 cylinder engines, just pick your size — 1.6 to 2.5 liters each, maybe even have a big 4 and a little 4? You could still get around with either in most cases. Look at the Japanese, they have the 4 cylinder perfected in spades! Has GM? Honda and Toyota have eaten a lot of peoples lunches with the 4 cylinder! Redundancy is good in buildings, why not automobiles?
Fuel economy: 30 MPG minimum, I’d be pretty content with that. A gallon of gas is a gallon of gas, does not have an unlimited number of miles in it.
Cargo capacity: 3/4 ton, a bed about like an extended cab Tacoma in long-bed mode.
Towing capacity: 3000 lbs. minimum, possibly consider 2 different powerplants to meet this AND 5000 lbs. or so.
One big area of concern is the bluff-body drag that will STILL be behind the cab. I have some ideas on that if you’re interested, won’t post them here. I do get why you have the front glass so heavily tilted back. If there was ever a time to re-invent the pickup truck, at least in some form or fashion, it is now.
By the way, have you guys looked at the old dropgates? http://dropgates.com/ Sure does look like a lot of potential could be had with them. Mid engines, but lots of potential. Put a small “trunk” up front as a crash buffer and locked storage, tilt the front glass back and you’re set! “Dual” mid engines would work very well in a dropgate I think.
I think your alls biggest problem is consumer confidence in GM in general. So many people I have talked to have given up on GM because of lack of quality, not listening to the consumer in the past, workers and management losing pensions and benefits, nickle and dimeing the dealer mechanics to death, etc. Who were the big winners and the big losers with the old GM?
I wish you all well. But please, don’t forget the people.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:09 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for all the comments.
Quite a few people have suggested a sliding bulkhead partition. It is the most intuitively obvious way to extend the cab and we did create a few concepts around that idea. Surprisingly it isn’t as simple as it sounds. The rear seat cushion needs to be below the bed surface which means you need to open up the bed floor. Additionally, the sidewalls of any extention either need to move into the cab, fold away, OR the cab needs to be always extended to its full length which then limits cargo height. Other variation create multiple moving parts which makes switching modes a complicated process. On top of all these issues, a sliding mechanism needs to have a two-faced seal plane to seal out water in two positions.
After we looked at several sliding solutions, none was as simple to seal, easy to convert, or had the minimal part count of the reversible bulkhead. Believe me, we tried.
The three most practical solutions, each with their issues were the Avalanche “open-bulkhead”, the sealed-in-both-modes reversible bulkhead or some version of a “soft” bellow-type or convertible-type cover.
Your suggestions on number of passengers (6) and number of doors (4) are helpful.
I’ve been surprised that nobody else seemed to be concerned about the two “coupe-length” doors we are suggesting. (we did this to save weight and reduce parts, but we realize this is a bit of a sacrifice for those who use the rear seats on a daily basis).
I like a lot of your suggestions, and while I’m not allowed to accept specific new inventions from this blog (like your ideas to reduce rear compartment drag) I appreciate that you are highlighting areas that we need to consider. We ned to get a good read on what capabilities and attributes the truck needs to have. Keep providing your requirements.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 9:38 am JPTrucker said:
Wade,
Your comments about the reversible bulkhead are well taken. I did not picture where the rear seat would be in relation to the bed floor until now. I see now that’s how the thing works when you flip it to maximum bed length.
Concerns about loads slamming into the cab are there, but I can say I only had a load slam forward 1 time into the front of the bed on my Jeep Comanche as I was counting on friction to keep the load from moving, didn’t tie it in. That does lead to the need for tie-downs in various places. An aluminum beam or pipe across the vertical portion of the bulkhead sounds like would be a help. But you guys know all the hi-strength materials.
I wasn’t necessarily saying that you need 4 full-size doors. I greatly admire the looks of the Honda Element with the suicide rear doors. Don’t know how practical they are though, especially when in a tight parking space and limited sideways clearance.
What should the BN look like? Rugged, humble. I like the windshield rake of the Ford Edge. I think the Jeep Comanche has a timeless, humble look about it. I also like the Jeep X Unlimited 4-door looks. I like the overall, balanced good looks of the Honda Element. I like some of the International Scouts’ looks. I don’t think it should look car-like.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 6:36 pm Mathew Michuta said:
I want a SMALL pickup. I don’t haul thousands of pounds. I haul my dirty mountain bike, and the occasional camping trip. I like trucks. I like going offroading. I like 4wd. I don’t need a v8, I don’t even need a v6. I want to burn biodiesel. Mahindra has a truck coming out that I’ll probably buy. I’d much rather buy something made in the USA. I want the option to haul ass, or sip fuel. My 99 Tacoma has an ECT button that lets me haul ass when I want to.
I want the reliability of a Toyota, but they have alienated me by super-sizing the Tacoma.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 7:47 pm throwback said:
It’s about time someone builds a modern compact truck. Not all of us need to haul 8,000 lbs. This is the type of truck I have been waiting for. Love the bulkhead idea, if this proves too impractical I would gladly take it with a mid gate. There is a reason the Ford Ranger keeps selling even though it is from the dark ages, NO COMPETITION! It’s time GM gave it some, it would also be nice to see GMC with at least 1 unique product.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm skasma08 said:
Nothing But Love For GM.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm flynlow said:
A few things that has kept me from a new GM pickup since my 92 silverado is leg room, small doors (can’t put your arm out of the window if you have a 35 inch inseam leg), big front end (competing with Freightliner or Mack I think), and a conversion extented cab passthrough like the Avalanch. With the V6 lineup currently offered for the chevy car line, power and fuel economy should be at a baseline already as the new pickup should not weight any more that say an Impala.
to this comment On August 12, 2009 at 11:35 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’ve noticed the truck blog has been centered around function without too much discussion around aesthetics. There have been some posts discussing size, ride height and windshield angle and I DID just read a comment about it needing a BIG RIG front.
Tell us what kind of look Bare Necessity Truck needs to have…
Should it look tough and rugged, should it look more carlike and less brutal? Imposing or humble?
Give me some design references, automotive, product design, whatever…
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:31 am chizzy218 said:
I would like to reiterate that this is an awesome idea. I would like to comment on the design, no matter how efficient the truck is it has to look good. There are a few design cues that immediately come to mind when I imagine what I would like to see.
As far as the exterior
1. The hummer Hx concept
2. Toyota A-bat concept
3. Chevrolet Colorado Crew Cab Concept Z71 Plus at SEMA 2006(front end)
4. International Scout
I am not a fan of the overcompensating Uber big rig styling. I don’t think that it looks good on a truck that is going to be this size.
Now as far as the interior. I can say that I purchased another vehicle over a Colorado because of the interior. I currently own a honda element, yes it looks like a toaster, but it is configurability, easy clean up, and gas mileage won me over. After looking on autoblog.com at the markups that were posted, I think you guys are definitely on the right track. Simplicity is GREAT. I am a particular fan of the yellow interior, but I do like the basic grey with the blue backlighting on the instrument panel. I am a big fan of the overall impression of the following vehicles:
1. 2008 Chevy Orlando Concept
2. Hummer HX concept (my favorite)
3.Dodge Rampage concept
Make it waterproof. I am not a fan of carpet at all. I holds odors, stains and can actually make you sick. I use all weather mats because all you need is a hose.
The only frills I need are:
1. AC
2. Ipod connectivity(I have not listened to radio in a while
3. And a place to put a garmin.
This is what I would like to see!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:53 am edvard said:
As far as looks go, I’d personally like to see a truck that doesn’t have hints of styling taken from cars. Way too many trucks I see out there now are too… car-like in appearance.
Actually- I’ve thought it would be super-cool to introduce a sort of retro-styled truck that’s a throwback to the 60’s or 70’s. Something with a simple grille, round headlights, non-metallic paint, white painted steel wheels, and so on. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a rip off of a classic, but rather deliver a style that brings back a look that is more utilitarian and “stout” looking. For example, I love the look of some of the older Datsuns, Toyotas, and small Ford trucks of the 70’s. Perhaps take hints from some of the older Silverado/ GMC trucks of the 70’s and 80’s and have some of their design elements put into a modern interpretation. There’s a certain kind of honesty in some of those old trucks.Back then people who drove trucks actually used them to haul things versus get the groceries. By giving them a more purposeful and utilitarian look, perhaps those who seek a functional, bare bones truck would come flocking.
to this comment On December 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm onesuperspytwo said:
Yes lose the combo back seat bed idea. One of the comments from earlier was the best arguement for this. Having to wash the bed out after every use. That idea won’t work for a guy that hauled some product that has persistant a aroma. Imagine musty mulch and organic fertilizer brewing in your back seat for a couple days becuae you couldn’t wash the converta bed because of inclimate weather. And the big face, hey truck guys want a truck, not some half truck half car wanna be, for that theres the Subaru, or Honda product. If this is where you want to compete, then hey go for it. Like Dodge did with that half truck half car little thing form the k-car days.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:30 am James said:
I like the concept.
The idea of building a functional mid-sized pickup that would pull some of the full-sized buyers as well as conquest some of the Tacoma market is brilliant.
Likes:
Diesel hybrid. All I can say is that it is about time. We’ve had diesel-electrics hauling freight for 60 years–Electromotive Division of General Motors.
Composite bed: in a small truck this is perfect.
However, sometimes erogonimics and seemingly good ideas can fall flat. Case in point: Ridgeline. It isn’t good at anything, too big to be a compact, too small to be a fullsized. The suspension is too smooth for real HD use, too weak for real off-road use. It can tow, but not well, not quickly, and IRS is scary with a heavy trailer. wag-the-dog.
So, it must be light, affordable, reliable, and useable.
4×8 sheets of plywood are a good idea, include enough pockets to put some 2×4s so a person can haul drywall.
Hauling an ATV is fine but make sure it is a fullsize ATV, not just a 250. That way with 1,000 lbs in the bed it won’t sit nose-up and handle like a shopping cart.
It has to have enough power to run the minimum speed (45mph) at max GCWR up a 6% grade. There are too many vehicles that are rated to tow that can’t do this. Down rate the tow capacity or boost the engine power.
After going with some friends up the mountains in AZ from PHX to Show Low, our gas SUV ran 70 the entire way and obtained 17mpg up hill, 22 mpg down hill. Their hybrid ran out of electric power early and it suffered, unable to keep 50mph. It has to be funcitonal, not just a pretty face.
As far as looks, the concept looks good, but with trucks function, not looks, should be the main motivator.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 2:08 am Jason Drews said:
Good point James. A bigger ATV (350-600cc) is typically 4 ft wide if not more. Even a 250cc ATV needs nearly 43 inches of cross bed width to fit between the wheel arches. Interesting packaging challenge indeed.
Thanks for your feedback! Do you have any more thoughts on what sort of interior space is enough?
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 2:48 am James said:
4-fullsized male adults.
At least 6′ tall, that wear a 44 jacket (not narrow/skinny types).
If 4 adults can fit in the front and back comfortably you’ll have a winner.
More importantly…can I fit a rear-facing child seat in the back without pushing the front seat passenger into the dash? Better give me an airbag shut off for the passenger if I have the bulkhead in the forward position. I don’t want a kid getting hurt.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:36 am Andy Miller said:
Good direction. Big, luxury trucks are some of the most under-used vehicles on the planet. (Contractors and the like excluded, those guys need ‘em and use ‘em.)
Tiny pickups can handle 90% of what the average person uses a pickup for. For myself, that means hauling a couch, picking up mulch, moving music equipment, mountain biking trips, bulk trash and yard waste etc. I used the heck out of my small, ultra basic truck and loved it other than it’s limited cab space. This concept seems like it would solve that issue though and I’d love to own another truck.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 7:15 am The lab, il nuovo microsito GM sul design | Virtual Car said:
[...] dell’auto “made in USA”. I prototipi di stile sono denominati Bare Necessity Truck e Bare Necessity car e partono da un principio di base: realizzare un Truck e un’automobile [...]
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 7:17 am jeffg said:
I think you are on one possible right track with the look. I loved the Denali concept from earlier this year, go with something like that just smaller. The second idea would be to go with something a bit more retro. Back in ‘02 dodge had a concept truck called the M80. They designer of it took cues from the ‘50-’51 dodge rams and gave it a more modern look. Kind of like chevy did with camaro. I think if you are considering a regular fixed cab version, that might be the way to go. Also take a look at the M80 for interior finish, they did lots of color match metal and composite materials. It looked good and would have been very durable.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 9:56 am Jeff said:
Nice idea but I believe that the current midsized trucks like the Colorado can get the fuel economy without so much of the sacrifice. For instance it seems like the moveable bulk head would have to be very light/thin meaning even more road noise (a GM trade mark) so why sacrifice a comfortable quite’ish ride for the sake of a louder movable bulk head when everyone has seen an aluminum bed extender, which I believe, makes the bed longer, how about a tailgate that telescopes combined with a bed extender to get the additional length.
I also think GM should spend a little time making its power trains more efficient or higher this guy Johnathan Goodwin, http://www.hlineconversion.com/ !
Spend some time making the ride lighter by using better materials throughout the automobile; it does not have to be small to be efficient.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:09 am Throwback said:
The look needs to be tough, isn’t that GMC’s design language? I personally liked the GMC Terradyne concept from a few years back. The key for me is the silhouette, it should be modern with a very technical look. It should look like a tool you would take with you for weeks camping in the mountains. The interior has to have that look also, the Terradyne had that look especially in the IP/console area.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:51 am Zene said:
This is a great idea! I love the reversable bulkhead.
With a name like the Bare Necessity Truck i think it should look rough and rugged. Almost unfinnished looking. It would have to have the 4X4 option, have a decent ground clearence and be priced in the low 20’s. I think i voltec powertrain would be great, but would be too pricy for something called Bare Necessity.
My perfect vehichle would be the Jeep wrangler ER-EV concept. but who knows if that will actually see the light of day, I want something that will be very economical for my daily commute ie: voltec, yet be able to take me to where i want to go camping / haul stuff on the weekends.
I hope GM is thinking of a Light pickup with a voltec powertrain.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:52 am Rory said:
How about this quick idea….
a tonneau cover that could flip, lock to the tailgate, and become a loading ramp for motorcycles, atvs, lawnmowers, etc.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:55 am Jason Drews said:
Awesome idea!.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:55 pm chizzy218 said:
Actually does anyone rember the SSR. I know it is a convertable mechanism, but I like the way the top stored up. That would be cool for the tonneay.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:00 am Urban Truck Driver said:
You want feedback on your small truck concept?
Well, here’s my manifesto.
1) Visibility: every current vehicle designer should be forced to live with his final design in rush-day city traffic, with jay-walking pedestrians and bike couriers coming at the vehicle from seemingly all directions. The current trend to small side windows and thick A pillars is just plain stupid: example HHR, Hummer, Honda Ridgeline. I could go on but I won’t, I’d just get profane. I do have one question: why in hell can’t the engineer convince the designer that using very high strength steel hollow sections filled with engineered structural foam in the A, B and C pillars might cost a little more but the expected reduction in subtended arc would improve visibility enough that the lives of more than a few jay-walkers and bike couriers might be saved? And if the steel/foam composite won’t work, find something that will!
2) Wipers: why do wipers not do so? Leaving the huge triangle of unswept glass at the top right corner of the windshield is stupid. GM has done counter-sweep wipers in the past. Why not now?
3) Lights: HID headlights need a larger start current but operate at a lower current rating (for the improved visibility at night and in rain/snow) than regular headlights. Why aren’t HID’s standard?
4) Seats: driver positioning is the single most critical element in safely operating a vehicle. Please design the seating to work with a tall and/or large driver. The adjustable pedal option should be standard, as should tilt/telescoping steering columns. Seat height, cushion tilt adjustments, even if ‘manual’, should be standard. And electrically heated cloth seats on a frosty -40 Celsius morning really are not a luxury item!
5) Ventilation: in this age of self-inflicted-driver-distraction the least a vehicle designer should do is get the HVAC vents placed correctly in an attempt, however feeble, to maintain some alertness in the driver. Rear seat HVAC (heat and AC) vents are absolutely mandatory for those of us who carry children and dogs back there. Sufficient windshield defroster air volume is critical in winter driving: there is nothing as dangerous as wiping snow- and sleet melt from the base of the windshield to somewhere a little higher and still frozen, and likely right in the middle of driver sightlines. Also: include some form of wiper blade de-icer at the base of the windshield.
6) Structure: rock solid. Anything less is not acceptable. Especially if moveable bulkheads are included. Nothing is as distracting as, or quickly depreciates the value of a vehicle than, an annoying squeak or rattle. Get the NVH and rust-proofing right: I can’t adequately describe what/how I felt about early rust out of the bottom of the doors in my unlamented and long-gone POS ’95 Sonoma.
7) Format Layout: my personal preference is front engine, rear- and all wheels driven (4x with lockable center differential). Honda has made some strides with the Ridgeline but I remain unconvinced this vehicle will exhibit the long term reliability I would expect from a vehicle costing as much. Subaru has proven reliability in its FWD biased AWD system. Maybe the Haldex AWD system (currently in SAAB cars) has promise. But there is nothing like the proven conventional 4×4 transfer cases available from New Process, or whatever they’re called now, and others to get the job done in winter conditions. So why mention it? With the advent of the unibody AWD Acadia et al I expect the mid-size Trailblazer et al to disappear. I remain unconvinced the ‘new’ GM could build a business case for a body-on-frame small truck if the platform could not also be amortized over the disappearing mid-size SUV. And using shortened frame rails and platform components from the full size Silvy/Sierra results in a small to mid size truck that is much too heavy to help with CAFE: look at the Frontier / Titan relationship (both of which will be fundamentally changed soon given the demise of the Nissan / Chryco agreement to build the Titan on the Ram platform). And stay away from front struts – these things are way too expensive to replace. Stay with good coil-over (no splitting torsion bars, please) A-arms fro the front suspension. Rear suspension? Well-designed (long) leaf springs like the old ZR2 option for S10 and Sonoma or air-shock assisted coils.
Now for the feedback you asked for:
9) Utility 2: spray-in box liner or composite box as long as the materials won’t shatter when something is dropped on them at -40 Celsius. Use the rail system introduced with the Titan and Toy trucks for tie-downs. Roof rack. Tower and cross bar, at rear corners of box, at matched height to roof rack, stow-able by folding down along the top of the box side walls with the crossbar up against the mid gate. Capacity of roof rack and erected tower close to 300 pounds or the weight of several sheets of gyproc or plywood and/or many 20 foot 2×6 deck boards and/or 20 foot 2×8 deck framing members, whichever is greater. Folding, lockable hard box cover.
10) Utility 3: crank windows, manual dual (or tri-) zone AC, heated cloth seats, manual seat adjusters, rubber on the floor (as long as there is decent NVH / thermal / acoustic insulation under the rubber floor covering).
11) Load: 1500 pounds in the box is commendable but 3000 pounds towing is laughable. It sounds like you are deliberately targeting the Ridgeline. Minimum towing rating should be 5000 pounds.
12) Dimensions and other: not more than 205 to 210 inches long (yes, I know a 20 foot 2×6 is 240 inches long!) with an appropriate wheelbase for good load distribution. 49” between the rear wheel wells (this is not critical: 8 foot long sheet stock can go above the wheel wells as long as the roof rack and rear tower/cross bar can take longer (fourteen foot) drywall sheets). 9” ground clearance to all elements of underbody. H-point no lower than 24” and, preferably, higher. 44” front leg room. 34” rear leg room with seat that will fold and tumble (for mid gate operation) and fold up stadium-style to a flat load floor behind the front seats. Front seat could be either bucket or, preferably, 40/20/40 bench with storage in the cushion and in the folding backrest/armrest of the 20% center section. The rest isn’t critical. Target curb weight: 3600 pounds in 4WD/AWD form.
13) Power and drive: 20 mpg city / 30 mpg highway (US gal: would work out to 24 / 36 for the imperial gallon and I’d be ecstatic!): 240 hp, 280 lbft should likely be adequate (barely). Gas or diesel. As an upgrade why not try a small direct-injected 60 degree V6 equipped with a high bypass supercharger? Combine the high thermal efficiency four rotor design from the ZR1 (reduced volume, of course) with the low pressure at low demand (small throttle opening) design from the old Buick 3.8 litre? Colum-shift six speed automatic transmission with manual control of low gear lockout for starts on ice. Defeatable low and mid speed traction control so that wheel spin can be achieved when needed for extraction from, or aggressive prevention of, winter ‘stucks’. Open, manually lockable, center differential in a 2-spd transfer case. Progressive locker (torque-sensing, perhaps) rear differential. 265/75-16 aggressive all-season tires. Forged, painted alloy wheels. Four wheel disc brakes with good ABS (definitely not the first-gen ABS GM used in both full-size and small trucks that would not lockup downhill and would lockup by itself on rough gravel).
So there, you asked for it!
Urban Truck Driver
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:18 pm Wade Bryant said:
Awesome “manifesto”
your comments about visibility (among everything else) are helpful
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm JPTrucker said:
I agree about the visibility. That’s one reason I’ve liked my Jeep Comanche so long.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:08 am mstefani said:
Wade,
Keep the styling and stance aggressive. That is why your Lambda program is so well received. People will want it to look tough and agressive, regardless of what it is really capable of. I wouldn’t want my vehicle to look like it can’t or shouldn’t do something. Ground clearance is not important, even for off-roading, but there is a misconception by the consumer that it is. Something to consider. I saw several comments about stripping down the interior and I would say that is a great idea. I have been a Jeep Wrangler driver for many years now. My current TJ has no carpet with a herculined tub, great to have with the drain plugs, easy clean up and no permanent messes on the inside. Good aesthetics for what you would consider a “Bare Essentials” truck as well.
I am in the R&D group of an automotive seating supplier. It looks like you have some very unique needs for the second row seat. I would like it if you were able to follow up with me via email. We have several products and concepts that may lend themselves well to this application. Very small packaging space with unique reconfigurability.
Thanks
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:35 am Mark_TruckGuy1 said:
The Bare Necessities Truck is awesome. I currently own a 2004 Avalanche and I use the mid gate all of the time. Most of the time, I am in people hauling mode, carting people to lunch (lunch wagon express). Since I am setting up a wood shop in my basement as a hobbyist I have a need for 4×8 sheet goods as well as other materials. I drive 80 miles a day to work (work at Milford Proving Grounds and live in Lake Orion), so the fuel economy of my Avalanche is a bit of a stretch (single guy, one car). My truck has lots of life yet in it, but cracking a 111k miles, I will be in the market in a few years for a new truck that does most of what I need.
Some of things that I really like about my Avalanche: The Ability to have the hard cover over the bed for storage. I like to carry things like a bike or a set of golf clubs around and not have to worry about the security aspect. I think the hard cover plates could be less wieght and still be secure. I like the ability to remove the back glass from the midgate for an open aired cabin feel in the summer (I have air, but most of the time I don’t use it). The Mid gate is very versatile and easy to use, so that as well has to be accomadated. Sometimes I will need to run cargo in the winter and the mid gate gives me the option to have a fully enclosed bed area with the hard cover in place and the glass in and still get my cargo around.
The main sacrifice I would be giving up in the Bare Necessities truck is the second set of doors for passengers in the back seating row. If egress and ingress are easy for tall big adults than this would be worth giving up.
All in all, I am very happy that you guys are working on these concepts. In a few years I will be in the market for my next truck and hopeful this will be it.
Thanks for all of your excellent work. Good Job.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:36 am Mike Malone said:
First, I want to say this is a great idea. However, I want to address several of the issues that have been brought up and give my perspective. As to towing capacity, I think 4,000 would be a better max capacity. When I tow even my lightest loads of 2 atvs (sportsmans at about 800 lbs each) on a trailer (about 900-1000 lbs) at 3000 I would only have 400 pounds till maxing out the capacity. I live in the Appalachians which have some steep grades and have tried towing with vehicles close to their towing capacity. Now when I tow I try to keep a 1000 lbs buffer just in case. I can only imagine towing in the Rockies at near max towing capacity. One final note on towing, nothing will hurt a new truck more than as word of mouth getting around when someone tries to over tow with it and tells all of his friends that also drive trucks. Because of these reasons, I think a 4,000 would be a better max towing rating.
Next gas mileage. I think the 30s mileage would be enough. Sure 40 sounds good but how many decently sized cars(non compacts) actually achieve 40 at the moment? Now when it comes to deciding between gas mileage and towing capacity there is a balancing act. If stretching it to 40 gets rid of the truck’s ability to perform like a truck, what is the point of an “bare essential truck”. As far as the gas vs. diesel argument, I love diesel’s torque and gas mileage but I agree with the other commentators if it adds too much of a price tag won’t buy it. Of course if sourcing some of the diesels from Europe can meet our different emission measuring standards without adding too much cost to the truck, count me in.
As to ac/radio. It is nice to say people don’t need them but most people would willing pay for them. I am not talking about the dual zone climate with heated and cooled seats. But nothing is worse than a midsummer severe thunderstorm with the temperature in the 80s without an a/c option. Also a radio with just a single cd player would be enough.Personally, I don’t need all the bells and whistles that can just break but on distances for an hour by myself some music would be good.
As to bed size. I agree it needs to hold an atv. Further, if it could hold an atv it should be able to hold just about everything most people would need. Size wise if a person can angle in a 4×8 piece of plywood into the bed then one could just stack drywall on top of it for almost all the remodeling needs.
These are just my thoughts on what a “bare essential truck” should be anything more and the person really needs a full size and anything less does the person even need a truck?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm Wade Bryant said:
those sound like sensible spec.’s
The towing capacity does drive the MPG figure down.
It also seems that people’s needs fall within a broad range (0 – 8,000+ pounds)
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 2:54 am James said:
As it is now, on paper that is, if the tow capacity was over 5,000 lbs it would be dangerous.
The truck will be too light and too small to safely haul that much weight, unless it is a water tank on a short tandem axle trailer with brakes on both axles. Even then I’d say it is too much.
GM, and the rest of the automakers, are in a battle to beat Toyota and Nissan for the 1/2 ton towing title even though towing an 8,000lbs trailer should really be done with a 3/4 ton truck. Let those that need a HD truck get a HD truck. 4,000 lbs is more than sufficient, just make sure it can tow that much.
There are numerous 6% grades in the west, sometimes up an over 10,000 ft in elevation. A turbo-diesel sure would be nice at 10,000 ft.
to this comment On August 16, 2009 at 11:33 am Gary said:
I agree that towing capacity shouldn’t be too much of an emphasis on a small truck. I know someone who had an unfortunate highway accident towing a travel trailer with their Tacoma. Don’t give the customer too much confidence in towing a large trailer if it will just lead to disaster in the end.
With a small truck, I wouldn’t want to tow anything more than a pop-up trailer. If you have the money to buy a big travel trailer, you should have the money for a big truck and its thirst for fuel.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:42 am Tom said:
Don’t forget the Locking differential. Assumming this is a two-wheel drive truck, the differnetial would ensure the vehicel has best in class traction. It also prevents the wheels from spinning uncontollably which saves the ground (off-road), which supports the “tread-lightly” campaign
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:59 am Chris said:
The Bare Necessity Truck, I think, needs to look like a truck….more on the tough and rugged side. A strong, broad, stocky stance. Not necessarily imposing but should not to look like a car. The ride height of the 4X4 S-10 was good. Not too tall like the Tacoma or Ranger 4X4s. I personally think wheels and tires can make or break the look of any vehicle. The current Colorado/Canyon wheel and tire combos are sad.
In response to your earlier post about price, powertrain etc…
vehicle price- $20K-30K depending on options
powertrain type- multiple options although a clean diesel sounds good with a 6 speed manual.
fuel economy- Low 30 MPH is what i would expect. It doesn’t need 40mph, especially if that drives up the $$$
towing capacity- 2000 lbs. is plenty for me.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:11 pm Wade Bryant said:
your suggestions for vehicle stance are right in tune with our designer’s instincts.
Manual transmissions seem to be a popular request from this blog too.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:59 am Voodoovaj said:
Couldn’t you put an Inline 6 in there and move the cab forward? I love the cab over concepts and I’d like to see a cab moved forward to increase the bed space.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm Wade Bryant said:
a transverse inline-6?
Anything we can do to make the package more efficient by moving the occupants forward would help keep the length down. Some of the sketches we posted show the intent (not sure if it’s achievable).
yes, good idea.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:53 pm Throwback said:
I think the DI 2.4L engine is a good choice although I don’t think it can hit the mileage number. Personally I would like to see a DI 1.4L turbo supplemented with the next gen mild hybrid system. This would give good low end torque and hit the mpg figure. I think towing ability is going to have to be traded off against mpg. It looks like you may need 2 engine options, one for the high mpg/low tow rating and one for the higher tow rating. I am not a truck owner mainly because I need something that is good on gas, versatile and not too big. This would fit me perfectly. I would be willing to pay up to 35K for a truck that could hit all of your stated performance parameters. I don’t mind paying a premium for this type of capability.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:49 pm RICHARD said:
i think gm needs to move out of the gas bussiness and move to the future where great mind get the chance to make the future in to the present!!!!
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 12:53 pm RICHARD said:
with yalls help i got the movement all i need is yall suport
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:08 pm JohnnyEscalade said:
Rotating bulkhead = Transformers. How cool it that? Very innovative idea, and I’m sure Honda has already put their displaced F1 engineers to work copying this idea like they did with the Avalanche-Ridgeline…HA!
Seriously, it’s an idea that has a place. My first pick-up was a ‘94 GMC Sonoma, regular cab, short bed, 4×4. It worked great 95% of the time during college. I bought a bed-topper to increase the cargo capacity, and to drive my friends around in the bed because it was only a two-seater. The rotating bulkhead addresses this issue.
My next vehicle was an ‘02 GMC Sonoma, ext cab, short bed, ZR2 4×4. It had the ext cab in case I needed to drive around more people, but that was rarely “needed”. This truck had a hard tonneau cover to keep things locked & dry.
Looking back at mpg, I didn’t care because fuel was cheap. I do believe they both got around 18-19 mpg overall. Today that would be a deal breaker. I “need” at least 22 city and 28 highway out of this concept to make me want one. No reason to shoot for 40mpg…maybe 35mpg should be the stretch goal. It’s a truck, not a 4cyl Malibu…although I was able to carry 14 2×4x96″ studs inside a ‘09 Malibu.
“Bare” should only reference the truck’s small size yet large capabilities. I still must have options for power everything, aux iPod input, XM, OnStar, airbags, heated seats, AWD, or 2WD, etc. Offer the ability to order it with no power options for the contractors that don’t care for this stuff and want to save a few thousand $’s. However…if the window sticker for a “loaded” and “bare-bones” model shows the exact same mpg ratings…what was the point in offering a bare model? If you remove all that weight from two power window motors, some harnesses, the CD/XM/iPod radio, four airbag modules, and even heated seat guts, you aren’t going to see a change in overall mpg. The bareness needs to come from the structure materials, and powertrain efficiencies.
Don’t waste this concept on a low tech or low performing powertrain. The engine/trans combo offered in the Canyon/Colorado mid-size pickups were horrible. For example, my wife had leased an ‘07 Hummer H3. It had the 3.7L 5-cyl with a 5-speed manual transmission. We live in the Denver area, and drove on I-70 into the mountains for day trips at the ski resorts. That engine/trans combo was less than easy to drive. No power in any gear. When climbing the steep grades, you had to downshift into 3rd to maintain 65mph..and that sounded like the engine was going to fly out from under the hood. When that lease ended, my wife decided to trade “cool” for “efficient”. She now drives an ‘08 Saturn Astra 5-door. It has an ecotech with the 5-speed manual trans. Great driving/handling, but again, lacks power in any gear. Our friend’s ‘07 Mazda 3 with a 2.3L engine and 5-speed manual blows our Astra out of the water, and still gets 30mpg.
Sorry for the rant, but I could go on and on about all this stuff. It’s a sickness.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:37 pm Wade Bryant said:
Your comments aren’t a “rant” at all. You wouldn’t believe how many hours I’ve sat through vehicle clinics and didn’t get this much good information.
We do need to get weight out of the vehicle from anywhere we can. Rmoving power accessories does take out weight, cost, materials and reduces vehicle power consumption. People don’t realize how much fuel is burned to activate power features in a car through alternator load.
I do agree that many people will want to “pile on” the options. EPA MPG figures are based on a vehicle tested with “average” equipment, so it will be a balance (and the minimally-equipped-vehicle customer will more easily beat the EPA rating)
I’m a personal fan of the inline-5 engine (at least in the 2WD Colorado) I mostly like the uniqueness, but it’s plenty powerful in a not-too-heavy truck, but I can’t say I’ve ever driven a 5-cyl H3 through the mountains before.
As much as we’re trying to contribute to the efficiency through vehicle design, you are correct that the powertrain makes the big difference.
Our truck as we originally configured it achieved anywhere from 26 to 40 MPG depending on the engine/drivetrain combination. [we do this by plugging in all the assumed vehicle specifications into a computer model]
Thaks for taking the time to comment.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 3:05 am James said:
I hope I speak for the majority here to say that it is great to know that someone cares what people want. Far too often the impression is that we get what we get.
I thought about this concept today while driving around PHX for work. I saw many trucks, lifted, lowered, 4cyl, 6, V8s and lots of diesels. One thing I have noticed is that diesel folks are sold on diesels and they will keep getting them over and over. It is time for GM to get passed the 350 Olds diesel paradigm.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm powerfreak said:
thanks for not forgetting about the “truck guys” in this new green world we seem to live in.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm Will Leroux said:
To me, a green truck sounds like an oxymoron. Seems time/money would be better spent on powertrain efficiency improvements instead of some reversible bed gizmo that is likely to rattle, leak and be future warranty headaches for GM. It reminds me of the Trailblazer XUV (GMT370) – looking to solve a problem that nobody has. Anyone that truly needs a truck will have no use for this feature.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm Paul Waque said:
Good ideas on the presentation of the design as an open forum. Many people seem to be engaging in it. My comments are as a car and van driver that would normally not choose a truck.
I would give up some of the load/ towing capacity if it meant a better ride and better fuel economy. The wheelbase would not be long enough to make this a good tow vehicle anyways. I would rather have a simpler cheaper moderately efficient system than a really expensive hybrid/diesel. Though turbo diesel would be my first choice. I would be okay with FWD.
I am on the fence about the rotating bulkhead. If there was a less bulky box extender like Fords Sporttrack that would be simpler, no?
thanks for the forum, good luck
Other things I would like to see:
-Kind of seatbelts in the box for securing loads, at least numerous tiedown hooks, but if the straps are there and retractable so much the better.
-I probably would not buy this because like all pickups it is challenging to put my canoe on the roof; a receiver in or near the tailgate for an optional T brace to carry long items on the roof would be attractive; the option would include a load bar across the roof.
thanks for the forum, good luck
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:36 pm greenhome said:
My two bits:
Efficiency in both fuel consumption and overall material volume is certainly an excellent starting point for this concept vehicle. I would also like to see affordability and a utilitarian approach focused on during the process of bring this vehicle to your customers. Options or after market parts including bolt on winches, overhead racks compatible with the the new body, compressor/generator capabilites built into the engine design, are other things I would like to see considered.
I estimate I will be driving my current chevy truck for another 2 years. At that time I would like to express my brand loyalty and go with another chevy, if you deserve it. This blog and the idea’s gm seems to be pursuing are and excellent and re-assuring start.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 3:58 pm BobM said:
I also agree that this is a great concept. I did a fast scan through the comments thus far and didn’t see anything about camping, a la the Pontiac Aztec. Maybe that’s a “duh” but please add it to the wish list. I’ve never owned a pickup. I currently have a Subaru Forester but your vehicle looks like it truly can be the all-purpose (light) vehicle.
Here’s the other features I’d like to see for both cars and trucks in “Favorite Ride:” safe, awd, small suv/5-door (maybe wagon), cvt, high mileage, Internet, upgradeable electronics (upgrade software, not replace hardware) gps travel with voice recognition, on-star, great stereo
Cheers!
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm Wade Bryant said:
I’d like more insight on campers’ needs. My personal “urban-camping” experiences (sleeping in cars, on parkbenches, etc.) haven’t prepared me to cater to a real campers’ wishes.
For camping do you want to sleep inside the vehicle, in a tent attached to it, ??? (sorry, I’m clueless here)
out of curiosity – Does “Subaru-owner” = “camper”?
I sense a link between the two from many observations. (My brother (mountain-biker, nature-lover) has always loves Subaru’s and has a Forester too).
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 2:22 pm Throwback said:
Wade, I would say both. It’s been awhile since I camped but I would prefer to sleep in the bed in which case the rotating bulkhead will help. I can see several “Activity Packages” as dealer options. Camper package- Bed tent, tie downs, air matress, air compressor etc. Bike Package- bed rack for multiple bikes, air compressor (tires). Hunter package- dog cages, lockable, waterproof gun cases, waterproof wader compartments etc.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 7:19 pm Scott Johnson said:
I’m ecstatic that you (and GM) are looking at this market segment. I’m between trucks and I’ve been waiting for something like a basic-necessities-truck for years, but I think you’re missing the mark a bit. Usually, at least once a week, while I’m commuting I play the “If I had to have one vehicle for life what would it be,” and a small pickup is the answer. Like a toyota 4×4 from 1985 under the skin of a nissan or toyota from the 90’s (better quality sound deadening, a little more room), but with a small torquey diesel and no frills. Rubber mat floor, no radio (a/c is always nice to have) because I’m going to put my own in there anyway. Steel wheels and good ground clearance, but low overall height. Again, like a mid-80s japanese 4×4. Most important, compared to todays trucks it needs to be small!
Small does not equal anything sold on the American market today. I’ve written letters to Toyota and Nissan asking for a small pickup like they used to build. Trucks have gotten larger and larger, and the heavy duty market is well served. If you need to tow 10,000 lbs, or 6 big guys and a full bed of bricks up the Rockies, the market has you covered. If you live in an urban or exurban area, where parking garages are small, and space is at a premium, you’ve got nothing. This market is limping along with 10-25 year old (mostly import) trucks. We are clamoring for a seriously small (like 80’s toyota small) but tough, simple pickup. The Indian diesel someone mentioned upthread is very tempting, but the maker is unknown, and untested. I’d much rather put my money on GM for the same truck.
Your bulkhead design is clever, and may work wonderfully, but those who want a small truck aren’t interested in clever solutions that may end up being a gimmick. I feel similar about the hybrid system (except, it’s not likely a gimmick). Too complex, too expensive. Let them both be options. I want a simple, tough, 4wd (small diesel would be my dream) with a rubber floor mat and the ability to put some groceries behind the seats. Jump seats or a small bench would work, but parking space, especially in urban areas, is more important to me than the ability to fit 5 of my family/friends in the truck. I know a lot of people need that, but they are already being served by the market. Those of us who would only use those seats 5% of the time, aren’t. I’ve got a family, and I’ve got hobbies, but I don’t need a ‘basic’ truck to tow 10,000lbs up the rockies. I need to get plywood and lumber, compost and mulch, and take stuff to the landfill. And I’d like to get 30+mpg and run diesel (especially for the longevity of the drivetrain like the dodge cummins)
Make it small, make it tough, make it simple and it will become the next cult-truck like the venerable toyota did. People will buy one, and then sing it’s praises, and pass it down to their kids who will then buy the next generation of trucks, and on and on so that 30 years from now, people will be telling toyota or fiat to make a truck like GM did.
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 10:02 pm Harry said:
A truck with good visibility is very important to me. Will it have telescopic & blind detection features integrate into the rear view mirrors?
to this comment On August 13, 2009 at 11:19 pm PhilR said:
This seems to be a good idea. My daily driver is an old compact Toyota SR5 pickup and I like it’s size and it’s low cost of operation but sometimes wish it would have more space in the xctacab and in the cargo bed (and more power too!).
But I have one concern about durability and winter operation of this module. I rarely care to remove all ice and snow from my truck bed in winter! I just can’t imagine what would heavy rain, snow, salt, ice, moving objects in the cargo bed, years of utilisation and collision damage like a side impact would do to this mechanism! Also, this has to be very well designed to avoid water infiltrations inside the cab! I hate rattles too and this thing seems to be rattle prone! (maybe I’m wrong!)
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:00 am Jeff R. said:
Some, if not all these have been suggested, forgive me. There are a lot of comments preceding me. What I find important and useful, would be similar to my first truck, a 1982 Datsun. King Cab, A/C, manual tranny windows and locks, and most importantly, diesel. It had a 2.2 litre 4 cyl. diesel and took anything we threw at it. Cab over camper? Still got about 33 mpg. Fill the bed with gravel? Till its falling over the bed. It didn’t care. It barely got out of its own way, but a truck getting mileage in the 30’s. 32-35 mpg would be enough, if it still had enough guts to pull a small boat or travel trailer (pop-up or 15-20′ max). Make options just that, options. Put a package together, fine, but don’t force me to take $2k in options to get cruise control. Make rubber flooring available even if you order some options. For those looking to tow 5000 lbs or more, you have the Avalanche and Silverado. Keep it reasonable in size. We currently use our 03 Montana for moving and hauling almost anything. Since GM decided to move away from the most versatile vehicle in the line up (you can’t put a washer and dryer in a Traverse), I guess I will need another truck in the future to fill that roll.
I have had two S-10 extended cabs, a 91 and a 92. Good trucks for me, and the size is about right, but flexibility and lower than desired gas mileage were two changes I wished for. Extra storage anywhere you can put it. Take a look back at a concept Nissan did many years ago called the Gobi. Under bed compartments accessible from the side, removable duffel for the glove box is OK, but where do I put the owners manual? The Aztec’s center console/cooler was an awesome idea.
In short, this is a great concept if the price can be kept down and the mileage up. Don’t overload it. Look at what Nissan did with the original Xterra. Bare bones has to mean bare bones, at least as a starting point. By the time this becomes reality, pricing starting in the low 20’s should be good with A/C and radio pre-wiring (like the S-10 had as a minimum in 94). And tilt steering either standard or a LOW cost option is mandatory. Manual transmission available at ALL levels, not just the basic no option version. I am driving a Mazda 3 right now because we could not find a Cobalt with a manual, cruise and RKE. This would be more of a commuter truck (I have tools that I need to carry from site to site) than anything for me, but I do pick up the kids on the way home, so the flexibility is great.
Keep up the good work of late, and thanks for opening up a channel to bounce ideas off those of us that care.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:16 am larry4pyro said:
Congratulation to GM for getting back to your truck roots – the bare necessity truck is a GREAT idea. In my situation I prize space over everything else. The trick is to maximize the interior space without expanding the exterior into a 3 ton tank. It seems the current design trends make the trucks appear to emulate the look big and macho – I don’t need that, but I do need the space. A few years ago GM experimented with a truck with a wider rear axle that removed the wheel wells out of the bed leaving a unobstructed box. I loved that idea, even if it meant the rear was a bit wider than the front. So how about a square bed (no wheel wells) that is slightly wider than 48″ and at least 6′ long?
Loved the rotatable bulkhead, it would word great for me. I suggest you make the bed of plastic for ease of maintenance and to lower weight. I’d also like to see the bed height lowered as much as possible. You might also want to consider bed sides that can drop down to allow loading from at least one side. While on the subject of beds you might consider adding a lot more tie-downs, or at least points where a tie-down can be screwed-down for a particular application.
A small DI turbo diesel works for me, just make sure to give me a transmission with enough cogs to get me rolling without holding up traffic and to maintain a reasonable highway speed. I have difficulty believing that it would be possible to design a usable truck that gets 40 MPG. I think a targe weight around 3400 pounds would get you 30+ MPG and that would be great, but 40? I can’t see how you can get there without resorting to an expensive plug-in hybrid solution and I can’t see that as a barebones solution. Just curious, are you folks thinking of staying with body-on-frame or going to a unibody ala the Ridgeline? I go offroad with my truck and I think I would be a little concerned doing this with a unibody, particulary a unibody with independent rear suspension. Oh and don’t forget the G-80 locking diff, this is one item that differentiates GM trucks from your competition. It works great, is inexpensive and doesnt add a significant amount of weight.
My idea of a bare necessity truck is one that does not require a lot of maintenance. GM is pretty good in this respect, but I would try to design the truck for ease of maintenace.
The cab should be small and simple, with floors and seats that can work in a dirty environment. How about rubber mats that can be blown or washed out and washable seat covers? I think the working person will need space for a laptop, phone and other work items. Note that some storage is important even when the bulhead is rotated for cargo space. Safety cannot be comprimized on and some confort items like A/C and radio with Bluetooth are not luxuary items for someone that uses this truck for their office.
Good luck on your project! When you come-up with a baseline design, do you think you will be allowed to publish the specification on this web site for reader to comment?
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 2:54 am Krystin said:
Cargo/Passenger needs: Should be able to fit up to 5 or 6 people. 4WD is a MUST. Needs to be able to carry an ATV or snowmachine in the bed. Should be able to haul large trailers.
Which brings up another point – how will your hybrids stand up to cold weather? More specifically – Alaskan weather (i.e. -40F; yes, NEGATIVE). Will the batteries burst? Will it only work with gasoline then? Or are we to be considered a special needs group (if so – PLEASE put out a disclaimer. Alaskans LOVE their trucks!!!)?
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 7:37 am BrianCastillo said:
Krystin raises a really good point about hybrid batteries and weather conditions. This one of the things that makes hybrid car batteries so different than laptop batteries or iPod batteries; people often ask me “Why don’t you just fill a car with existing lithium-ion batteries from cellphones or something?”, and the answer is, it isn’t that simple. Most people don’t expect their laptop to work fine, every time, outdoors in the middle of winter!
In any case, while I’m not in a position to make any promises regarding the performance of still-hypothetical products like BN Truck, I can tell you that everyone in the hybrid powertrain / advanced battery field is keenly aware of the needs of our customers in the more extreme climates, like Alaska. Cold-weather performance is a challenging are for some of these systems, but your input just reinforces the message that we can’t design cars and trucks that only work in sunny environments. (40 degrees below zero – yikes!)
Thanks for your input!
(Disclaimer/Truth-in-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but I’m speaking on my own behalf here. -BC)
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 7:13 am Dylan said:
I like the idea of the Bare Necessity truck a lot. I think that it should have manual transmission as a standard, roll up windows, and a very basic media center, maybe Ipod Touch based. A 4 cylinder should be good enough, or even electric. I am not sure whether it should be unibody or body on frame. If you are able to create a rugged unibody platform for less than the cost of a compact pickup’s platform, you should go unibody. If not, a body on frame platform with lightweight, yet durable materials would be the right way to go. In my opinion, the truck should look like a mini tough GMC truck, with futuristic elements, while maintaining simplicity. If you want, I can link you to a sketch I drew of what elements I think would look good from the concepts. I also think that reliability should be a priority, because many people are apprehensive of GM products for that reason. In many Asian countries, such as Japan, there is an overpopulation issue, and now things are being built upward, instead of outward. A good examle of this is the Toyota Bb/ Scion xB (first generation). As small as that is, the interior is quite spacious, thanks to interior height and design. That would be a good concept to work on for the interior, leaving a good deal of space to the bed. I think that using the roof as additional storage would be smart also. I like the reversible bulkhead. I don’t think that this should have too much ground clearance, and should be designed for both street, and rugged terrain. This truck should offer something unique, and should look green. Hope I helped.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 8:59 am Todd Stephens said:
I absolutely love this concept. I don’t know that there is much more to add to most of the comments I have seen here.
Let me preface what I am about to say with this… I am a long time GM customer, loyal to a fault. But I have been extremely disapointed with the launch of new vehicles. It takes GM a very long time, more than other makers, to bring a concept to market. Then once they do reach market they are a mere shadow of the concepts… most of the time they are disappointing at best. Someone said it best… under promise and over deliver! Bring something new to the game that people aren’t expecting. Hold your cards a little closer to the vest.
Because of my disppoinment over the years I have definitely considered jumping ship.
Just a short couple of things. 1) I have wanted a new truck for a very long time, but the cost of a fullsize truck is astronomical, I think GM should look at the business model Hyundai has developed. They started with simple barebones vehicles and gradually produced the unexpected and now they are doing quite well. Cheap doesn’t have to mean poor quality.. it should me a good value. 2) If you are going to present these concepts and they receive positive feedback, don’t you think they should be built… give the market what they want.
Somehow, I think GM will manage to screw this up by bringing to market something that isn’t even remotely close to the vehicles you are presenting here.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 9:02 am Todd Stephens said:
I absolutely love this concept. I don’t know that there is much more to add to most of the comments I have seen here.
Let me preface what I am about to say with this… I am a long time GM customer, loyal to a fault. But I have been extremely disapointed with the launch of new vehicles. It takes GM a very long time, more than other makers, to bring a concept to market. Then once they do reach market they are a mere shadow of the concepts… most of the time they are disappointing at best. Someone said it best… under promise and over deliver! Bring something new to the game that people aren’t expecting. Hold your cards a little closer to the vest.
Because of my disppoinment over the years I have definitely considered jumping ship.
Just a short couple of things. 1) I have wanted a new truck for a very long time, but the cost of a fullsize truck is astronomical, I think GM should look at the business model Hyundai has developed. They started with simple barebones vehicles and gradually produced the unexpected and now they are doing quite well. Cheap doesn’t have to mean poor quality.. it should mean a good value. 2) If you are going to present these concepts and they receive positive feedback, don’t you think they should be built… give the market what they want.
Somehow, I think GM will manage to screw this up by bringing to market something that isn’t even remotely close to the vehicles you are presenting here.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 10:12 am GaryC said:
I’m late to this party, and there are just too many posts for me to read them all. I’ll post my thoughts, but it is possible that I’m restating what others have said.
As a Chevy truck owner, I have quite a few ideas as to what a truck is and isn’t. I’m not a fan of the mid-gate. The beauty of a truck is that it has a “clean” compartment and a “dirty” compartment. I don’t like mixing the two, otherwise the vehicle is just a large SUV. A “real” truck must be able to carry a 4×8 sheets, be able to carry bricks and rocks (and occasionally manure) without care and must have adequate tie downs. It is this reason that unibody trucks have never gain much traction with the market.
In my mind there is no reason why the bed of the truck can’t be made from a lightweight carbon fiber material. Further, is could be configurable with a sliding bed so some days I may only need a 4′ bed and 8′ on another.
Chevy already makes a great bare necessity truck in the Silverado Work truck. What is needed is to make this truck lighter and more fuel efficient. Liberal use of light weight materials and a variable output engine could drive fuel consumption down, while increasing payload and performance.
Final thought on the bare necessity truck: The auto industry was able to sell hundreds of thousands of bare necessity trucks each year in the 1960’s and 1970’s. When trucks became more versatile, the industry delivered millions each year. The modern pickup has evolved due to customer demand. The buying public has voted with their purchasing dollars – they want capable pickups. Now they want capable fuel efficient pickups.
It all comes down to simple math. Less weight = less fuel. Less weight = more capability.
The answer is less weight. Not less content.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 11:13 am rsqrdh said:
I reiterate all of the comments above…Starting with the success of the Avalanche and then paring it down to the BNT vehicle is an exciting opportunity for GM!!! Have you been able to communicate with the Avalanche team that launched the vehicle to solicit some input? I am sure guys like Tony P, have ideas that they wanted to develop but couldnt due to costs/technology/timing available at the time. The ideal of building on the success of the Avalanched concept, but bringing it WAY forward with mileage improvements, adaptability improvements, and simplicity are key for success. This is why my wife and I have two Av’s in the garage… I want to update at least one of them to a smaller car…but the utility, and costs to operate (especially insurance) keep them going great at 100k miles each! Not bad for a 2002/3 vehicle so far. Also, the important info provided by the great comments is the targeting of the DIY consumer, is refreshing to note that we aren’t alone in our voice for simple, easy to maintain, and adaptable need for vehicles!
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 12:23 pm Torque said:
Firstly, you must simplify the truck!!! Try to use your money in the most efficient way. You’re making a GREEN, super utility truck, that is not very expensive and is also fuel efficient. People need budget green SUT! I believe that this new idea with the reversible bulkhead is too expensive for this concept. It’s very difficult. The idea is fresh and quite good, but not for this truck. You need to lower the kerb weight of the vehicle and to use more efficient powerplants. Forget about those multi-litre V8 engines! Use 4- or 6-cylinder engine with direct fuel injection and turbocharger(s). If you have enough money – make a hybrid SUT. You may also use a double-declutch transmission or clever automatic one. And do not make the car too heavy!!! What abot design? Make it fresh. Aerodynamics – this is your chief designer in this project. Make the exterior similar to your bigger trucks, but with smaller sizes. Try to use the elements of the interior from your other cars (saloons, trucks, SUVs, whatever) to reduce the price. Make the basic model as poor, as you can, but with ability to order options. Do not think about off-road abilities much. Make the basic model rear wheel drive, but the top one 4wd. Pay much attention to quality of the materials. And think about Japanese trucks!!! Think over what THEY have and what YOU have! Use special tyres that save fuel, etc.This is the main idea…
Best regards, Torque.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 1:00 pm Throwback said:
There have been some good ideas on functionality mentioned by many posters. I want to give you the perspective of a non-truck owner, who wants a truck. Versatility and size is important for me, I have one vehicle so I need it to be fuel efficient. The performance parameters you have stated are just what I am looking for. I don’t want a retro truck. I want a modern design, with road presence. That does not mean size (a Mini has presence) take a look at a Coleman Road Trip grill. It’s small, versatile and good looking. It was clearly designed for a specific function but it looks great just sitting there.
The Jeep Rescue concept from 2004 was a great idea. The problem was they dumbed down the design for the new Wrangler. The interior in particular was very well done. Exposed metal framing, painted surfaces, it was awesome. That is the type of interior I would like to see. I realize that would increase cost so use painted plastic if necessary but a technical (high tech) look would be perfect. Build this truck and I will buy my first truck. For the type of performance you are talking about I think buyers would be willing to pay a medium truck prices 30-35K loaded.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm Wade Bryant said:
good to hear comments from a non-truck perspective. I think there’s opportunity for a useful vehicle that takes on truck and car roles.
The camp seems somewhat slit here between people demanding multi-function and people wanting to return to simple, more single-purposed trucks.
Thanks
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 3:08 pm Julien said:
You already have the real truck..ie the silverado and the Sierra. So why over lap the segment with a midsize truck. Make it on a monocoque plateform that exists, already. Traverse or Equinox pending on the demographics…etc.. and, provide people with a small affortable truck. Without looking at the market a 4 door monocoque based vehicle would equal close to the S10 fuel economy numbers that brought people to the show room based on the S10 price. Except throw out the bad elements of the S10…ie poor chassis dynamics,low appeal and it will be a winning truck. The size would keep it away from the large framed vehicles. You have a good aproach; keep it simple & the cost down, on this bare necessity vehicle and it will be successful.
A higher priced segment could be based on the traverse to compete with the pilot, but this would stray away from a bare necessity truck where the price of entry is a greater driver.
The business case for a midsize truck might be present but this is already satisfied by the Pilot. The Risk / Reward would be greater with a lower cost ..ie smaller version.
Regards
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 4:03 pm Mike52 said:
As a potential truck owner , I say “the sooner the better”. The only thing stopping me from getting a small truck this next year is:
1) How expensive they have become.
2) How fuel ineffiecient they are.
I need a vehicle to compliment my Corvette. A very fuel efficent small truck (2wd or 4wd) would be just the ticket.
Mike
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm Xuan Tran said:
My vision of some BARE NECESSITY Truck features:
1) BN SKIN – Composite panels like Saturn (easy to change stylistically for MCE, lighter, cheaper in some respects). I would think the concept of BN is about function more than form, so who cares about panel gaps? Paint-blended in panel makes for matte finish that might actually be a tool for marketing to sell in some stylish trend (matte is popular in certain products, no?). Panel gaps are just gaps when your design is trying to be flush. If you come up with unorthodox designs to make the truck look even more trucky… industrial, you can actually get around flush panels and make cool pseudo-overlaps or whatnot that actually hide the tolerance issues inherent in composite panels. It’s about creative distraction of the eyes.
2) FLEXIBLE FOUNDATIONS – Spaceframe architecuture with composite panels. While tooling/process cost would be higher initially, because we don’t have such a platform/architecture to work from, the spaceframe could be a foundation for other vehicles, too… spreading the cost. It may open up materials science to using more composite inner structural components, too. I think a lot of what makes a platform inherently a Delta or Epsilon or whatever is due to the nature of unibody today and how some exterior panels are integral in the structure. Maybe we can get away from that and permit easier styling changes, yet cost savings underneath with more common and flexible space frame? I’m really hoping GM body people will figure out a spaceframe design that permits them to reduce further the platform/architecture proliferation. Maybe not architectures anymore, but rather front space frame module? Cabin module? Rear module? Each with its own flexibility to be combined in combinations to afford a family sedan, a wagon, a crossover, a HB, a trucklet, etc. That way, the cost to this new BN product will also permit other vehicles and thus spread the cost.
3) FOOLING THE EYE – These are trucks, so stop with the 20+” wheels already. As dumb as it may sound, maybe creative designers can use steelies with covers that overlap the tire a little to dipict larger wheel size to the eye? BN is not about 22″ers.
4) DISTRACTIONS – You can design cheap or you can design cheaply. To me, creative marketing can help BN. For example the interior. Maybe you can pull a Lotus Elise-like interior and sell it as industrial. Just make the foundation components pseudo stylish and attach cushioning pads indurstrially styled. Seats? I know they are a huge safety component, but if you understand the regs well, you can find ways to creatively make them more lean. Maybe they are fine for DD, but not for interstate cruising trip. For that, maybe removable cushions are options. Customization may be the key to distracting the customer from the fact that the vehicle is barER bones. A healthy level of customizing options of insanely cool features or styles or whatever could distract the consumer from seeing how bare the vehicle is. It gives them the impression that there is more than there is. They won’t necessarily buy all customizing options, but it can give them the feeling of something overwhelmingly cool in variety… quantity.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 4:20 pm CRASH TEST DUMMY said:
I would keep it simple. Use off the shelf parts from current inventories. The number one thing I hear mentioned is safety of the lightweight autos. Use a simplyfied racing seat, five point harness, reinforced passenger compartment to prove that the new generation of autos are more safe! With that firmly established, a diesel electric drive train with regenerative brakes.. Use capacitators for storage. (http://www.solarfeeds.com/dmsolar/8297-power-disk-offers-hope-of-affordable-solar-energy.html) The electric drive is primary and the onboard generator can provide power in emergencies or on remote locations. The diesel engine can use B100 biodiesel and has an accessory pack for SVO straight vegetable oil. The chassis has hard mount points on all sides to carry cargo. The frame has trailer hitches on the front and back.
Thanks,
CTD
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm Jim B said:
I agree with the S10 analogy. I have had a Sonoma, and two Blazers. While they were always adequate. I had to upgrade things to make them more to my liking. Now that the Holden Ute is shot down (Bye Bye Pontiac) How about something along those lines ? Size is decent but not huge, very good aerodynamics by the looks of them on Holden’s website. ( Yes Virginia .au is allowed to be seen by us “Yanks”) If I could tow my Sea Doo’s and utility trailer with it that would be enough truck 90 percent of the time. If I need bigger that’s what U-haul was invented for.
P.S. I wouldn’t mind getting the Holden Ute with the V-8 if it could use the system in the Silverado that shuts off cylinders when you don’t need all the ponies up and running.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 5:21 pm MikesZ said:
I think this is a great idea for a small truck. I like the versatility and the 40mpg would remove a barrier (lack of fuel efficiency) that has always prevented me from purchasing a truck. I look forward to more desing images of this truck.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 6:10 pm Xuan Tran said:
A followup to my post above…
I am not a truck lover nor hater, so I would rather not pretend to suggest features to entice such potential customers. My notions are more related to SAVING COST in order to make the vehicle Bare Necessity (and make the business case plausible), which in my mind suggests… frugality. Not necessarily “cheapness” and lacking anything, but strong on value with a focus on LESS IS MORE.
To me the challenge you guys have be it this product idea or any other lower-cost (again… BN suggests a focus on some manner of cost savings or affordability to the truck buyer who wishes to have a sound base truck and is not looking for an Escalade EXT) product is the sell in a MATURE & WEALTHY MARKET like the USA. Bare Necessity works well in Mexico or Thailand for a truck, but I believe the true NEED is often really more like WANT in the USA today. That’s not to say it won’t change, but today it is not quite there if at all. But like many trendy things, GREAT MARKETING with a GREAT PRODUCT CAN VERY WELL CREATE such a market… and I think that is where you guys are at with this idea (i.e. More like CREATING something new rather than GROWING something existing.).
Given you are trying to create something new… in a mature market (aka spoiled customer market… spoiled with… traditonally… expectations of power, size, creature comforts, etc.)… you really need both the PRODUCT & MARKETING. You always need both, duh, but I think creating something will rely more on marketing and how you sell it… rather than say… a family sedan (midsize) sale like a Malibu, which has an existing/entrenched market.
Creating something new is obviously going to mean a helluvah business case, because it’s all about money in the end. Our midtruck seems to be going to another country and all that’s left are a couple crossover architectures… one of which might be hard to engineer since we fired all those Canadian engineers. Savings?! What can you do to make the vehicle a plausible idea? Short of the obviously sharing an architecture…
PRODUCT SAVINGS – The ideas I gave above range from ‘grounded to reality’ to ‘out of this galaxy’ (i.e. space frame architecture). You guys can brainstorm all you want, that’s what you went to school for. The point in savings… to me… to make a product like this attractive is savings, yet that most often times equals DEATH BY DECONTENTING, which is not quite something Americans are familiar with… given the days of living large for the last couple decades. How do you have a BN truck, yet not so bare bones that it turns off buyers, because it is… just cheap? Too cheap might get it passed the Strategy Board or whoever knocks on the table and makes your day, but then the customers are left possibly wanting. Too much content might overwhelm the cost and I don’t think Obama is going to directly subsidize our products… since he’s done it enough already. Expectations are high in the American consumer mind… still. We might have gone through a recession, but it is far different than a depression (i.e. People are NOT that eager to REALLY suck it up and cinch belts several inches… yet.). But they do have thoughts of MODERATION/SUSTAINABILITY on their radar (i.e. They aren’t ready to ride a bike everywhere.) and that is what the product must target and take advantage of.
MARKETING SAVINGS – Selling BN IMHO is difficult unless you make BN into a TRENDY FASHION (i.e. If you leave it to notions of car enthusiasts telling you it’s a great idea, you’ll lose, because they account for 0.999%… and rarely do their big mouths see any of their money). People typically don’t aspire to LESS… unless there is good meaning to it. Just like young hipsters choosing Salvation Army clothes (albeit hip combos of it) to showcase their lack of flamboyance and/or excessiveness. Trends like that… BEING FRUGAL/SUSTAINABLE/LESS IS MORE/MODEST/THRIFTY… it is all about showing one’s smartness in things financial/worldy/environmentally/etc. even though one may have the means. Creating a new fashion trend in frugality… for vehicles… in order to save cost. How do you do that, though? Decontenting takes away precious features that spoiled market buyers still want. To me, you do that by:
1) STYLISHLY SPARTAN DESIGN – Designing the product such that it may be spartan (like an Elise), but spartan in a visually handsome way. You are luck in choosing a truck, because trucks have the image of still being manly and industrial and… spartan if need be. It’s only been in the last 15 years of boom economy that trucks became luxury vehicles… even in modest forms! Industrial and Spartan goes well with a Truck’s image. You couldn’t do that easily with an economy car or luxury car. Instead of door trim galore, just provide soft padding/trim where the body touches. The rest can be raw or really spartan trim of low-end, but unique materials that don’t scream “Look how cheap I am!”. Basically… like NAKED bikes, this is a pseudo NAKED TRUCK inside. The potentially good thing about this is customization. Composite panels like Saturn, but as noted above post… designed to not highlight the panel seams (ex. Maybe front fender is bolder than door panel and leaves a purposeful gap with some meshing that makes it look like an exhaust for engine heat or something… thereby not giving complainers the ammo to whine about panel fits, because it was never intended to be flush so you could see the tolerance reality.). Seats can be naked, too. Cushioning in all the right places and not everywhere? Visible seat framing, but maybe painted to look nice? You guys put out a lot of whimsical LEAN seats in concepts, but they never make it to market… I assume because of safety regulations limiting your reach… or maybe somebody just doesn’t have guts to sell the idea??? Stereo, HVAC, IP components? How about purely industrial stuff? Rocker switches from industrial apps? Off the shelf? Whatever way you can find NOT to reinvent the wheel, yet still afford a solid component. Heck, just mootch off existing parts bin. That might not work for making a Cadillac with Chevy components, but it shouldn’t make a difference in a FRUGAL and SPARTAN design that is relying on such notions of RE-USING for smart savings. Just make sure the components at least have some semblence of cohesiveness/continuity in styling. Crank windows? Lean windshield shades? Ruggedly simple materials and design for headliner? Carpeting? Who needs carpeting in an industrial truck? Rubber flooring with a drain! Heck, just spray the floor with Rhino-lining! But do all of it in a STYLISH manner! Wow people with the use of visual clues to styling. Just like some modern house designs use industrial components to impress, yet also save money… you can do the same here! And throw in the idea about styling to DSITRACT FROM THE COST (ex. Wheel covers to make the wheel look larger than it is, etc.).
2) CUSTOMIZATION – I mentioned earlier that customization could be a critical tool to save and still impart the appearance (though true if customer wants to take advantage of all options) of MORE CONTENT, even though the content is lessened… on the BASE model. For most buyers seeing such a heavily decontented vehicle can easily turn them off and the auto rags would catch on quick and lambaste us as the Old GM, again. How do you prevent that? You give the Dealers the chance to make money themselves! We sell the BN Truck and the Dealers sell the customization options (or at least things that can be installed post Asm Plant). Everybody… especially those you are trying to sell the idea too… like to think they are INDIVIDUALS with their own smarts and style and sense of… whatever. Give them the OPTION to customize their rig in whatever way. Color, fabric… whatever. Make it (options) easy to develop/validate/mfr and it is thus cheaper for us and yet still gets the dealer on board (makes him money). The spartan trim pieces? Maybe you have variety of color/material. The seat covers? The utility gear? Cargo storage? Grille inserts? Roll bars? Cap? fog lights? Brush guards? Just go crazy. Way more than what you normally even do. Fold-up tents. Bike gear. Electronics. Whatever! Team up with REI or bike company… or NorthFace… or Caterpillar or John Deere… Home Depot. Take the term customization to a new level such that it is a strong facet of the marketing sell so that people go, “Holy, ****! Wow… that’s kind of cool. I wonder if I can build myself a _____.” Give people the choice to get a truck for street cruising low-rider style to mild-offroading (suspension options). If the exterior panels are composite and color-integrated (no painting at Asm Plant), then give them the ability to mix panel colors on the vehicle. Camo pattern? Pokadots? Tie-die? Whatever! Red front, yellow rear? Striping… flag stickers, college sports teams, whatever.
3) THE SELL – BN is a great idea to sell a fashion trend about being frugal with a more spartan vehicle. I don’t know if I am even on the same wave length in terms of product ideas that you guys have, but IMHO… trying to be EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY is a lost cause. A Jack of All Trucks will be lost, because it will be compared to the specialized existing products. The idea HERE should be about focusing on a target… that doesn’t really exist in the USA vehicle world TODAY… and creating it, because I believe the ATTITUDE is present in ENOUGH people that you can CREATE a FASHION TREND. The thing also is… unlike fashion for EXCESS, this fashion for FRUGAL may just be a LONGER TERM idea. Even when times are good, people may still like to be frugal with their money… be moderate… be sustainable. When times are bad again (economic cycles)… then… then it changes nothing for them, because they have always been frugal and the product still makes sense! Selling FRUGAL is not about selling CHEAP. People hate that word. The marketing of the product needs to infer/communicate/represent/showcase the meaning and sense of an individual making a SMART/COOL/SUSTAINABLE/MODERATE DECISION!!! Not about just being cheap and “I ain’t got no money, so I need cheap truck.” But this isn’t like Apple trendy where the product sells at obscene markups. This needs to truly be about FAIR price for us and customer… and options for dealer to enjoy customization profits.
And lastly… since this truck is about being Frugal, I think it should be called the… FRUCK. Or maybe not.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 7:17 pm keelerpd said:
The Chevy Avalanche was a great idea and the execution was pretty well laid out. That truck had ALOT of utility built in. I remember going to a Detroit Autoshow, climbing into a Colorado truck and saying to GM person there, “Now when are they going to make this like an Avalanche?” That was about 4 yrs ago at least, maybe more. The idea of the BNT truck is a great one. I find myself needing the utility of a truck about once a week, but need MPG all the time as I drive ALOT. If I could have both, and still have a comfortable ride, I would be all over it.
Diesel may very well be the way to go for the powertrain with it’s torque and fule economy.
I wonder if they thought about a diesel powerplant for the Volt? They could probably use a 2 cylinder engine and save more fuel.
Just my .02
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 7:22 pm keelerpd said:
OK….now I watched the video, and that is a darn kool idea. I like the idea and would buy one if the ride / MPG was right.
This “lab” is a kool idea, coming from a “kool” new company. I am excited about the “new” GM.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 9:28 pm JPTrucker said:
Well, I’ve thought about it and don’t know if I would even buy one. But at the very least it gets me to thinking about how much truck do I really need. My dad is an old farm boy, and I don’t ever pull anything with my Comanche, and he seems to think I should buy something that can tow 7,000 lbs.
As I understand the BN concept, you are talking about 1500 lbs. payload and 3,000 lbs. towing capacity. Then your computer model says you can get anywhere from 32 to 40 MPG depending on the powertrain. My question to you all is this: what are the specs on what you are saying? How much weight above curbside weight is included in this calculation, that is, what is your payload counting passengers to get these figures? Also, is this at a certain cruising speed, and on level ground? How are we to compare apples with apples in this?
I think about the old story of the carbuerator that someone invented that could get 100 MPG. Then the oil companies promptly snatched it up. I think a car could get 100 MPG with certain criteria. You’d have to be lightweight, very streamlined, and limit your speed on level ground. I’m sure you get my point.
I honestly don’t know what I need. Most people posting on here probably do a lot more serious hauling with their trucks than I do. But it’s clear to me you all won’t be building the truck that most have asked for. It would cost too much to be able to do what the people want. It’s very easy to have the “go big or go home” attitude when you give your input to someone who’s willing to listen.
That said, I have changed my mind on the specs of the BN concept.
I won’t mention price because it’s too abstract a thing to speak of. I’ll never know how much you all have in a truck nor your profit margin. I can only talk about what I know or can speak of. I know how much I want to spend, as little as possible.
At least 30 MPG with a 1,000 lb. payload counting passengers and no additional windload above the cab roof. This at 65 MPH on level ground and in overdrive. Can’t think of any other way to quantify it, I know it may not be realistic.
3,000 to 4,000 lbs. towing capacity, how much the 1,000 lbs. difference changes things would be interesting to know. 1500 lbs. payload. How are these figured in terms of passenger weight?
Transverse mounted engine, whatever works — I4, I5, I6 or V6. Transverse to keep the hood area as short as possible.
Whatever gears needed in an automatic with overdrive(s) and lock-up torque converter. Locking differential.
Width somewhere bigger than the Colorado/Canyon but narrower than the Silverado. That sure is hard to put a handle on.
Doors like the Silverado extended cab. Getting rid of the post in the middle sure helps entry/exit. But make the rear seating bigger than the Colorado/Canyon, seating 6 total.
Excellent visibility.
The basics, A/C, AM/FM/Stereo/CD/aux. input, power steering and brakes, power locks, at least power window on passenger side (when you’re by yourself). The high-geared manual crank on the driver’s side sounds good to me.
If you make it with and/or without the reversible bulkhead this could be a good truck. I take it would be probably built in Louisiana where the Colorado/Canyons are made?
Look forward to any comment about how you quantify your specs. Thanks for your time.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 8:22 am Wade Bryant said:
I’m not the engineer who calculates all the payload and efficiency specifications, but I do know they were calcualted the same way all production vehicles are calculated.
The whole purpose was to compare this idea to existing products on the road to see if it makes sense. Our payload, and towing targets were similar to 4 cylinder small/midsize trucks on the market today. Our initial calculations suggested we could meet these specs’ and deliver much better fuel efficiency, primarily through the use of a hybrid powertrain with additional contributions from weight savings and reducing vehicle content.
to this comment On August 14, 2009 at 11:12 pm Duramaximum said:
I love the diesel idea. It doesn’t even have to be a diesel/electric powertrain. I understand they use those in trains, but as soon as someone out here in Montana hears the term ‘hybrid’ we think of Priuses and trucks with lowered towing capacities. People want to be eco-conscience, but not at the expense of capability and a higher price tag.
My other concern with hybrid powertrains is that they aren’t as reliable as the standard engine/transmission combo. It just seems like it is more moving parts.
My recommendation is to use a small turbo diesel with a 6 speed tranny that gets into the +30mpg range.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 7:25 am Mark Anderson said:
This is basically what I was looking for one year ago. I wanted a small truck with a 6-ft bed and a way to carry a couple passengers, but didn’t expect to ever need both at the same time. I settled for a Tacoma access cab that’s a little too small for adults in the back row, and a little bigger overall than I would prefer. I got the 2.7L 4 cylinder because it had enough power and better fuel economy than any other option that’s come to market yet. But this truck should last a while, which give GM plenty of time to take this concept to production and to market. If it was a gas or diesel engine I’d be looking for >30mpg in the city. Better yet, make it an EV with a ~20 mile range (bigger battery as an option?), and let plug my own “range extender” portable gas or diesel generator in the bed when I need it.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 1:40 pm Turbiodiesel said:
So I’ve been thinking about this a bit over the past few days, and I’m wondering – are we limiting ourselves, here, by thinking about the traditional pickup truck form factor? Should we be thinking about a merger between pickups and SUVs?
This isn’t a new idea; various Land Rovers, Land Cruisers, and especially the removable-roof mid-’80s Toyota 4Runners were not far from what I’m thinking about. Instead of having a bed and a cab, why not consider a smallish SUV with a removable top covering a rugged, pickup like cargo area with a movable, foldable, or slidable bulkhead dividing passenger room from the “bed”. The rear seats would fold flat into the cargo area’s floor, and a flip-up or removable bulkhead would turn that cargo area into an uncovered pickup bed on demand. Fold the rear seats into the bedliner-ed floor, slide the bulkhead forward to right behind the rear seats, and you have a pickup bed suitable for hauling; slide the bulkhead back, unfold the seats, and you have a 5-seat SUV with cargo room behind the seats.
Conceivably, a variety of tops and bulkheads could be offered to make it an SUT, a SUV, or a dedicated pickup, at the owner’s wish. A roll bar could provide structural strength and protection. And there’s no reason why it couldn’t offer four doors either, really.
Comes pretty close to aping a Wrangler Unlimited (either the current gen 4-door or the last gen 3-door) but with vastly better fuel economy and a better balance of road manners and offroad capability, I think folks would snap it up. The removable roof and reconfigurable body would make the aftermarket go crazy. GM could offer the reversible bulkhead, a bolt-down hard roof, a folding soft roof, a hard-top pickup cab, or a high-roof “troop carrier” version with jumpseats mounted on the side of the bed. One could even get really creative and have a roof system composed of removable sections. I’d personally love to see a camper model with a folding rooftop tent and lots of storage – shades of the Blazer Chalet.
As for drivetrains, you’ve got to find the balance between capability, efficiency, and cost. A diesel hybrid is stupidly expensive. A diesel would be great, but selling diesels in the US is hard. A gasser hybrid would need to be very rugged and not compromise offroad capability. A nonhybrid gasser would not be very efficient unless you did a downsized turbo engine, HCCI, direct injection, or some other efficiency tweak (or a mild hybrid setup like the Silverado Hybrid.) Of course, you do have the two-mode system, but how much cost would that add? I’d not mind seeing something more exotic like a hydraulic hybrid like UPS is experimenting with, either – probably a little too experimental (and costly) for GM at the moment, however, unless the tech was licensed. I’d be very interested at 28mpg highway, enthusiastic about 30-32, and blown away by over 35 – but, on the flip side, I’d buy one tomorrow at $25-30k, I’d be hesitant at $35k unless it were truly exceptional, and you’d probably lose me by $40k. This truck’s natural competition runs between $25-35k, so I don’t think you can go much north of that.
If you go with the modular concept, a body on frame setup is probably best, though a unibody has the advantage of better space efficiency and lower weight at the cost of less ruggedness, less modularity, and less offroad capability (generally.) If a BOF format is best, one could easily start to kick around ideas about composite body panels or even a wholly composite body (reinforced with metal where appropriate perhaps) bolted onto the steel frame. Some nice “gee whiz” features like storage cabinets built into the outboard sides of the “bed” area and a sub-bed trunk like the Avalanche would be appreciated.
My feeling is that the goal should be minimal factory options – you build the truck in a single easy to produce trim level with a huge range of dealer-installed options including seat covers, nav and telematics, roofs and toppers, cargo organizers, and even suspensions could be dealer installed. Removable composite body panels could make even color a dealer option, much like Smart cars. No leather, no exotic features – a rubber floor, water repellent seats, and simple, ergonomic controls are necessary. Think simple and rugged – take a look at a good pair of hiking boots, a good backpacking tent, or a mountain bike for your design inspiration.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 8:25 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for posting here!
I think all options are on the table as long as this vehicle can perform truck duties and is simple and efficient.
Your comments are very thoughtful.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 3:43 pm Xuan Tran said:
From THECARLOUNGE.NET forum discussion…
You know… it just occurred to me that road conditions obviously play a role in this design heavily. You prefer the capability of some manner of offroading, while some just need the cargo capacity for awsome US roads. There’s a big gap that spells a lot of cost here for both MFR and consumer. Cost that doesn’t make such an truck of all Jacks highly difficult to justify in a business case.
I think even you can agree that most trucks today are quite capable, yet rarely see any road conditions to even utilize 1/4 of their capability. Therein lies the problem. To be BN, how do you prevent from doing what the market in trucks already is doing (i.e. Making insanely capable trucks.).
Getting to your hybrid truck-SUV… IMHO… that’s why I have been tossing around a spaceframe idea… with modular body modules affording flexibility for different customers. Remember that old Nissan… NX? With that optional rear cap thing? That was a really minor thing with little in the way of creative modular body units, but the point of it was flexibility… FLEXIBILITY to permit BRealistic his street truck or you your offroader… softroader.
Today’s BOF: Basically just your tried and true and tested ladder frame with a cab and bed mounted to it.
a) Strength – pretty much all in the ladder frame. Plenty beef for towing, etc.
b) Flexibility – Pretty flexible. We have trucks built on them, SUVs built on them, used to have cars built on them, and even hybrid truck-SUVs like you show or like Avalanche. But the question becomes the packaging efficiency, because BOF really limits interior/cargo space efficiency in the name of truck-like capabilities. The space wasted between ladder rails and/or above it for a few inches due to insolation components, etc. is terrible for interior or cargo space.
c) Efficiency – The weight of BOF typically is a downfall for FE, but unibodies pretending to be SUVs can get pretty heavy, too once you try to ape the full capabilities of a BOF in a unibody (i.e. The amount of sheet metal stamping forming a sound structure gets heavy, too. Physics is physics. The unibody can just spread the weight and strength through the whole body, while the BOF does it with the ladder.
Tomorrow’s SpaceFrame – Maybe spaceframe is the wrong term, but I don’t know a better one. Basically what I am thinking of is something away from what we traditionally know today as the “platform” generically. Company platforms (unibody) are made up of stamping forms that are welded/fastened together to make a structural frame and then the sheet metal skin is applied. The basis of this is simple, but it basically results in platforms that are fairly focused towards a handful of models… with the skin being the bigger differentiator… and if you are good… the pillars have some variety, but the essense of the platform is limited to a certain range/size and shape… for said Delta or Gamma or Epsilon family of cars or whatever. What I am thinking of is getting away from that and thinking about car architecture (and this could go for truck or car) as MODULES – front clip, cabin unit, rear clip, etc.
a) Strength – A structure based on anything but the ladder frame and its focused strength in just the ladder has logic for focused trucks, but what we want here may require something else. To me… the MODULAR BODY UNIT (MBU) idea has strength in the individual modules… and when combined, it affords a total system strength per whatever capability one desires. Lots of motorbikes today use the motor as a structural member. Why not use each module in the same manner? You have that in today’s unibody, but the problem is FLEXIBILITY of said unibody to afford a variety of body formats.
IF one can develop a modular structural space frame system where each unit is responsible for a portion of the system’s strength, then that means each unit can be made to have flexibility in form potentially… and when combined with the other units… can afford a variety of formats (trucklet, truck, SUV, crossover, tall, short, long, low, high). The trick in such a MBU idea is figuring out the “hard points” for connections and MFG/ASM. There can be some flexibility/variation in order to not limit the design too much, but it must be within the realm of realistic MFG&ASM, too (i.e. A balance of both.).
And it is not just MBU, but also the MCU (Modular Chassis Units). Common chassis mounting points (because most chassis systems are already modules arriving to be mounted to the unibody or even ladder frame today) in the Front MBU or Rear MBU can allow a company to provide an OnRoad Front MCU or a higher-clearance OffRoad Front MCU… and same for the rear.
And so where do composite moldings come in? Instead of just sheet metal stampings welded together to form a structural unit, maybe it is an amalgum with some composite structural molding? A molding that is like a skeleton… spaceframe that carries composite Saturn-like skin? Or it is a complement/supplement to a traditional steel system? Moldings can provide flexibility in design and with reduced tooling cost. It’s just a thought.
b) Flexibility – The flexibility in such an MBU architecture is how one can design flexibility INTO EACH MBU in order to permit each unit to be long, short, tall, thin, wide… or carry I4, Voltec, V6, or I6 powertrains. If the MBU’s base strength lies in a composite molding, then the cost for tooling for such a beast could be less than the tool/die hardware for the same vairety of MBUs if it was all steel stamping weldments like today. Maybe one can design a Front MBU that attaches to a Cabin MBU and then have the choice of attaching a Rear SUV MBU or Rear Bed MBU. The Front & Rear MCU can be lowrider or offroader.
Then on top of that… you can develop an Asm Plant just for this type of methodology. LEAN, AGILE, FLEXIBLE to accomodate the similarly new product (i.e. The process would ape the flexibility by providing flexible chassis line to assemble the MBUs & MCUs, etc.). Furthermore… since these are all modules, you could actually maybe outsource each module to a supplier intergrator and have them deliver JIT to a smaller Final Asm Plant. If molded-in composite panels with integral color is acceptable, then forget about the Paint Shop. Most of the Body Shop, if not all, might also disappear (being pushed in some way to the supplier, if stampings are used).
Heck, if you want to REALLY get crazy, maybe safety regs will evolve in such a way that one day, the Dealer will be able to RENT modules. Example: Turbio is moving to Kansas and no longer needs offroading, so he trades in his OffRoad MCUs for OnRoad MCUs.
c) Efficiency – The efficiency to me is in EACH MBU playing a big role in the capabilities required. Just as engineering today reduces the need for wasteful SAFETY FACTOR, so can a FOCUS towards each MBU or MCU or Modular Powertrain Unit being streamlined. Maybe the SUV MBU (cabin unit) is designed lower-duty than the Truck MBU (stronger for bed carrying and towing?).
I don’t assume this is some cake walk, because developing just the IDEA alone will be a major undertaking, because it is totally different than what we do TODAY. On top of that, even if we can come up with a good, working, plausible concept… we still need to justify tossing away traditional MFG&ASM processes, which get’s tiresome, because GM has spent the better part of 2+ decades trying to even zero-in on ONE product-process idealogy/methodology. Throwing all that work away for another something new is $$$$ to say the least. But… at some point in the future… progress and competition WILL push companies to do something like this IMHO. We either leap frog with a huge investment (IF it makes business/long term sense)… or we wait for Honda to do it and follow a decade afterwards.
to this comment On August 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm Rose said:
Camper/Outdoor Needs:
My wife and I am are whitewater kayaker/skier/mtn biker and can share a little about the set up many kayaker/skier/bikers use: Ours is a Toyota Tacoma extended cab with cap and yakima roof mount. It ispretty funny how many friends/enthusiasts have a similar set up whether it be with Ford Ranger/Nissan Frontier/GMC Canyon. The reasons this set up (light truck + cap + rack) works are:
-Most efficiant packages aviable today for traveling to get to the ski hill/trail/river
-Efficiency/ease of hauling kayaks/bikes and gear in general
-Room to sleep in the bed -eliminating need to deal with tents etc. This is a major consideration, so the ability to add a cap super-important
-Durability and lack of maintenance. We have owned two Tacomas and one of the beauties was having to do little more than change the oil and fuel filters
It is really nice to see open discussion around lightweight, efficient all-in-one small trucks. Sign me up (and all of our friend) if you are able to bring this to market.
Cheers!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 8:29 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the campers’ perspective. We met quite a few “green” truck owners during our research who used their trucks for camping frequently.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm GARRETT said:
I also love to take my truck camping, but dont like to drive something as big as my Ram all the time. Really all I need is something that doesnt get stuck in the mud too easily, can hall some wood, and a tent made to fit into the bed of the truck would be nice. I’m from Houston, and as much as I love sleeping under the stars there are just too many mosquitos.
thanks
GARRETT
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 6:07 am Jose Ochoa said:
Considering my business requirements, need to transport cardboard boxes in bundles.
Weight is not the problem, gas consumption and bed size is a problem. Need the best solution to
mantain cost down. need long bed but minimum gas consumption.
Why trucks have 120mph or more of top speed
if legal speed in US is 60 or 65 mph, how stable is the vehicle at 100 and 120mph? is it safe?
My feeling is that trucks are made for cargo reasons, if you use it as a car you are wasting a lot of gas!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:03 am Monty said:
This is a phenomenal idea. Presently I own a 2001 GMC Sierra SL (one step up from the base W/T) and it is in constant use by myself and my extended family as a work truck for various duties such as refuse disposal, ATV hauler, house and garden projects etcetera. It’s getting okay mileage, but once it’s duty cycle is finished (it has gone 230,000 KM’s/130,000 miles) I would very quickly replace it with a BNT that achieved 32 MPG for $23,000.
A manual transmission, mated to a turbo-diesel 4 pot with a bed large enough to stow a 4′ x 8′ sheet of anything, with a cabin similar to the Avalanche would be the ideal solution. It doesn’t need to be the size of the current Avalanche, just big enough to be a good general purpose worktruck with enough power to tow up to 5,000 lbs or an ATV in the bed.
I don’t need remote access locks, or power windows or any other modern convenience other than AC and cruise-control. It just needs to be a durable and reliable general use truck that will get excellent mileage and have a low operating cost.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 11:31 am DaleEarnhardtChevy said:
This is a great idea! This is what the Chevy Colorado should be. A low cost, low frills alternative to the Silverado. We get a steady flow of customers that need a good, reliable work truck but cannot afford a $500+ a month payment. Even the stripped down WT Silverado still can be too much for a small business owner or low income family. With Chevy being the entry level brand for GM, we need more truly entry level vehicles.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 12:06 pm Ed said:
I have “CASH”
. . . to buy an affordable, all electric, multi-purpose, pickup,
. . . “tough enough to haul pigs all week,
. . . pretty enough to go to Church on Sunday,”
. . . looking like this:
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric2-490.jpg
http://www.clean-auto.com/IMG/jpg/tata-Ace-electric-490.jpg
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm BrianCastillo said:
I see a lot of people here are really enthusiastic about the idea of a small 4-cylinder diesel engine.
Given that, in fullsize trucks, the diesel engine option typically adds a couple thousand dollars to the price of the truck (due to the greater expense of manufacturing a diesel engine and the ancillary parts that go along with it), I am curious how this group regards that sort price differential in a smaller truck. A few thousand dollars on a $50k heavy-duty fullsize 3500 seems easier to swallow than a few thousand dollars on a $20K compact truck, at least to me…what do you think?
Given the choice, would you prefer a small diesel, even if it added to the purchase price of the truck?
Alternatively, would you prefer gasoline engine if it were, say, a four-cylinder SIDI turbo?
What it is about the diesel (torque? durability? no need to replace spark plugs?) that generates the enthusiasm?
Thanks to everyone in advance for all of the great feedback!
(Disclaimer/Truth-in-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but I’m speaking on my own behalf here. -BC)
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 2:25 pm Monty said:
I am willing to pay more for the diesel for a few reasons, but the biggest reason is the percieved long-term reliability of diesel engines. If the frame and body don’t suffer from rust, a diesel powered small truck should be able to go 200,000 miles or more, and do it without major engine repairs. I’ve already gone 2/3’s of that mileage in just 7 years, and I suspect a lot of people put much more mielage on their trucks than I do, so a reasonable expectation of ten years and a quarter of a million miles is fair. I suspect a diesel powerplant will easily go a lot longer that a conventional gasoline powered engine with fewer repairs. Or am I wrong?
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm Ed said:
This lab is asking for comments to
. . . “design holistically green vehicles . . . a project proposal to explore green-minded people” and
. . . this section is about “Bare necessity truck’s,”
yet the comments are about
. . . “Air conditioning,”
. . . “Cup-holders,”
. . . “Trailer-towing,”
. . . “GPS,”
. . . “ice chest” and
. . . “diesel’s.”
Everyone’s idea of what is a “Bare necessity’ is different and
. . . People don’t know what they want,
. . . until you show it to them . . .
. . . then they want to change it, quickly and often,
So design a “Cheap, Simple, Flexible” global truck,
. . . that everyone can afford,
. . . to change any way they want.
If they want Shai Aggasi’s Better Place battery swap capability, let them.
If they want Apple’s Iphone instruments and apps., let them.
If they want regenerative brakes and/or photovoltaic truck roof, let them.
If they just want to go from point A to Point B, they’ll leave it alone.
If you want to keep the price low,
. . . make the truck a kit, that’s assembled by the dealer,
. . . just like you do for vehicles shipped to other countries.
If it’s simple enough, any one can do it.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm OpieAB said:
I think what appeals to people about diesels, especially modern diesels is basically everything you just mentioned. They are clean running, great power vs displacement ratio, efficient, durable and more flexible with fuel (not hard to convert to it to run on biodiesel). I think if you could make a SIDI gas engine as powerful and efficient as a diesel people would go with that because gas is more readily accessible and usually less expensive than diesel.
I love this concept as originally stated in the video. I live in So Cal and have a very active lifestyle plus am a DIY, but also have a long commute to work everyday so a normal SUV or truck would not work. A vehicle like this would be perfect. Also I haven’t seen any responses from the team on this question but has any thought been put in to a diesel electric drive train set up similar to what trains use? Use a small turbo diesel mounted to some type of generator which drives an electric drive train directly with minimal use or no use of batteries that add weight and expense.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:43 pm Ihor Sypko said:
Brian C., I think the interest in a small, diesel truck is that with a low enough GVW, a 4 cyl. diesel will deliver maximum MPG. Most if not all full size trucks get mileage only marginally above a gas engine. That’s the weight. Also if this design concept sees production, a limit on fancy extras and the use of light weight materials will be crucial. So to summerize, I and many of the respondants want a truck free of the luxury car extras that do not contribute to a high MPG, simple, unadorned, basic needs truck. So build me a new 2012 model 1956 5 window that seats more than 2 and less than 7 with all the MPG you can squeeze out of it and GM will please me and a lot of people. And everyone who needs the extras and luxury, seated in your power memory adjusted hot/cool seats while checking your heated mirrors and listening to the multi play CD/MP3 sound system on their 12 mile commute to work, look somewhere else. There’s plenty to choose from right now. This is a nitch and it’s not for you!! Ihor
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 1:39 pm lv2jp said:
I love the concept so far! I’ll be beating a dead horse here, but I think my opinions will help bolster so many others above. I own a 03 avalanche north face, and absolutely love the utility and versitility. Only 3 things “wrong” (and they aren’t all that bad): 1) cost. I can’t afford a new one of these as a $800/mo payment would break me 2) Milage. Once gas got up there last summer, the truck got put away for a while. Shoot for mid 30’s on yours. 3) Size. I could live with it being just a hair smaller.
Please don’t comprimise on the following:
1) Towing. a 20′ hard side camper can easily hit 7500lbs as can a single car hauler. Please have the truck at least be able to pull this. Thats what trucks do… they tow and haul things. If you don’t want to tow or haul, get a car or crossover
2) Your bulkhead idea. I love the midgate on my avalanche!
Like some others have said, have 4wd with a real transfer case and low range. Have Air conditioning, power locks and windows. Dogs and children ride in the back and both open doors and windows when you’re not looking and need climate control. Please don’t do away with cup holders and don’t have them pop out of the dash on some cheese whiz flimsy mechanism… those things need to hold a 20oz bottle of water and not spring around or break on a cold winters day
Other than that, Thanks! looking forward to what you come up with!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm KevinC said:
I like it.
don’t bother with CD (even radio)..just give us ipod jack and speakers.
get creative with floor covering. carpet is not necessary…some type of durable rubberize coating would be great.
same thing with door panels (dash etc.)…get creative. use recycled materials and don’t overdue it with colors etc. texture can do a lot for a truck in a very simple manner.
think about even exposing some of the guts (window mechanism etc.)
Kevin
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:09 pm Wade Bryant said:
This is the kind of design feedback we need. We also need to gauge the acceptance of the Bare Necessity approach when taken to this level (exposed window mechanisms, etc.) I’d love to design a truck that way.
Would it be appreciated or seen as incomplete?
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm Ihor Sypko said:
This is the sort of design concept Bare implies. And why does a window need five rotations to lower or close completely? One turn or less should be the norm, like a lever. Position of the handle would signify the height position of the pane. Of course there’s a down side to a clear panel, sometimes the view can be off-putting. If the outcome is cost and weight cutting then proceed. If not then don’t. What is the target weight on this idea of a truck? And do consider a fuel tank for maximum range, say around 25 gallons. If that big isn’t feasable due to design constraints, use the largest tank size possible.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm KevinC said:
“This is the kind of design feedback we need. We also need to gauge the acceptance of the Bare Necessity approach when taken to this level (exposed window mechanisms, etc.) I’d love to design a truck that way.
Would it be appreciated or seen as incomplete?”
both! depends on your audience of course. For those who would actually consider buying something like this..it would be great. That’s the rub…filtering out legitimate comments from prospective buyers vs. monday morning quarterbacks. GM doesn’t need to be concerned what everyone thinks…only the target markets.
but i digress,
There’s been quite a few “brute’s” running around greater detroit lately (it’s an AEV Jeep based conversion). These are very distinctly jeep like..but the utilitarian aspect of the vehicle is something that really would sell regardless of manufacturer. If you look at the weight creep of vehicles in the last 25 years as the race for content progressed….it would be rather simple to offer a true basic vehicle that meets the needs (not wants) of the consumer. The market is ripe for such a vehicle.
bring back the L4 diesel
or better yet,, knock 2 cylinders off the LMK (there’s already drawings of such an engine!)
cut weight (think Lotus)..sound deadening, carpet, everything
manual tranny, manual transfer case
simple, elegant design. that’s what’s needed for something like this.
That type of vehicle, truck or car, would not initially have widespread appeal. but it would sell. Naming it becomes a problem…will any brand want their name onit? but that’s solvable.
Dodge did the Power Wagon
Ford’s doing the Raptor
There’s a need for simple truck’s. I list the above two efforts as worthwhile attempts..but both have fallen short i think.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:03 pm Chris said:
I agree that carpet isn’t necessary. A coated floor would do just fine. As would regular crank windows, no CD player (I would still like a radio), iPOD jack. The only luxury to include would be AC. I guess I see design that is somewhat Jeepish (exposed hinges, crank windows, full gauges, no carpet etc….) It would be appreciated and not seen as incomplete. Simple and functional yet stylish.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm Trukmann said:
I’d like to put a spin on this that not many will look at…how about your kids graduating high school or college and buying their first new vehicle. They need a versatile vehicle that gets good gas milage and can move furniture to dorms, haul bicycles, motorcycles, atvs, etc… and not break the bank. This same vehicle will more than likely be their daily driver, tailgating party pad, show vehicle, camper, and whatever else it was not originally intended for. It will have to be aftermarket friendly…don’t go creating yet another wheel bolt pattern nobody makes aftermarket wheels for, work with other aftermarket providers so they will be customizable as soon as they hit the market. Make them available to aftermarket companies to display at the SEMA show and watch the popularity of this truck take off!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 10:27 pm Wade Bryant said:
You’re correct that we can never imagine all the creative ways the truck could be used.
I also fully agree with your bolt-pattern remarks…remember Ford’s 7-lug wheels?
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm Christy Garwood said:
Hello Wade, great idea for a truck!
Please check out how this table extends http://www.desalto.it/english/tables0.asp?ID=39
(open the .pdf and look on page 8 for a quick idea of how it works).
A similar mechanism might work as a bed extender and then the cab could be offered in Extended or Crew styles. (As a GM employee, I am thinking of reworking existing tooling for Colorado/ Canyon to save cap – ex.) The extender would be u-shaped, tucked inside pockets in the box-side assemblies and under the box floor. The end gate would always be attached to the extender. The extender would be pulled rearward and up a couple of inches, and then shoved forward to latch in place. The cab stays clean all of the time.
My truck wish list
- 40 mpg or better for daily commuting
- quiet interior – rubberized plastic trim perhaps?
- rubber mat floor
- pleather seat fabric for easy clean-up but still looks good
- AWD or 4WD optional for dirt roads and snow
- 5000 lbs towing capacity
- cab floor and box floor height a little closer to the ground than today’s Colorado/ Canyon
- box extender for those weekend projects when I need to haul ’stuff’
- $20K – $25K price
I love the creativity and communication coming through on this site!
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 7:40 pm Workingmanstruck said:
I have always stuck with the basic truck. Its a neccessary “tool”. Keep it simple, rubber mats, crank windows. AM/FM with aux plug. (I can add XM if I want it). Fuel economy is critical but so is performance.. I will not own a truck without the Eaton G-80 locking diff. Its a MUST. Snow, ice, a slippery boat ramp -a wet field. I dont need a 4×4 but I NEED the G80.
to this comment On August 17, 2009 at 8:45 pm chris Geidel said:
awsome ill take one, preferably with a deisel
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:10 am Freeman said:
Put a wind screen a few inches from the radiator, that way small rocks and other debris does not get stuck in the radiator.
Use a non skid heavy duty coating on the bed of the truck and make it standard, that way owners of the vehicle do not have to pay extra to have a bed liner installed.
use non skid paint on the lower panels of the car so that customers will know it will be able to take a beating.
Make bluetooth, mp3 standard.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 2:13 am MusicMan_Steve said:
One thing that I think is easily overlooked is reliability and durability. Having the rotating section in the truck is a nifty idea, but to me and from my experiences, it looks like something that would break after 5-8 years of heavy use. To keep the cost of the truck down, it needs to be simple, not complex. By cost, I am referring to the owner’s expense over the life of the vehicle in terms of maintenance and repair, in addition to the initial purchase price.
Also, this has been said plenty of times. You need to have a few engine options. One must be a small diesel with the option for both auto and manual transmissions. Diesels are fantastic engines, a well designed diesel power plant has the possibility of creating more torque using less fuel than a traditional gasoline powered vehicle. Case in point, modern day trucks. If you use your truck for pulling a fair amount of weight, a diesel will supply the power and live up to the abuse for hundreds of thousands of miles for many years. A gasoline engine will not stand up to the abuse for nearly as long, and will use much more fuel in it’s lifetime when compared to a diesel engine of equal displacement.
Yet another item to bring up is the options to chose from on the truck. Take Toyota for example. On several of their vehicles, you can order one with factory-installed lowering springs and sport suspension. It would be an idea to offer something like this as well, except in the form of a mild lift kit and more aggressive tires. If a customer can order a vehicle how they like it, they will be more likely to hand over the money for it. Thinks like a an optional canopy, wheels, tires, suspension, interior packages, grille guards, performance parts, etc. should all be on the list. The more the customer can make the vehicle their own, the better.
For me, I would buy this truck with a diesel four cylinder in a part-time four-wheel-drive configuration, with a little extra ground clearance for these nasty winters, with a very plain cloth interior, manual transmission. A fuel efficient durable pickup that I can use as both a commuter and work horse when needed.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 7:50 am saminmichigan said:
What about a smaller truck? A Ford Ranger/Mazda B2000 are the closest thing to it. The rest have all grown too big. My 1978 Toyota pickup was one of my favorite vehicles. It was a little bigger then the competing Datsun (when necessary you could squeeze three people in the cab) and the 7′ bed was long enough for me. (I hauled my paintings which were built to size.) Plus it was light and peppy — fun to drive. I beat it’s rusting ass to over 250,000 miles (the speedometer cable kept breaking so I just left it) and it did it without complaint. In the end I still got $600 when I finally, reluctantly, sold it. Just thinking about that vehicle gives me fond memories.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 8:06 am vortectpi said:
I really think the BNT is an interesting idea, but I’m not sure if its time is here just yet. You guys have some great products, and you have some that need some work. I think you could first apply some of the lessons learned from the silverado to the colorado. The colorado could use an update anyway, with that done, you could trickle down some of the more radical ideas to the colorado from the BNT, in the future model years.
For the colorado refresh you could retire the atlas engines, (they definately work, but their time has come) with a variation of the 3.5 OHV engines with DI. Those engines are efficient, reliable and if you market it as using combustion chamber and port designs from the Gen III/IV engines you wont catch as much flack for using an OHC engine. I would think that engine would probably to be less expensive to make than the Atlas engines anyway. I’m assuming your base engine will some form of the ecotec line, which should work fine.
The truck did very well initially when it came out due to its aggressive and sporty looks. I think the interior and possibly the performance hurt it after the first two years. Its competitive, but not as competitive as the silverado is in its market. Just what ever you do figure out how to put in a decent sized console with a floor shifted auto in both truck lines and you will be on the right track.
After the basic truck is more competitve you can modify the platform to incorporate some of the BNT features.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:15 pm Wade Bryant said:
I think it would be impossible to do a good Bare Necessity Truck from a conventional model. It would just end up being the “work truck” version.
This idea would at the least need to be “baked in” to the new truck from the start and could be the basis for more fully-featured versions.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 9:31 am robertom said:
this looks like something that is going to be very useful for the person with a little bit of everything to do, the only thing that must not be forgotten is the ever useful locking differential(eaton G80), this is the best part of equipment that a person with a multiple use vehicle cannot be with out.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 11:36 am Ron said:
I might have bias on this issue because I currently own and drive a 1996 GMC Sierra SLT Stepside. It has been a great truck. Whomever designed the interior for the later models of GMT 400 series needs to be congratulated for using common sense. I am commenting because I think that trucks have gotten too big in the last few years. The GMT 400-800 series is sufficient size for everyday use. I think the “bare necessity” truck pictured is a bit small. I think that the current pushrod small block engine 5.3 LTR could be made to gain at least ten more mile to the gallon without major modifications. I care about the environment more than about gasoline usage (although that is important as well). I would like to see a well-built truck that could take abuse that gets about 30-35 MPG that would also have the power that my GMC currently has.
Thanks.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 11:55 am Todd said:
Neat idea, but 40mpg, 4WD, 5000 towing, etc etc etc, as so many people are posting is not reality. It’s difficult to get a car to get 40mpg. If you need to haul your family and a bunch of cargo and tow a boat then you need a differnet truck.
For me, I drive solo most of the time. So a bare neccessities (can’t be everything for everyone) truck is perfect. It must have at least a 6′ bed. Any thing less is a pretend truck and I won’t buy it. With 6′ bed you can haul 10′ and 12′ long lumber. Think beyond plywood. My current almost bare neccessities truck is a 1989 Toyota pickup, standard cab, 6′ bed, V6, 5 speed manual, manual windows and door locks, bench seat, intermittent wipers. Did not order it with a radio, added my own. With a bench seat I can squeeze 3 people in.
Someone posted about this truck being perfect for the new college student, and I think that is a great demo to target. The other demo is the occasional truck user that needs to go to the home center (again, minimum 6′ bed). Otherwise it’s a cummeter vehicle and must of us commute alone. If you start thinking about families + cargo + towing all at the same time then guess what? You need a Silverado. It just can’t get 40MPG and be all those things at the same time.
My use would have it in the cargo mode most of the time. If I needed to secure items inside the cab I would switch it around. On rare occasion when I transport more than one additional passenger I could do that. But again, I think people need to get past having a lot of rear seat room, otherwise the truck gets too big and mileage goes down. 32MPG would be good enough.
It can’t be a large truck, so if you are a tall person then you may be out of luck. If you are large in a different way then go on a diet.
Wade, thanks for taking the time to interact.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm Wade Bryant said:
You did a nice job summarizing many of the discussion points. While 5000# towing and 40 MPG might be a stretch, it’s not too far from what’s possible.
Our non-hybrid Chevy Equinox gets 32MPG highway. Hybrid systems boost efficiency quite a bit.
It will come doen to balancing REAL NEEDS for a non-full-size truck buyer.
The home-improvement store shopper is a good example of this.
Good comment.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 3:57 am PhilR said:
I get about 20 mpg with my underpowered 4cyl 5 speed 1990 Toyota Xtracab 4×4 truck and a bit less with my 5 speed 1993 4×4 Xtracab SR5 V6… I still think they are economical vehicles and the 1990 is very close to a bare necessity truck (no options other than power steering (and brakes of course!), variable delay wipers, tilt steering, gauge package and bucket seats).
So getting 30 MPG would already be a great improvement over this!
And since I could compare both almost identical trucks, I have to say I prefer the ‘93 which has most options available then to the bare ‘90. I use my trucks to haul stuff and 4×4 is great in winter but I don’t use them offroad much. So I appreciate to have automatic locking hubs, a less underpowered engine, A/C, cruise control, a decent 4 speaker stereo, power windows, locks and mirrors (I often have to set the manual passenger side mirror on my ‘90 as some people hits it in the parking lot at my job! That means, going out of the truck and guessing how the mirror should be placed so I could see what happens behind once I’m back in the driver’s seat!).
And some small things I have in the ‘93 that I wouldn’t appreciate if the ‘90 didn’t lack them (I mean I’d take these for granted otherwise!): reading lamps, door courtesy lamps, illuminated ignition switch, a glove compartment lamp and an ash tray lamp (I don’t smoke but I like to use the ashtray to store small things like bills and buisness cards!) .
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 11:58 am John in Portland said:
This still looks like a high style exercise rather than a good work truck. Take a hard look at the 81 Toyota longbed with the one ton rear end and 22R engine. I did landscaping and construction with such a truck with added leaf springs and it was great-simple , strong, low enough for easy loading and able to carry a plywood sheet, light and it had a bulletproof drive train and engine.I never even thought about the gas I used-it was very thrifty. Toyota blew it and introduced the T-100, a bloated body with a thirsty 6 instead of that four. The later Toyota Tacomas are similarly heavy and lave lost that weight capacity and simplicity. When my 81 got destroyed while parked by some idiot, I tried for a month to find another longbed-they are now ancient and rare. I ended up with a 93 short bed as a compromise and really miss the earlier truck. The 4WD version of this truck is still the backbone of the third-world military and Australia. It’s an easy target to replicate and no one is doing it. And please-keep it low to the ground for ease of loading.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 12:26 pm Wade Bryant said:
This discussion around Bare Necessity truck seems to uncover two different efficient truck needs:
1) the old bare-bones compact pickup (cargo only)
AND
2) a new multi-function efficiency truck (cargo with people flexibility)
Both demand frugality and extreme efficiency but ther seem to be two distinct customer needs
I wouldn’t refer to the multi-function truck as a “high style exercise”. It’s just a new animal compared with conventional pickup trucks.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm atesch said:
Really cool idea in doing more with less space. There seems to be an market if it can still haul and tow a decent amount of weight like a trailer or boat.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 2:04 pm gvbeneker said:
At the Eaton Innovation Center in
Southfield, we had a little truck form India called Pandit.
Cab-over with a 2 cyl motor under the bed.
As with most foriegn cars, except Volvo and Mercedes, increase every dimension by 10% and you have something I can use.
Gerrit
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:01 pm John Biggers said:
Interesting feedback on the reversible cab design. A hard plastic cover over for the bed while in the 4-seat configuration (4 separate panels from the interior of the bed are snapped into a track system to create the cover) would be ideal when carrying luggage or other items needing protection or keep them from blowing out of the bed. While the ability to change the configuration manually is the sweet spot, this smaller, fuel-efficient truck will attract more women but may be disinclined to purchase because they may not have the upper body strength to reconfigure the bed. An optional electronic motor to perform this function would attract a larger consumer base.
I also agree that a turbodiesel is the preferred powertrain for this particular vehicle. Hybrid technology would increase the weight unnecessarily (lowering MPG) and truck owners tend to own their trucks for longer periods. The costs to replace the batteries could come close to negating the fuel savings gained during ownership.
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, its center of gravity seems too high in proportion to its overall length and width. Lowering the vehicle 1-2 inches (depending on tire size on a production model) would be more pleasing to the eye and in most situations (commuting and light hauling) be adequate for the conditions. If a purchaser intends to use this vehicle to haul 5,000 lbs or go off-road, then an optional electronic suspension where the height can be adjusted would serve this smaller segment of the marketplace.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:09 pm Brett said:
I like the idea of having a small bare-necessity type of truck that gets good gas mileage, but I’m not going to pay more for it! If it costs more than your regular trucks, who’s going to buy it? The wealthy few who give a crap about burning oil from Iraq? Good luck with that.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 4:45 pm Hananiah Martin said:
I am looking in to get a truck, and the only thing really that was stopping me was the mileage, though i was looking into the Colorado and the older S10’s. this truck has more of what I might need, which is seating room for at least four, and cargo space to say help someone move. this is a truck I will be VERY interested in buying. it is one I would most defiantly consider above other trucks.
I do agree with those above me about lowering the center of gravity a little and that it being very versatile and being able to do a decent amount of work, in the bed and in towing.
I would say that this truck is in between the SSR and the Avalanche, but needs to be a little bit closer to the ground like the SSR. but for off-roader’s maybe have an Sport/Off-Road option to have hydraulics suspension to adjust the ground clearance for the terrain
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:38 pm Joe Foerster said:
1) Bare means bare. Simple engine, basic level of equipment, no bling.
2) Just because you have something that works in an Avalanche doesn’t mean it’s a good fit here. Engineer for the vehicle, don’t just recycle parts off the shelf. GM has been famous for this kind of junk engineering in the past.
3) Give people a good value. Why should I buy this instead of a used S-10? Explain it to me and price it to me that way.
Forget the leather, OK? Why does every car have to have gray, taupe, or light tan leather? I’m sick of it! This is a truck. Give it hard working durable cloth or heavy gauge vinyl. Don’t even put carpeting in the standard model. Make it so I can hose the thing out.
Alloy wheels are great but give me enough tire height to cushion the ride, especially on unpaved roads. Ban the Dubs! I don’t want a blinged out Hollywood Hummer.
Why not a nice 4 cylinder with a manual trans, 2 wheel drive, minimal trim a-la Work Truck. From there a buyer could add options but don’t make them ‘packages’ where they have to get bucket seats to get power windows. What if a basic bench with power windows is what I want? Then that’s what I want and I don’t want to pay extra for it.
Most of what people want in vehicles can be done without creating a new genre of vehicle. A basic vehicle is hard to find anymore. Someone who wants no-frills and low price has few choices except in used-vehicle territory. Nobody remembers when you could buy a car without a back seat (called a business coupe) if you didn’t need one and didn’t want to pay for one.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm chrismaag said:
Build this truck. Start selling it in 2012. Then add to it by making a Jeep competitor that:
- Can go off-road, with high axle, front- and rear-end clearance
- Doors that can come off
- Has a removable hard and soft top.
- Front windshield that folds down
The Jeep Wrangler is vulnerable because, even after 60 years, they haven’t figured out how to make it reliable or fuel-efficient. Hummers are terrible at everything they attempt to do (hauling, offroading, accommodating passengers). The Toyota FJ Cruiser is too big and ponderous. American men (like me) love vehicles like the Wrangler, the original Ford Bronco or the old International Scout – vehicles that feel like a rugged 4-wheel motorcycle, with the wind in your hair. Want proof? Look at sales of the Wrangler Unlimited, which is an absolute dog. This multi-mode truck would be the perfect platform for that type of vehicle.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:16 am Wade Bryant said:
Good ideas. I haven’t seen many other comments on a serious off-road variant.
I think this idea would have great appeal, since all the simple 4WDs have gone away.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 6:44 pm GM’s Bare Necessity: Minimalist approach to ensure greener transportation : Green Resouces said:
[...] the following video, he goes on to narrate how the Basic Necessity Truck is a boon for green-minded truckers. Also, he explains some trade-offs of the [...]
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 7:16 pm Kevin Sadler said:
I’ve been waiting for this truck for years: Engine, cab, 6′ bed. Manual everything. Done.
$18-20,000 (less is better) would be a good price range.
There are electric-powered freight elevators that can haul several thousand pounds, why not an electric truck that can haul a few thousand? Put the battery pack under the bed. Power up overnight & get to work in the morning.
to this comment On August 18, 2009 at 10:04 pm newsie23 said:
The BNT/C concept is certainly a step in the right direction!
In my own case, my 03 AWD Express (really, a pre96 design) – upgraded for current safety and powertrains is very basic – ‘park bench’ seats, no OnStar etc. This is how I use it.
Not everyone occassionally carries a snowmobile in its enclosed space (one space parking, when I go to the city). I have added row 4, seat brackets and belts (using the seats in row 2 and 4 (when I need to carry drywall or long items on thhe dash, hanging out the back door). I have searched for mid row bucket seats from the 01-02 LTZ (?Lear?) model ( don’t even know if the seat brackets are compatible). I would like to carry plywood between the seats, not on the seatbacks.
A hatchback car could do the same, leaning cargo against one rear seat, sticking out the harch (if the seatback and floor – wheelwell were appropriately configured.
I spoke with Ralph Gilles at an Autoweek design seminar – asking “why isn’t there an option of rubber or carpet flooring in the cargo area/folding seatbacks?” The 5 passenger Dodge Journey emerged with a symetrical, hard on one side, carpet on the other side, rear mat. Can I claim that this was my idea, that was upgraded?
The BNT/C concept could effectively be applied to smaller and larger vehicles. Hopefully, the trend to standardizing vehicles and option packages can be accommodated by working closely with suppliers. I have added a rain sensing, sunroof to my Express. Possibly, features can be standardized across vehicles, maybe bench/bucket seats, etc.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 1:12 am MusicMan_Steve said:
Got some more to say. One thing that I believe is important in a bare necessities pickup is cost. What I’m referring to is the possibility of the truck being a hybrid. While fantastic in theory, reality is that most of the people who will be in the market for a small truck won’t want to dish out as much money for a small hybrid as a larger standard truck would cost. Like I said earlier, this truck has to cover a lot of ground. It needs to be offered in a true Bare Necessities truck with hardly any options, and a small fuel efficient engine, like a diesel 4 cylinder. The hybrid option should be available on top of that, but I don’t think it’s a wise move to make it the only option.
Maybe incorporate a few extra options into the bed, like movable tie-down points on a track along the floor or sides. Is a factory spray-in type bed liner possible? On the rotating section, maybe make it possible to replace panels that could get broken easily? Someone will slide a 2×4 or toolbox hard into that plastic piece and break it. Trucks get beat up, it needs to be strong, or easily repaired.
On the interior, options. The first sticking to Bare Necessities. Rubber floor mats, no carpet, very plain cloth seats, basic cheap cd player/radio. Then offer something more for those looking for an upgrade. Carpet, multi-disk changer, nicer seats, etc.
This truck has an opportunity to cover a decent part of the market with one body/chassis simply by offering a variety of options. From Bare Necessities work horse, to family rig.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 4:09 pm Wade Bryant said:
Yes, it seems to me that more than one powertrain option would be needed to cover all the bases.
I’ve been toying with the “truck configurator” tool we developed that generates the vehicle performance and cost after selecting size, capacity and powertrain. I’m not sure which combination of items I’d be willing to pay for.
We need to get our survey online to find out what everyone thinks would make the best BN Truck.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 5:17 am Steve said:
I would like to see the Bare Necessity Panel Van. it would be based on the BNT, with the following changes:
-Enclose the cargo area…something like an Opel Combo B. Plenty of headroom, please.
-Remove the rotating divider.
-Replace the rotating divider with the ability to open the “roof” of the cargo area so that tall things like motorcycles could be loaded. This would NOT be a removable hardtop! This would be something like a convertible hardtop, that can be folded out of the way (perhaps it’s a two-piece top that flips over the sides of the truck) and the truck driven in this state.
-Second row of seats folds away to the sides, leaving the bottom of the bed unobstructed.
-With the top open, there would also need to be some sort of temporary divider to keep rain out of the cab. This could be a soft Jeep-style thing, because if there’s cargo just sitting in the bed, you’ll have to watch your vehicle carefully anyway.
-The rear becomes split doors instead of a tailgate + window (otherwise the open top concept doesn’t work)
A final note for both versions:
-Bed must be AT LEAST 76″ LONG in long mode. Otherwise a lot of sports equipment won’t fit: mountain bikes and skis, for example, and tall people can’t camp in the back. This would be a deal-killer for me, and for a lot of other people.
-AWD option, please. If this is to be a work truck, it’s necessary, especially for those of us who live in snowy states. But instead of making a big, complicated transfer case, just do what the Japanese-market Nissan Cube does and have an electric motor drive the rear wheels. (And if you’re doing a hybrid, no need for complicated torque-splitting.) 4WD isn’t necessary at high speed…it’s just to get you unstuck from a stop or low speeds, so you don’t need much power.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:46 am Throwback said:
A multi function truck would give GMC a standout product in the current market. If all GM is interested in is a bare bones truck, you can start with a Colorado and give it manual everything with a 1.4L turbo and you would have a truck that exceeds 30 mpg. What is innovative about that? Any company with a “small” truck can do that. What GM needs is a innovative, unique, and highly flexible truck. Toyota has shown something similiar with the ABAT which they chose not to build.
It’s time GM takes the lead and hits the market with something no one else has. There are no small trucks on the market other than the Ford Ranger. Despite being old as dirt it still sells because there are no alternatives. Why not jump to the head of the class with a truly unique and flexible product that will appeal to truck and non-truck buyers alike?
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:57 pm Wade Bryant said:
I agree 100%.
Anyone can re-create the old basic compact pickup and improve fuel economy with more advanced engines. That approach would require a business decision without too much creative design and engineering.
The flexible “do-it-all” truck approach is way more groundbreaking. This is what Bare Necessity truck set out to do. We already have experience with the Avalanche and a patent pending on the reversible bulkhead approach.
There seem to be plenty of people interested in an innovative vehicle that appeals to traditional truck buyers AND non-truck customers (as evidencd by the responses on this site and others).
I’d like to get more definition around what this flexible vehicle should be. I think the truck we put together has merit, but I know there are several ways to execute the idea.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm Throwback said:
Wade, for me flexibility means cargo and people hauling capability, but not necessarily both at the same time.
The reversible bulk head is a great idea for this. Some posters have suggested a removable cap (similar to a old Blazer) but to me that reduces the effectiveness. You have to make a decision on how you will use the truck before you leave and you are stuck with it. Similar to if you have a hard top only convertible, vs a convertible with a folding roof. We need a vehicle with that folding roof.
I think the pickup is a good starting point since it is by it’s nature flexible. It must be a unibody to improve ride and to keep and size weight down.
I went back and looked at the Hummer Hx concept (one of my favorite concepts, and I didn’t like Hummers) and what appealed to me about the design was the ability to transform it into different vehicles.
The BNT needs with some sort of reconfigurable bed (i.e. mid-gate, reversible bulk head) it also needs some unique storage ideas. Dodge have their Ram box, but I loved the idea on the Suzuki X-head with fold down truck sides and waterproof storage compartments. My thought is to have the inner bed sides slide inward towards the bed (shrinking the bed width) thus exposing large collapsible compartments in a long rectangular box. The boxes would be covered on top by a soft tonneau cover. These compartments could carry camping/hunting/fishing gear in waterproof compartments. You would still have bed space for a canoe our other gear, even a single motorcycle/dirt bike. This is my vision of a innovative vehicle.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 11:15 am poSSum said:
The reversible bulkhead is a great idea. I currently drive a short box standard cab Silverado because the length and turning radius for an extended cab truck was not practical for me. There are many times I could use the space an extended cab would provide.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm ed said:
GM Daewoo Introduces New Matiz Creative Global Mini-Car
The new mini will go on sale from 1 September.
. . . Based on GM’s global mini-vehicle architecture,
. . . the Matiz Creative took 27 months to develop,
. . . with an investment of KRW 295 billion (US$236 million).
Following its launch in Korea,
. . . the global mini will be sold in more than 150 markets around the world
. . . including those in Europe, Asia and North America.
. . . The global vehicle was put through more than 1 million kilometers
. . . of intensive
. . . . . . . durability tests,
. . . . . . . extreme weather tests, and
. . . . . . . crash tests worldwide.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/08/matiz-20090819.html#more
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm ed said:
Back in 1963,
. . . Studebaker Westinghouse designed a “Bare Necessity” Pickup concept
. . . that was a simply styled cab-over-engine (COE) design
. . . with flat, easily stamped body panels, simple lines for easy, low-cost assembly.
. . . The pickup had a right-side box panel that dropped down to form a load ramp,
. . . It featured a trim 95-inch wheelbase and 168-inch overall length,
. . . while width measured 72 inches, overall height was a towering 78.
. . . The pickup box was eight feet long,
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1963-studebaker-westinghouse-pickup-truck-concept.htm/printable
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm 6speed said:
I like the idea of the BNT as well.
A couple of thoughts right out of the gate:
1) Keep the weight down. That means use a small (ideally existing) platform as the basis. The look of this truck to me says “Lambda” which already means it would be large and heavy. The weight would make it very difficult to deliver strong fuel economy.
2) Price. Typically new “youth-oriented” designs come out of the gate but fail to attract the target audience, in large part due to cost. The only success recently was the previous generation Scion xB. Element targeted youth but was pricey…ditto Aztek. I believe Kia has cracked the code with the Soul, coming in at a very affordable price point, they may have out-”Scion”-ed Scion. Nissan Cube also comes to mind.
Dodge had a HUGE opportunity to take this market over a couple years back, but blew it. I’m talking about the M80 concept. This wasn’t necessarily innovative truck, but at the price they talked about certainly would have had a great run. Think about a small pickup…affordable, so it could be basic transportation for a young person. Versatile for the times they needed to actually use it (I’m talking Home Depot runs here, and helping friends move, etc). They threw in tons of style to boot. Not all homeowners like trucks, but occasionally need the utility.
The thing to remember with a BNT is simplicity (functional design, no frills). I’m not talking lack of power windows/locks or A/C, etc, but offer one trim level, one interior, one wheel style, etc. Offer things that young buyers demand today (Bluetooth, satellite radio) and stay away from things that no-frills shoppers are apathetic about (Navi, dual-panel roofs, etc). A vehicle like this would NOT need to bulk up for huge towing capacity, because honestly it wouldn’t be used for that. Think about interiors like the “hose-out” one on the Element. Waterproof seating materials. Innovative features like the bulkhead will differentiate it.
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm RD said:
I agree with the other comments. Manual everything. No fluff or frills. All the power going to the wheels. The only extras being a radio (not a 14 speaker stereo), heater, and possibly air conditioning for those of us living in deserts or swamps.
A work truck would need to tow at least 5,000 lb for it to be practical. If someone needed more towing power they could get a conventional half ton pickup. A size halfway between a Silvy and a Colorado would be nice. For a work truck, seating for 3 would be plenty. If more seating is needed, they could get an SUV or Avalanche or conventional crew cab or van or bus..
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:21 pm Will Pierce said:
There’s already been a well built functional truck that gets 46mpg- the VW Rabbit Caddy diesel. Thing was built like a gun, and one here in Houston frequented autocross events where it embarassed Porsches carrying its own Hoosier slicks to the meet. There’s a reason the Taliban uses old Toyota trucks, too- they’re four wheeled AK47s. Simple, indestructible, and efficient. Best way to accomplish this is diesel, something the public is already warming up to. Is this feasible? General Motors is one of the biggest, most resourceful motor companies in the world, and if we Americans can’t make a simple, innovative pickup with blazing new architecture and a small unkillable diesel engine like the Germans or Japanese could do 25 years ago, you may as well give up and make another body-on-frame smallblock-powered plastic-and-wrought iron paperweight with the towing capacity of the federal deficit.
We’re Americans. We don’t stand for the status quo. It doesn’t sit well with us. We don’t know why it exists. Which is why the Bare Necessity truck is such a great opportunity.
Gordon Murray uses the image of thinking of weight as driving the design- don’t use a 9mm bolt when an 8mm bolt will do, make every part perform as many functions as possible, and so on. GM is great at cutting corners. Now you can cut the right ones. Put a poster of Colin Chapman up in the office.
While we’re on that subject, take a look at light efficient functional vehicles being made today- the Lotus Elise. It uses stickers to cover holes in interior panels instead of plastic caps to save grams off everywhere. they designed power window switches because they could be lighter than the wind-up units. The door hinge is two pieces of aluminum. It didn’t have cupholders until they could design one that would be one piece and as light as possible.
The Citroen 2CV’s speedometer was powered by the same cable that powered the windshield wipers. Don’t be afraid to be outrageous. It’s your God-given right. Rethink the idea of what a factory is supposed to do and how much of the car belongs to the factory as opposed to the owner.
The person that’s made most sense so far is AliensWanted there towards the top. Matte paints! Yes! You could save weight on all that gloss, too!
Envision it. Know what is possible. It is. Build it.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:23 am Wade Bryant said:
I got a lot from your post.
We did identify the Rabbit Caddy Diesel as another 40+ MPG truck. The cool thing is we think we can deliver a much more cabable truck with similar MPG.
I love all the measures that Lotus takes to reduce weight and I agree we can take a similar approach to a truck. We just can’t compromise durability as much as many Lotus cars do (I’ve owned one).
Thanks.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 8:33 am BrianCastillo said:
Will Pierce:
These are excellent suggestions. I share many of your sentiments with respect to the virtues of simplicity in design. It’s funny that you mention matte-finish paints; we actually discussed that at one point.
Finally, for the record – I actually already *do* have a picture of Colin Chapman in my office.
(Disclaimer / Truth-in-Posting Statement: I am a GM engineer, but an speaking only on my own behalf. -BC)
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 9:55 pm ed said:
A “REAL WORLD” Basic Necessity Truck
Here is an example of a “Basic Utility Vehicle” (BUV)
. . . providing simple low-cost vehicles,
. . . to facilitate community transformation.
The “BUV” Design
Local Assembly Options
1) Specifications
2) Features
3) Safety
4) Performance
5) Service / Maintenance
6) Packaging & Shipping
7) Automotive Grade Component
9) Component Suppliers
What does a “Basic Utility Vehicle” . . . really look like in the “REAL WORLD?”
http://www.drivebuv.org/buvv1.htm
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 5:31 pm CurrentVolvoformerGMowner said:
I do like the approach. Right now on this part of the Blog the entire discussion seems to be about Feature and Benefits…about engineering. Those are very important but the problem is that they are neccesary but NOT sufficient.
Before GM barges into something like this they need to understand what the TRUCK ASPIRES TO and what it SAYS about the OWNER to Others.
So perhaps the aspiration is “to provide basic transportation and hauling capability ”
It would say about the owner (to others): “I am smart enough and frugal enough and eco minded enough to buy this no frills product”
But the question is Do People want this vehicle to say that about them? And what does that mean about the engineering and its relationship. For example it is clear that VOLVO does focus on safety- and this is their aspiration and a Volvo says “I am smart enough to value safety over money” about its owner to others> BUt it is also clear that one can purchase a car that is JUST as safe as the VOLVO for less money. So people DO NOT PURCHASE THE Volvo for the safety utility alone (although it MUST BE THERE) but they purchase it for the MESSAGE it sends about them.
So My question is “What does this BN truck aspire to be” and what should the BN truck “say about the owner to others” and then is there a market for it? What engineering features willl people pay for an need in this frame work.
All I see is a bunch of whiz bang engineering excitement…please don’t miscontrue my comments whiz bang engineering IS required but ONLY after the other questions are answered!!!!
to this comment On August 19, 2009 at 10:05 pm jpjames62294 said:
I like this concept and believe if it comes to fruition, it would be a very popular vehicle as I read in your intro and video. If you consider the possible future competition from the likes of Mahindra, this is ideal target for this eco-truck. I agree with some of my posters to keep the truck as simple as possible with accessories and add-ons to keep the tag ‘bare-necessity’. All that said, I think GM should target this a global vehicle if possible and standardize as suggested on the turbo diesel 4-cylinder. As much as I would prefer a manual transmission, I could sacrifice for a CVT or multi-speed automatic if that was the only choice.
I also applaud the poster regarding the trade-off in mileage versus price point. I think if we can target a price point in the mid $20k range and get as close as possible to the 40 mpg mark, that would be competitive globally.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:54 am PhilR said:
I don’t know how I’d be able not to break or damage one of the backglasses on this prototype while hauling stuff… The plastic bedliners in my small Toyota trucks are often getting hit by objects or by a shovel when I need to remove snow and ice from the bed… And I sometimes carry things like stone in my truck beds and I’m wondering what would happen if I did that in the prototype…
From what I have seen in the video, I don’t think the prototype is a running vehicle right now so I think you should drive around with the flipping module attached in a regular truck bed and see how it resists to loose objets in the bed (you could try with a few bowling balls or something like that!)
If you notice damage, you could consider doing some kind of protection plate for the backglasses!
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:29 am Wade Bryant said:
The back glass is polycarbonate in the prototype, so breakage is less likely than with glass. We also made snap-on covers to avoid scratches (from stones or gravel). More extreme uses would require a tougher guard (steel bars or a “mini-liner” that could be placed in the lower bed).
I’d love to test the idea on the street. We haven’t taken the concept that far yet.
Good feedback.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 6:19 am Hashim said:
Hi ,
Friends first of all, for which geographic location this vehicle is intended to be ??
Regards,
Hashim.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 11:34 am Wade Bryant said:
Because we did most of our early research in North America, we based many decisions on that market. The American pickup truck market has been shaken up by higher fuel price concerns.
We’ve heard some voices from other parts of the globe (particularly Central & South America)
I’d love to get feedback from other markets too.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 9:51 am Kenz300 said:
Needed — a quality vehicle – interior, exterior, drive train, and fuel economy. Compare to best in class and make it better. Good enough is not good enough. Compete on quality in all aspects. Do not make a cheap looking vehicle with cheap components. Make a quality vehicle with quality components.GM talks the talk but still needs to walk the walk. Why is GM loosing out to foreign car companies on the cash to clunkers? Look what people are buying.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm Culley said:
A very interesting and forward looking approach. Trucks at their root are all about utility and while the reversible bulkhead is a novel idea, people who use truck for work will never tolerate the hassle of having to adjust. To that end, what is the possibility of using the Volt propulsion system in full sized trucks? Immediate torque on demand, most job sites have ample power available, (often times, 220V) so charging while loading or unloading would be a real possibility… Add to that the potential benefit of using the trucks batteries as a power source in remote applications and you have a real winner that makes economic sense to support. Don’t forget, just because something is a good idea doesn’t mean it will sell. Recall the composite pickup truck beds GM introduced a few years ago… Great idea, solved a lot of problems but since the dealers were going to lose the revenue of truck bed liners and coatings they could sell, it got no support and never took off…even though it was a superior technology idea when compared to painted steel beds.
to this comment On August 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm lbauer.11@hotmail.com said:
First off, I would like to say that I’m only 16, and I’m pretty sure I don’t know it all. But I have two opinions about this: A; I think it’s great. Of course, it’s only a sketchy concept at the moment, but there’s a lot of good ideas coming together in this truck. And, if it can become a reality, it should hopefully appeal to a lot of pick-up drivers. B; You still have to make it look like a truck. I know that size reduction and body style need to change in order to get the desired fuel economy, but a lot of people I know buy pick-ups because of there looks. Also, there are a lot of people that actually need the hauling power, though not all the time. Would it be possible to put a large engine in(V8, or something similar), but only have all 8 cylinders run when needed? Sort of like the 2010 Equinox’s “Eco Mode” button, but more exaggerated.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 3:37 am Art Frank said:
Certainly looks promising. I think in certain States the truck is common, relating to the needs and environment, while in so many others more (sub, ex- ) urbanized, it is at best an accessory. Having lived through the time when vans were vast spaces, just huge, then came necessity and (Datsun for example) mini-pickups which everyone had to have, then onto the new, larger “mini” vans, and so on down the line, I guess that these will appear like a logical part of the evolutionary chain. I think that the comments about having choice is all fine and dandy as long as there is a profitable system for that. J.C.Whitney catalog existed because after a few years, or even from the beginning, you couldn’t find those “alternate” or even standard offers for your autos, or of course, it was exorbitant amount of waiting time, or for example, not cost-efficient for a large factory to produce the few demanded. I think if the auto-makers want to really re-tool for this philosophy, they have to establish factories that make a profit just figuring out how to keep producing the optional parts, while another factory keeps busy with the machine itself. Much like Belkin produces options for Apple aps, that for some reason Apple does not. I don’t believe the one auto-maker will ever be able to do it all anymore. They should deliver a great machine, and some options, and quit spending time and money on so many alternates, and instead let anothoer company figure out the alternate packages. It could be interesting and not all cookies in one economic basket.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 8:41 am Throwback said:
I certainly hope you all are serious about this concept, because you are not the only one exploring a compact, versatile and innovative truck. The first one there will get my money.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/20/what-would-a-modern-fiat-pickup-look-like-one-designer-has-a-th/
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 11:56 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the link to the Fiat student project. I hadn’t seen it yet.
This does seem like an obvious area for other manufacturers to explore.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 1:55 pm Ian said:
I have to drive great distances to work but I do want a truck with a small bed. The problem is I would be paying close to 1000 dollars more per year in fuel than my pontiac vibe. This is a great idea and of course needs to be worked on. I was saddened when toyota decided not to release the A-Bat.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm dave said:
This is really great thinking on your part and I commend you.
Why not take it one step further. Instead of designing yet another vehicle for the saturated market of the less than 1 billion of us that live in the developed world…why don’t you apply these same principles to a vehicle targeting the 5 billion people in the developing and third world countries that are struggling with transportation needs due to poor infrastructure.
Why not take these same minimalist principles and use them to design a functional vehicle that the rest of the world could greatly use to stimulate their own economies (think about the transportation of goods from rural areas of Ethiopia to airports and other hubs so that their products and services could reach external markets and thus stimulate their economies). Or a vehicle that could extend the reach of courier services like Fedex and UPS now that every person in the world is capable of having a stationary address courtesy of GPS technology.
Think about it. Rules and regulations in third world and developing countries are not restrictive as they are here in the US. Also, developing countries don’t need the robust features and functionality we require here in the states…just the basics…if that.
Why can’t we design and manufacture the parts for a truly “world” vehicle (truck) here in the U.S. and ship the parts to third world and developing nations for assembly and sale where nationals would be employed in the assembly of those vehicles, thus further stimulating the local economies. Since we should be able to design and manufacture these minimalist vehicles cheaply, we should also be able to extend the credit necessary to equip dealers for the sales (or better yet, rental) of these vehicles (first to developing world merchants and ultimately to third world individuals who reap the benefits of the growing economy).
I realize this is “pie in the sky” stuff…but why can’t you take a brilliant concept like this and think in the context of new business models to tap untapped markets that are far larger than the markets in the developed nations.
Just a thought.
Dave
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm Wade Bryant said:
Good thoughts. We have the great little Wuling trucks in China, full size pickups here, and midsize trucks in South America.
The reason we thought this was such a good opportunity in North America was because there is such a large pickup market with no high MPG trucks.
to this comment On August 21, 2009 at 5:20 pm CurrentVolvoformerGMowner said:
I left a longer series of comments on the Bare Necessities Car page. So I will try to keep this simple.
First I read a bunch of features and benefits. Bad idea. Great engineering, probably marvelous engineering concepts- but a bad idea as a whole?
Why? Because people do NOT buy trucks and cars for F& B alone. F&Bs are neccessary but not sufficient. The FIRST task is to decide
What does a GM truck aspire to be?
What does a GM truck need to “say” about its owner
What value does a GM truck bring to the owner (it includes but is NOT limited to effecient design, cost fuel mileage etc).
Toyota aspires to incredible reliability & efficiency (not fuel efficiency but everything is efficient) and says about its owner “I am smart enough to value reliability and the most effecient (again not fuel efficiency) car in the world”
Ford Truck aspires to be rugged reliable and “American & we don’t need your handouts”. It says I am an AMERICAN who works for a living”
Volvo says “safety and smarts”
So what does GM aspire to be: Inexpensive, Rugged, efficient, “cool”, efficient…I just dont understand what the aspirational vision or goal is for GM.
Otherwise you are going to have a truck full of engineering gizmos and things that are marevelous that your customer does not care about.
Don’t get me wrong superb engineering is a requirement for a ticket to the dance. Driven a Hyundai lately- they have superb engineering… but is is NOT sufficient. Sufficiency is supplied by WHAT GM Aspire for the truck and the message the truck sends to others about the owner.
Hyundai has this problem- it is well engineered, reasonably priced, good fit and finish BUT says about the owner “I am too cheap to get a REAL Quality car like a Toyota… BMW or Volvo.” Not sure what Hyundai needs to do but THAT is a real problem.
What does A GM Car Truck about its owner …? Well I have my thoughts- but since this is a GM site I will leave them unwritten…
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 10:35 am MZ said:
Great idea on this, but lets be real about current fuel economy standards on your current line.
My Equinox is rated at 24 miles a gallon on the highway and that is with the wind behind you, downhill, with a fresh synthetic oil change.
Your trucks don’t get 20 miles a gallon. It is more like 15 or less.
It is going to be very interesting to see GM pull off another bait and switch, introduce great concept cars, put an ugly vehicle in the dealership that is nothing like it, then put an EPA rated engine into it that gets 20% less mileage in real life.
Wake up and start looking at reality instead of plans, I want reality.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 3:56 pm Xander said:
Love it – now the question is whether the new GM corporate is gonna remain insulated from what folks want and need – the midsized market has almost no purpose, getting the same MPG as a full size, with less hauling capacity.
First and foremost – please please put “truck” “durability” and “simplicity” ahead of gizmology – yeah, backup cameras are practical, GPS, bluetooth, power everything, make em options, but please above all be thinking “truck”, ditch the hybrid concept – no need for an extra 1000 pounds of batteries and hybridology to be metered against repair/replacement costs for the extra MPG savings… tho a hybrid in action is NZE, folks don’t consider the toxicity of li-pol, li-anything, or worse, Ni-Cad, if it’s a “bare necessities” truck – keep it simple, drop the hybrid.
More use of (appropriate grade) composites anywhere possible – end the cycle of rust as much as possible.
About the only “power” option I would see as useful from the baseline “bare necessities” would be a power midgate – can envision the manual flipper version with a lot of smashed knuckles.
Ditch Onstar, or option it in – I prefer off the shelf GPS, and if I’m in a wreck severe enough to render me incapacitated, I’m willing to bet the OnStar system is incapacitated as well.
A few mods to the Colorado/Canyon/H3 Shreveport plant to bring this closer to full-size, and this could easily replace all three.
to this comment On August 22, 2009 at 6:18 pm Wade Bryant said:
You are talking about brand development. We don’t sell or market vehicles as GM, and maybe that’s why you don’t identify a GM truck with any particular attributes.
Chevy and GMC on the other hand have very strong brand images that need to be supported with strong and relavant products.
When we develop new products we can start from three different angles, looking at customer needs, looking at our manufacturing capabilities or looking at brand needs. All three pieces come into the final equation.
On the Eco Initiative we decided to look at unmet customer needs first. Once we discover unmet needs, we develop ideas that fulfill unmet needs and then balance in the other two factors. We haven’t made any firm brand decisions on this vehicle, but you’d better believe it will be re-designed to make a strong brand statment if we identify this concept as a good fit.
We have a team that is always working to build and maintain our brands.
Good thoughts, and perhaps a good future topic for the LAB
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 10:30 am Xander said:
Without wanting to bring up a potentially sore point Wade – GM did brand a forward-thinking car not so long ago, owners loved it, barricaded their driveways to keep them from being hauled off…
I’d love to see a much leaner – rather a more specific “branding” and manufacturing – since you mentioned Chevy and GMC (and I agree, they’re strong brands), I’ll roll with them.
I’d take this a bit further with GMC brand in particular – all of them should be associated with “drive it off the lot, put it to work, take it to the trails, hook up the snowplow, camper, etc.” – geared towards “heavy duty” everything “baseline”.
Let the aftermarket handle the extras – put 100% of GMC/Chevy into the truck, or let GMC handle the “bare necessities, and if GM must, toss the upfitting to Chevy – you know, the z-71 badges and power everything that adds nothing but cognitive dissonance when paying 10k more than you would for the base truck.
Bare necessities – don’t just rebuild a low end Avalanche here – rebuild the 1/2 ton GMC/Chevy market entirely. Someone else mentioned the Comanche (Jeep), great example of a 15-year old “bare necessities” truck (albeit midsized) that could do about anything tho, without sticker shock.
Why Toyota shelved the A-Bat I’ll never know, the sliding roof option would have worked well enough for most outsized items and being able to haul 4×8’s “flat” seemed a no-brainer (if it had at least a half ton rating). I can almost predict those that the 12-14 mpg truckers that never saw more than home/light work use, that leered at the A-Bat and called it ugly and impractical will be lining up to check out the CRD Mahindra soon enough.
What is needed is a 1/2 ton with half ton capacity in all areas, that actually does get 25-30mpg at least (4WD) and closer to 40 (2WD). I’d say the “bare necessity” truck would fit that bill, but please balance economy against “truck”, put a small cast iron stroker in there, if not diesel, and tweak the heck out of it to get the MPG and horsepower. I care less if it redlines at 5000 RPM – I do care that most every ounce of power/torque is at or near 2-3k RPM.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 3:33 pm Wade Bryant said:
We’ll take your comments to heart if and when this project gets to the brand development stage. I like your take on what GMC should stand for.
Any other GMC truck people out there who’d care to share what key characteristics a GMC should have?
to this comment On August 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm SierraGS said:
GM already has an excellent small FWD truck sold in Mexico as the Chevy Montana and I have seen a few of them on California roads and it looks right at home there and I really like the styling. The original small truck craze started in SoCal with trucks powered be 1.6L and 1.8L I-4’s with manual transmissions and were used as commuter “cars” since they got great MPG (for the time) and had the versatility of the bed to haul things home from work or for weekend projects.
Why doesn’t GM offer the Montana to U.S. buyers?
It would sell if priced around $10,000 and from what I can tell gets 34 MPG with a 1.8L 5-speed and create a buyer base for your bare essentials truck that would give more flexibility and ability to carry more passengers.
GM should do a Product Technology Event in California and have the Montana, Combo, Meriva, Zafira, Holden Ute, and some old concepts like the Borrego for SoCal customers to evaluate and do a ride and drive. You will get alot of great feedback and narrow our needs down faster when customers can actually drive vehicles similar in size and function to what you are trying to develop.
I think you are on the right track and should also consider using the “Alpha” RWD platform to create a modern version of the Jeep Comanche “Uniframe” design which has proven quite durable in both the Comanche and Cherokee models of the ’80’s and 90’s and make excellent off-road vehicles.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 8:58 am Jeff said:
Wade,
What are the odds of seeing a “reasonably” complete concept on the auto show circuit next year?
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 3:52 pm Wade Bryant said:
Good question. I’d never be able to place odds on what next-years’ concept vehicles will be.
I actually think we’re learning a lot by exposing this idea on the LAB and I think we’d have to determine what else we’d gain by doing a concept vehicle of Bare Necessity Truck.
Exposing these vehicle ideas on the LAB has been sort of a mini concept vehicle reveal (reaction from the media, reaction from enthusiasts) but with more descriptive feedback from you on what changes might be required.
The biggest difference between a reveal on the LAB and a show vehicle reveal is that on the LAB you are reacting to a much “rougher” concept that isn’t as complete. This is the best time for us to really learn from you and react to input.
to this comment On August 24, 2009 at 5:54 pm chiefpontiac said:
I’ve driven pickups and SUVs of all shapes and sizes and “Bare Necessities” is finally getting it right. If you are old enough to remember the bare-bones trucks of the 50’s and 60’s you would realize they were built for work. pleasure riding or commuting in a truck was not the norm. Esaiest way to illustrate what I would like to see areturn to in trucks is by listing some of my favorite rides of teh past, with some highlighted features (not in any specific order)
* c1960 Jeep Station Wagon and pickup (Brook Sevens’ design debuted in 1946 in production until 1965); talk about bare essentials, I drove workers around teh farm in a wagon
*c 1961-1963 Studebaker Champ pickup – what I saw at the time as a precursor to the compact pickup – close in size to current COlorado I drive
*1961-1971 IHC Scout; Optionally one could have a pickup, station wagon, or open vehicle (complete with fold-down windshield and removable doors, all in one.
*1949 Ford Hoopie. Every farm seemed to have one. (Still legal here as an implememt of husbandry) The hoopie retains teh front end of the car it started life as, but usually with a homemade wooden bed for hauling produce from field to market. The soft springs are retained and offer a gentle ridew to peaches and other easily bruised fruit that would not travel as well on a solid unsprung trailer behind a tractor. A bus driver’s seat gave way to an apple crate on ours.
*1967 IHC pickup, solid, reliable, dependable
*Any El Camino, Ranchero or other “ute” that incorporates auto styling, comfort, and convenience up front with fully integrated bed for hauling in the 1/4 ton class.
So now, the features, at a minimum, that a bare necessities truck must have
1. optional AWD, even if truck is FWD in basic form like GMC Motorama Concept Expedier (forerunner of many vans)
2. convertible interior space but with better jump seats – the rear jumps in my extended cab Colorado are barely suitable for children
3. convertible bed usage. The open bed needs of carrying a 4′x8′ sheet of plywood can be accomplished with some fold out (over the bed-sides) racks
4. underbed trunk like Honda Ridgeline – if we are developing something smaller than a Silverado then the driveline itself will be smaller and can accomodate such an ammenity possibly with a split diff or other type of powertrain I’ll get to
5. in-bed track system for unique loads such as bikes and kayaks. I installed a pretty slick rail with front bike wheel brackets in a forementioned Ridgeline – whose bed, BTW, is just long enough to contain loaded bicycles with tailgate up
6. Drivetrain options – from small s/c or t/c 4, to variable displacement DI V6’s, give us enough choices – more than just two or so – remember there’s a whole contingent that will try to stuff a LS3 into the space of a LNF and this is an area in which GM used to excel with cheap power upgrades
7. Manual transmission (6 or even 7 speed) as standard fare or at least an option. Yes it isn’t the current American “thing” to shift manually, and GM doesn’t help when no full-sized poickup (Silverado) can currently be purchased with a clutch. But if we will be stuck with AT, then at least a manual shifting option
8. Carpet delete option in favor of wall to wall rubber mat for those whose trrucks get as dirty on the inside as they do on the outside
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 10:53 am Wade Bryant said:
Good historic references and great feature ideas.
Thanks.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 12:10 am KenZ300 said:
Will it be flex fuel capable? People that buy small vehicles want a choice at the pump too.
All the trucks that are flex fuel today are big engine and big in size. I would like to have a choice at the pump.
If gas is cheaper then it will sell, if ethanol is cheaper then it will sell.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 10:54 am Wade Bryant said:
We have been assuming that any gas-engine versions of Bare Necessity Truck and Car would be flex-fuel capable.
Thanks for sharing your preference.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 1:29 am Terry said:
Most of my life I’ve run the C/K 2500 (and their predecessors) series trucks because they are rugged, and I can usually get 350,000 to 450,000 miles out of one before they develop major mechanical problems. I usually run with a cross box, two side boxes, and another large tool box in the bed along with a couple of ladders. Weekends, the bed gets emptied for outdoor sports toys, camping equipment, and the like. I’d dearly love to replace the big beast with something smaller, but I don’t want to just haul kids and groceries like my wife does with her Frontier crew cab. And, I want something I can do most routine service on myself, and that will wear as well as the big trucks, so I don’t have to do much of that.
I looked at the HHR panel, but there isn’t one to be found within over one hundred miles. Its front-wheel drive, so I can’t pull much of trailer to make up for the lost capacity. Then there’s the Ecotec I4. With 250K on my 2000 C2500, the motor looks like and runs like new. My daughters each have a 2.4 in their small Chevy cars. They are leaking, worn out, falling apart service nightmares at a little over 80K.
My suggestion, take the HHR for its nostalgia look, meld it with the Colorado chassis. Use the few extra inches in length to put real steel bumpers on both ends. By shuffling the sheet metal bits, you’ve got a people hauler, panel truck, extended cab pickup with long/short bed options, or a crew cab. Use your reversible cabwall, or swipe the system from the Avalanche as an option. Personally, an extended cab with sideways jump seats and a long bed would be my choice. Pickup, flatbed, stake side, or service body as options.
Give us a rugged cast iron DI I4/I6 choice like the 153/230 Son of Stovebolt motors, conventionally mounted, RWD, 4WD as an option. 6-gear stick shift with a manual 2-speed hi-low range in either configuration for when you need to pull stumps out of the yard or a boat up a ramp. CVT for people too lazy to shift. Tall top gear for lightly loaded runs down the highway. Sometimes it was like you were rowing with the shift lever, but the 230 in my ‘67 C20 would tow its own weight up a hill and still cruise 85. Turbo or blower option for the sport truck guys. Maybe a techomouse small block V8 like the old Buick 215.
With a factory built hitch and built-in brake controls, the dealer could offer a matching open or enclosed trailers as an option. For the occasional hauler, a couple of trailers to rent. Smart hitch and electric brakes to work with the antilock brake and stability control systems.
Trucks have become more of a personal statement these days, with everything from work trucks to cruisers. Let us get one made to order. Interiors should start from bare metal sprayed with bedliner plastic and heavy vinyl seats to the HHR ST fancy stuff. Again, it would be off the rack parts for the most part. Why reinvent the wheel? Speaking of wheels, low profile tires might look good on a cruiser, but potholes and other hazards abound when you really do some driving. Give me real tires with steel/spoker wheels so I’m not bending rims on job sites all the time.
Made to order… When I was a kid there was a whole folklore about when to put in the order for your car so it would be built on a ‘good day’, instead of Monday or Friday. This was long before computerized ordering. The dealers only had one or two demos on the lot. If you were a regular customer, you got the demo to drive for a couple of days, because the dealer knew driving a demo with a lot of options would help convince you to order more goodies. Why do we have to buy ready-made from GM just because Honda went to ‘popular’ packages since they were shipping their cars in from overseas? Help keep the thing cheap by not having a lot of inventory sitting around. Pay less but wait a couple weeks/up to a month to get exactly the car you want. Or, buy the ‘loaded’ demo off the lot right away and pay more. I know which I’d choose. And be realistic in what you charge for accessories. You’ll sell more in the long run. Safety stuff like side airbags standard for the entire line.
Keep the 2WD conventional cab as cheap as possible for the WT line. Amortize the body stampings over as many years as possible by keeping the same body style forever. How many zillion Beetles were sold worldwide with the exact same body? A deliberate nostalgia look will let you get away with it. If it is feasible, make the fenders, door skins, tailgate, etc out of high-impact plastic… unless you can make the whole thing plastic with a tube-steel cage frame down the road. Don’t go for swoop and swoosh style that looks good in the auto show but wears out its welcome in the driveway.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 1:18 pm chiefpontiac said:
Trucks have traditionally held onto body styles much longer than other vehicles. Detroit had become famous for annual styling changes. You could tell the year at a distance from taillights, headlights, or fin size and shape. Meanwhile try to tell the difference between a ‘73 and ‘87 Chevy truck. But today’s truck buyer (in general) is interested in exterior design and interior function far more than our forbears’ almost complete dedication to exterior function alone.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 9:57 pm Terry said:
Sad, but true.
Still, wouldn’t that be one facet of a BN program? A timeless, but complimentary style for a mini, mid-size, and full-size truck that wouldn’t require regular changes to look current, because everybody could look at one and say, ‘That’s a GM pickup’? For an example, take a look at the Willys Bantam pickup, the CJ series, the Scrambler, the Gladiator, and their deuce-and-a-half. You look at any one of them and you know that’s a Jeep. Even if you aren’t an aficionado, or don’t know much about cars at all. They even got rid of the stupid square headlights to conform to the overall image.
GM has had a few distinctive styles over the years, yet seems to have sold a lot of trucks not updating styles frequently – at least until post-98. But isn’t the ‘Classic’ GMT400 (88-00) still in production in Brazil? It must be selling, even with the old body style. Impala doesn’t have the classic triple tail lights, most of the GM lineup is Ameribland, only the HHR, the Camaro, and of course Corvette, have shapes that say, ‘That’s a…’. Wouldn’t a truck line based on a single more-or-less unchanging, but distinctive, style be part of what GM wants to say with its BN concept, “They look OK, but we were concentrating on function, and form follows function in a well-engineered machine.”?
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 11:19 am Viggen said:
Sure,the new concept truck looks great on the sketches,but will this design survive on the way to assembly line?By the way,I offer that this truck should also have several versions:short one with small engines and manual transmission in base (like the discontinued Sonoma had).And,of course,the large or the full-size version should exist.This new concept truck must sit on two chairs at the same time:be a beach headturner ride for the younger ones and the heavy duty,reliable truck with bigger engines for the seniors,who live in their ranchos in the Texas or Montana outbacks.
The exterior look should please both customer groups:it must be neither the “teen” truck nor the old cowboy’s ride.
If I just imagine myself as a potential buyer of the today’s GMC Sierra,I’d never buy it.I’m quite young and I have no wish to have the pickup with such sad and tired look.By the way,the fuel consumption of the Sierra wiil be big and this fact will hit my purse very strong.This ride is for the typical rancheros,not for my generation,the types who like to adverstise themselves and their rides on the sandy beaches without spending all the money on fuel.That’s why the current GMC Sierra will not be accepted by the younger people.
Sure,the future truck must be a mix of the Sonoma and Sierra size.The versions must have different design (more aggressive and brave for young generation,more tough and heavy for the olders).If the future truck is not interesting for one of the above-named groups,it will have no chance on the market.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 12:53 pm Ihor said:
Viggen, your point is nonsense. You want a truck that suits everone. Good luck finding such a mythical vehicle. Try to remember that this isn’t a movie, it’s a real truck design exercise. I’m not sure the idea here is to attract the teen market most of whom will hopefullygrow up before this truck hits the street. As a target niche, the rancher/beach bum isn’t on GM’s demographic radar. Working outdoors enthusiasts are, ask an adult if you need further explanation.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 4:32 pm Wade Bryant said:
The best way for GM to learn about customers is for everyone to provide comments about what they, personally would like or prefer. I value the comments from Viggens post that describe what he would want (aggressive style, better fuel efficiency) at least that’s what I’m taking from his comments.
This wasn’t the first post that tries to provide direction for the broader market. It’s fine to make assumptions and share them here. Rest assured, we never rely on anyones assumptions about other peoples’ wants and needs.
As a general guideline for everyone, I’d encourage you to speak from their own heart and tell us what you want.
I don’t want anyone to feel offended or shut down but it is most productive if we all can focus on our personal needs, not what we think other people would want.
Regarding Bare Necessity Truck – this vehicle is intended to appeal to people on a “needs basis” first and foremost. I think if we address a large unmet need, the truck should have multi-generational appeal.
I would like to discuss the style and image too. The Bare Necessity Car discussion provides a lot of style insight. The truck discussion hasn’t touched on this topic enough yet.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm DM3 said:
Am I right in thinking that you folks haven’t decided on the size of this truck? If so, then I’d suggest that it be the size of the last S10. The compact pickup segment has largely been abandoned, and mod size pickups are getting nearly to the size of the original Toyota Tundra (T100). By making this a new S10 it would give it a familiar and trusted name. People still use their S10’s for pretty much everything, including things that they probably weren’t designed for yet the little pickups keep coming back for more. Cab configurations could be typical pickup stuff. regular, extended and crew. My suggestion for powertrain would be a version of one of the ecotec engines for the 4 cyl, and a turbodiesel 4 cyl for those requiring a bit more power. This would allow the Colorado and Canyon to drop the current engines and go with a V6 and the 5.3 V8 to compete more directly with other mid size trucks like the Dodge Dakota. The BN truck should still be built like a truck though. There are still a couple of compact pickups on the market, such as the Ford Ranger and it would be highly embarrassing if such a dated design as the Ranger proved superior in truck use to the BN truck.
to this comment On August 25, 2009 at 4:36 pm Wade Bryant said:
You’re correct. size undecided.
Your S-10 size recommendation is a popular one.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 3:00 am James said:
The Brutte concept is the ideal type of BNT, but if GM built one off a FWD based cross-over it would fail.
A FWD based BNT would be fine by itself, but target the Ridgeline not a Jeep based concept.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 6:35 am George P said:
I think the real question here is not so much one of size efficiency, but of fuel efficiency. I Truly believe GM already has the ability to get 40 mpg on a pickup or suburban. Lets look at the full sized hybrid, the only think really holding it back from getting that type of mpg is the engine, or to be more specific the gas engine, why not use the duramax diesel engine, minus two cylinders, i believe its already bio diesel friendly. The real issue with trucks is not so much about horse power, but torque. Torque is what diesel engines are all about. look at the jetta tdi, it just set a new record for fuel efficiency. The only thing that really needs to be done is to 1. make sure the tranny can handle the torque, 2. have a final gear ratio of lets say any where from the 3.40s to the 3.60s, and 3. have the diesel engine have the engine management system to take it from 6cylinders to 4cylinders. The main key is to have enough torque to maintain highway speeds at the lowest possible rpm for low fuel consumption.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 10:44 am Viggen said:
Wow!I didn’t even expect that.So if I am only 19,I cant’t be considered as a potential buyer of this new concept truck?
Actually I’m not a big fan of SUV’s or pickups,but i accept this genre,it is very practical and useful in everyday life.But it must be little choice between engines and transmission.
I admire the design of the Chevrolet SSR,but this car failed because of having no transmission or engine alternative.Right,America prefers automatic transmission,but the people who enjoy driving the car with manual transmission,still exist.I am a such one(searching a Saab 9-5 with 5-speed manual wich rich equipment was a very hard job,but I did it).
Why didn’t the SSR have the base engine (theoretical,of course) the 3.5 liter 5-cyl engine?Such version would be much cheaper than the lonely 5.7 or 6.0 V8 with an ancient 4-speed HydraMatic transmission and more buyers could also afford this car.But…The SSR has left the building in 2006.
Of course,I ment another thing.It is impossible to be loved by everybody,if you are not a little green piece of paper with the former president’s face.But the new truck should be the dream not only of the Texas rancher,but also a dream of the young Miami Beach or LA resident,who like self-advertising on sandy seasides.
Each buyer of this truck mustn feel himself nice while looking at it,sitting in side or driving it.The future owner shouldn’t have an impression as he is an “Englishman in New York”.
to this comment On August 26, 2009 at 7:53 pm CaddyRich said:
What a great concept – now let’s stick to the original idea of a Bare Necessity Truck. No full power..no ’22’s with rim protector tires…just my suggestions:
1) Regular Cab only.With a frame…just like God intended trucks to have. No Midgate, etc.Cab in the S-10, maybe a little larger range. Leave some cargo area in back of the seats – no jump seats that are fit for your average 10 year old, either. One cab choice might keep your cost to produce down.
2) 4 cylinder standard…5 cylinder diesel optional. 6 speed manual or CVT transmissions available. Wasn’t there a 5 cyl. diesel around a few years ago? Maybe something from Europe or Isuzu?
3) Bed size – 7 ft. with a standard spray in liner. Room for dirt bikes, etc…top rail storage as well.
4) Power steering, power brakes w/ ABS, A/C, Tilt/Cruise, 3 radio options, OnStar…..THAT’S ALL. You can still have a good looking interior without all the power stuff.
Just a few suggestions…I read somewhere that it costs just as much to make a good looking design as it does an ugly one…I just think if you keep it simple and not overbuild the truck trying to please everyone’s niche of the market…a bare necessity truck would be a winner. Just my opinion. Thanks.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 12:19 pm Robert Sprayberry said:
After looking at the earlier posts, I agree that the side body panels and side bed panels should be made out of a soft composite material, while the hood, roof and bed interior should be made out of a hard composite material. It is less likely to be damaged as metal, and would be easier to replace. The frame of the truck should be a welded space frame. This technology has already been used with success with the Pontiac Fiero. It is time that the technology is trundled back out and re-examined. As for engines I think for a bare bones work truck that may have to haul heavy loads (as in a 2500-3500 series truck), you cannot beat a big block engine. True the gas mileage won’t be the greatest, but with active fuel management even a 7.4L engine could do better than 15 mpg. Plus the only way you can beat a big block in the torque department is with a diesel. Some of us don’t like the smell of a diesel and although most diesels are very reliable, the unknown factor of repair costs put some people off. This truck could be made to handle everything from a I4 or hybrid all the way to a diesel or big block. Offer plenty of choices to suit the individual needs of the person or company buying the truck.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm Vlad said:
Going back to your mission of making this truck to perform AND look efficiently, I wonder whether you guys have played enough with the idea of utilizing the space efficiently by making a 4-5 passenger compartment rigid, and making the BED extendable in a drawer-like fashion. If you did, why did you ultimately reject this layout in favor of the reversible bulkhead? To me, it seems that the rigid passenger cabin has several advantages over the reversible bulkhead, such as:
– Greater ability to climate-control the cabin
– Ease of use as there would be no need to climb to bed to reverse the bulkhead. Extending the bed would be done while standing on the ground
– Greater rigidity of the passenger compartment which translates to quieter / smoother ride and greater crash-worthiness
– Having a large weatherproof and lockable storage compartment when rear seats are folded for cargo duty
– No need to worry about cleaning the bulkhead / bed before reversing it into the passenger compartment
– Probably, fewer movable parts and less sensitivity about keeping the seals clean, bearings oiled, etc.
I would think that the expandable bed could be made with a flat floor of at least 4 ft. wide, and in “compact” mode in could have a length of just over 4 ft. When extended, the bed would double in length to 8 ft. Voila! The flat-floor 4 x 8! Such a bed would be flare-sided, I guess. To save weight and increase durability, I would suggest to make the bed of composites.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm Wade Bryant said:
We did look at some ideas for bed extenders. A four foot stretch would be a bit extreme for manueverability and supporting heavy loads behind the rear axle, but a two foot extender is practical. There are a couple of aftermarket solutions that already do this.
We thought a moveable bulkhead would maintain a compact size while hauling cargo. Another benefit we had in mind but failed to mention on the LAB is the reversible bulkhead offers HVAC/climate control efficiency by reducing the interior volume when it’s not needed. Chooping down length of the steel cab offered some weight savings as well.
There are dozens of ways to do a truck. We just wanted to explore a new avenue as one option.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, you brought up some good points that we do have to consider.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm chrismr said:
wanted to make a few comments on style and image of this truck. I think the size and stance of a late 80’s, early 90’s S-10 4×4 would be good. not tall like a toyota or ranger 4×4. the look i’d like to see would be a strong, broad, stocky stance..it should look like a truck! has a stepside box been discussed? that would be cool.
Personally, i’m not a fan of the trend of big 19, 20 inch wheels and low profile tires on a 4 wheel drive truck. i’d like to see a smaller wheel with raised white letter tires, more off road looking. I’d like to see wheels from the factory that look good. not like the colorado or canyon. boring!
The body, regardless of what material it is made of, should be clean and sleek looking. please, please no body clad molding like on the early avalanche. it looks cheap and tacky.
to this comment On August 27, 2009 at 11:50 pm Steve said:
My (limited) manufacturing experience tells me that a significant fraction of the cost of a vehicle isn’t the actual features: it’s the tooling and setup. One major reason that VW could sell the Beetle so cheaply is that all the one-time costs were amortized over decades of production, as opposed to the current practice of changing sheet metal and interior molding every couple years, and making major chassis changes every few years.
To this end, it seems like the most important feature of the BNT (and the BNC) must be this:
**** GM can build it for ten years without changing one single thing. ****
Every other important feature will follow from this. Some examples:
-Exterior styling must be both unique and timeless, so that the car won’t look dated in showrooms in 2020.
-Minimalism should be celebrated and exposed, not hidden. Right now it doesn’t matter whether you pay $15K or $50K for a car, the dash is still a big blob of dark gray plastic. Show me the airbags, the glovebox hinges, the steering column, the wiring harness.
-Celebrate customization and the aftermarket. By leaving the interior bare, you can provide hooks and fittings for people to upgrade their interior with their own style. Examples: replacement seats, door panels, consoles, storage cubbies, instrument cluster covers, etc. Look at the PC case modders for inspiration. You’ll make a lot of money selling “official” GM interior kits, and the aftermarket will go nuts. Again, this only works if the platform remains the same for years so that everyone doesn’t have to redo their tooling.
-What will gas cost in 2020? If someone wants to tow a boat, they’ve got a million choices. If I want a replacement for my 1996 Toyota 4-cylinder pickup, I’m screwed. People have this idea that they can’t drive a vehicle with less than 180HP…again, they’ve got a million choices. I don’t mind downshifting to pass if it means I can get 30+ MPG the rest of the time.
-Complicated hybrid drives are out. That technology is changing so quickly that anything you sell now will be ridiculous in 2020. Give me 120 HP and 30 MPG on the highway and I’m happy.
Further thoughts:
-For the AWD version, FWD chassis with electric rear assist is the way to go. All AWD needs to do is keep you unstuck at low speeds in mud or snow/ice: if you want to drift like a rally car or go rock crawling, a BNT is not your vehicle. Plus FWD lets the bed ride lower (or lets you have under-bed lockable cargo space) since you don’t have to clear a driveshaft. You could even build it so that the under-bed space for the electric rear assist can be used as storage space on the FWD version.
A final note: please make sure the bed is 76″ in longbed mode. Otherwise a lot of things won’t fit: mountain bikes, skis, tall people.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 8:33 am Wade Bryant said:
Great comments. I think you’re in the right mindset fro this kind of truck. Keeping the vehicle consistent over a long production run is important for cost and it will help everyone keep their Bare Necessity truck on the road for a long time (important eco concept). The challenge is being able to adapt to ever-changing government regulations. This is always unpredictable, and if this vehicle is sold around the world we’ll have to keep up with numerous changes.
Your comment that “minimalism should be celebrated and exposed” is inspiring to me. We looked at motorcycles and farm tractors for early design inspiration on this truck. I did an early exterior theme sketch that was too controversial to share on the LAB
Some people love the “raw” appearance, some despise it. This approach was debated quite a bit and it will be a challenge to get it right.
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm greenhome said:
I would also like to see a diesel drive train for a small truck, and have always been dissapointed that my 05 colorado was’nt offered with the isuzu fjji power plant (every one else in the world can get it!). So I think the drivetrain is already there. I would also make it bio-diesel ready right off the line.
I think the colorado is a good platform to start from, and would be the truck to “evolve” into your new line.
I’m not sure about the rotating bulk head. I was thinking this may be difficult to manouvre without completely clearing the truck out and reloading. Mabye an extendable truck bed would be more efficient and practical.
Awhile ago dodge had a “contractors special” edition of the ram, which enabled the diesel engine to be used as a generator. I know I’ve already said this, but incorporating compressor and generator capacities off the engine would be a very popular feature for all the contractors out there.
to this comment On August 28, 2009 at 9:13 pm Seth said:
A lot of good ideas; here’s my 2 cents.
- Ability to handle 4 adults; but it doesn’t need to be luxurious.
-Ability to tow; but anything over 4000 pounds is heavier than THIS vehicle; and that’s not best practice anyway.
The average user is carrying a snowplow or dragging a utility trailer with a quad bike…. nowhere near that limit.
- 150 HP or so is enough to do ANYTHING this truck will need to do; and still get REALLY GOOD MPG…..
-If somebody wants to drag 3 tons or better at 75 mph and still pass somebody– this isn’t NECESSITY.
-Undue emphasis on STYLE isn’t NECESSITY.
Excellent MPG IS NECESSITY.
-Less than 23k$$ for a usable HOMEOWNER workhorse is NECESSITY.
-Ability to handle 4×8 sheets safely IS needed; and I’m not sure an S-10 size box would do that (I may be wrong)-
I put 8′ lumber and 10′ PVC INSIDE my Voyager; a 6 ft or better box is a NECESSITY for handling that..
But I think the Colorado is a good size to work on….
-Simplicity is a NECESSITY; if reliability and low maintenance cost is to be maintained. Exotic hybrid systems are cool; but how expensive will this be? Diesel is great efficiency-wise- but can you find it where you need it?
And in the East ethanol retail is a farce.
Thanks for listening-
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 8:22 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks,
Your vehicle needs seem to be near the average of what we are hearing from most people.
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm spacie said:
Hmmm…all I can say here is be careful. I don’t currently have a need for a truck, so I can’t speak from my own needs. But I could see you guys getting caught up here with trying to accomplish too much at once with the basic truck vs. the basic car.
In the 70s, we promised to make a totally reusable vehicle that would launch like a rocket, return like a plane and would eventually take us to wherever we wanted in space reliably and affordably. What we wound up with was the space shuttle- a compromised, overcomplicated system that goes no farther than making circles around the earth. It couldn’t deliver what we wanted because we tried to do too many things with too little money. I don’t mean to be a killjoy, and truck design isn’t rocket science (lol). But maybe GM would be better off focusing on the car first, see how that goes, making efficiency improvements on current trucks, and then apply the lessons learned down the road. Because to me it seems like most your truck buyers now ARENT urban gardeners, and only worry about efficiency when gas is $4 a gallon. Just my humble opinion as a Texan ex-pat.
to this comment On August 29, 2009 at 2:10 pm DM3 said:
FWD won’t work in a pickup. It’s already been tried long ago by both Volkswagen with their Rabbit based truck, and by Chrysler with their Dodge Rampage. Both were failures as they were useless as pickup trucks. The only good part about either of those two FWD trucks is that their short production runs have made them into collectibles. GM doesn’t need the BN car or truck to have short production runs and end up as curiosities in someones collection in 30 years. They need to make as many as possible. The BN vehicles need to be as common as the Cavalier and S-10 were (and still are).
I do agree with whoever above said that the vehicle should essentially remain the same for 10 years. Vehicles today, especially vehicles such as the proposed BN vehicles need to be evolutionary since they probably won’t be revolutionary in any technical sense. Meaning that their design should take on small changes every so often, and by the time we’re 10 years down the road, very little is the same as the original. Just the basic chassis and a few other parts. One of your competitors already did this, though it was probably unintentional on their part. Take a look at a 2009 Ford Ranger, and compare it to the original “current gen” design from 1993. About the only things still the same are the basic frame and the cab. pretty much everything else is either totally different, or has been upgraded to the point where it may as well be different. That truck has evolved and is essentially a totally different vehicle from when it began. GM needs to consider doing this on purpose with these vehicles.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 7:36 am BrianCastillo said:
I agree with your judgment that the Rabbit pickup was not, by most definitions, a successful vehicle.
That being said, I am curious to know how you would regard a transverse-engine vehicle if it was equipped with standard all-wheel-drive. With a 50/50 torque split (or even a bias toward the rear wheels), this would eliminate most of the big problems found on FWD pickups. (That is, the tendency to lose traction on the front wheels as the bed is loaded up.)
In addition, I’m interested to know how you (or anyone else who’s reading) feels about unibody versus body-on-frame construction. Would a unibody truck we acceptable (perhaps in the vein of the old Jeep Comanche pickups), or is the traditional body-on-frame construction a “requirement” from your perspective? Would you be willing to consider a unibody pickup if the unibody equated to a more light-weight, fuel-efficient vehicle?
Thanks!
(Disclaimer / Truth-in-Posting Statement: I’m a GM engineer, but speaking on my own behalf.)
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 10:45 pm TerryB. said:
To me, the idea of body-on-frame means any of the body parts, including the cab and bed, can be replaced without affecting the chassis/engine combination. That could be a customizing element – for example, change fenders to accommodate off-road tires – as well as keeping the entire cost-per-mile down. Get sheet metal bent in an accident, any halfway-handy owner can replace it themselves. GM switches to injection-molded parts made of brightly-colored, recycled plastic, change them out yourself. Think in terms of a vehicle designed to run a million miles. Just keep shuffling in parts, or have the dealer do that Mr. Goodwrench engine swap for you.
I think any engine style/location should be on the table. But I agree that AWD would be a Good Thing. In that case, I could even see a transverse front or mid-engine design, or even a flat-4 or -6 between the frame rails under a tilt cab. A flat diesel would be even better.
to this comment On August 30, 2009 at 8:43 am Doglips said:
The BNT fits the bill for me. I don’t need the strength of a full sized truck, but I need it’s utility. (I don’t tow anything over 1500 lbs) I had several El Caminos in the past and loved the utility and the gas mileage. I don’t need luxury, but I do want style. So build the BNT, use a diesel, (even for a hybrid) make it AWD and adaptable as your concept. 32 MPG is a great target but don’t lose sight of 40 MPG.
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 1:34 pm caddyowner said:
In the truck / van / SUV / crossover categories I’ve owned a 76 VW bus, 88 Ford Club Wagon, 90 Caravan, 93 Suburban, 97 Expedition, 99 Sierra, 02 Avalanche, 04 Sierra Denali, 06 SRX, and currently have an 02 Dakota chore truck. I’ve found that I really need to have a truck, but most of today’s offerings are lacking the items I really want:
- A 6′+ bed that I can reach into from the side. If something rolls to the front of the bed, I don’t want to have to climb up into the bed or fetch a rake to fish it out. (The Avalanche was notorious for this.)
- A dedicated bed. I don’t want to have to keep part of the bed clean because it is sometimes inside the cab.
- Low ride height so I can help my wife transfer from her wheelchair without using a step. (I should have videotaped the funny transfers into the Expedition, Avalanche, and SD.)
- Roomy cabin and big doors make my wife’s transfers much easier. Also keep the dashboard far away from the seat (the SRX was terrible in this area) and have the seatbelt receiver stick up tall (the Dakota is awful here).
- Extended cab with enough room for a medium dog or small grandkids to ride back there.
- 30 MPG overall mileage using traditional fuels and technology. Turbo diesel preferred.
I haven’t found this truck. (I bought the 2WD Dakota from a buddy because it was close to my needs and cheap.)
to this comment On August 31, 2009 at 1:36 pm Matt Glowacki said:
Love the concept. Here are some of my random thoughts….
This is a vehicle that must appeal to the masses, yet stick to a somewhat narrow set of design/cost principles. No, a majority of the people aren’t going to pull a bobcat with this truck so don’t design for it. No you can’t expect 75 mph in under $15,000. Just give us best in class fuel mileage at a reasonable price point with the most flexibility possible. It is what it is and the styling/features must reflect that. In the end I boil it down to reduce-reuse-recycle…
Reduce (Space savings/multifunction/minimalism). Look for areas of unused space and eliminate them. Look at a Buell motorcycle for inspiration – they store gas in the frame and oil in the swing arm. The muffler is located and shaped in a way to assist with the aerodynamics of the bike. Ikea might be another point of inspiration… They have something like a 250 square foot room with bedroom/bathroom/kitchen by cleverly using space. If you can package the same features in less space then the overall size of the truck will be smaller and one would hope mileage would be better. Also, don’t dress something up to portray something it isn’t. If your going to give me an aluminum framed seat with canvas stretched over it, then don’t hide it. Don’t make me question what function this piece of plastic or that piece of metal servers if I think that weight/cost saving could have been applied to something better.
Reuse (Plug-n-Play/Modular). I’m thinking radio and HVAC controls bundled into one module that can be undocked and fitted to my next generation car in 10 seconds flat. Worried that the styling will not mesh with my next generation car? Use touch screen technology and fit it with a “virtual faceplate”. If Palm and Apple can doe it cheaply, GM should be able to. Heck, incorporate any other driver interation points in as well (idiot lights fuel gauge, headlight switches/indicators). The more I can take out and reuse in my next car the better. At the very least this will drive a common component across all GM platforms and should help cut cost.
Recycle… Not much here – most cars today are recycleable… Stay with common materials that consumers can recycle themselves if a part is damaged and needs to be replaced. Composites like fiberglass/carbon fiber might be more difficult to recycle than PVC, steel, aluminum, etc.
One last thought… I like the concept of a 10-15 year architecture. Look no further than the Jeep Wrangler or a Harley Davidson for a successful model. They’ve had great success at incremental development to the point that it has become a selling point and cult following. GM could/should play in this game with a line of “factory” upgrade/retrofit kits that can be applied to the next generation/last generation vehicle.
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm Wade Bryant said:
All your suggestions are great. Are you a designer? I tossed quite a few Buell photos on our initial image/inspiration boards at the onset of this design project. It takes creative collaboration between engineers and designers to produce products that highlight creative approaches like the tank/frame concept.
Good stuff.
to this comment On September 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm Urs Haltinner said:
Now you are on to an idea. Why is it that the concept of upgrading without buying an entirely new car/truck is not being pushed. It ties nicely to environmental sustainability. Not everyone wants to move on to new–sometimes we just plain want to know that when we buy something we buy it with the promise that we can modify, add to, refine, upgrade without throwing the product away.
The current new and improved cycles are the reason that I don’t care much for Honda or Toyota. I don’t want to invest and get used to a car or truck only to have it remolded three years later. I am trying to protect myself from buyers remorse even 4 or 5 years down the line. To an extent VW does a nice job with this. That said–the product has to be a hit the sweet spot and it has to evolve a cult-like following.
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 4:37 pm Matt Glowacki said:
Wade,
No not a designer – just creatively poor! Necessity is the mother of invention…
To build on Urs comments, I look at my clapped out car with 200K miles and know that it will probably head for the scrap yard soon. Yes, some of the parts will be reused as salvage yard take offs but only if demand warrants. Powertrain and body panel items are usually the first to go so these are the items that will be reclaimed first (usually why they are in the salvage yard to begin with…). Chances are useable things like radios, steering wheels, seats, carpet etc, will be recycled since there is no second hand demand for them. If there is a better way to reuse these items and only replace them when they are worn out, then I think everybody wins.
Also, even the perception of upgradeability can be a selling point. The first MP3 player I bought had a replaceable battery – I bought it because I wanted the comfort of being able to replace the battery if itwore out without scrapping the whole player. The battery never did wear out, but that was the deal maker. I bought another 4 GB MP3 for my son that has a MicroSD slot in it for capacity upgrades. He doesn’t even own enough songs to fill the base 4 gigs, but I wanted that peace of mind to know that I can upgrade for a fraction of the cost of a new one.
Thanks for listening
to this comment On September 1, 2009 at 12:16 pm prototype66 said:
I also think the S10 size is a great area to start. I also think the current Tornado size is good for some (not all) applications but a bit small. Perhaps a bit wider than the S 10? I like the current design language but I am concerned about the tumble feature getting damaged or difficult to use because of continuous use in pickup mode as result of dirt, debris and sliding cargo. I hope replacement of the tumble feature will be easily done ( by the tech) and cost efficient for the consumer. Too high tech will make it too expensive. Keep it as simple and reliable as possible .
to this comment On September 3, 2009 at 10:52 pm greenhome said:
Look to the toyota landcruiser fj40 for utilitarian inspiration. I want to be able to fix almost anything on the truck with a basic tool kit (which would be included in the purchase). If a computerized system is necessary, I would like to be able to pull my own scanner out the glove box, to tell me what is wrong and refer me to my repair manual to tell me how to fix it.
Easily repaired/replaced body parts, made from anything that won’t rust, bolt on accessories, add on batteries and fuel tanks for extended remote trips,,,,,you get the idea of this thread.
Many of the same features would appeal to both the working crowd and the outdoors folks (usually the same group), and this is the “target” market for a truck.
to this comment On September 4, 2009 at 12:12 pm Wade Bryant said:
Quite a few people have commented about easy maintenance for do-it-yourself upkeep. We had been focussed on durability, but we didn’t consider ease-of-maintenance. Our other customer research on the BN Truck and BN Car never brought this desire to our attention.
I’ve wondered whether the LAB is drawing the car/truck enthusiasts out of the crowd who is willing to maintain their own vehicles, or if this is part of a growing trend toward self-sufficiency.
I’ll see if we can find out what everyone else thinks about this topic in our upcoming survey.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm Robert Sprayberry said:
Wade, there are alot more diy’ers out there than you think. Having the ability to service the truck ourselves would be a boon to the customer. Those that still wants to or has the need of the dealership service department could take their vehicle there. Please take a look at the idea of plastic/composite body panels that are easy to replace. Again like I posted earlier, the Pontiac Fiero exemplified what could be done with plastic body panels. I owned one and loved it. The panels were easy to replace if necessary, and were quite durable. Surely the improvements in plastics in the last 25 years would allow an even better body panel to be developed. I hope that you will keep this in consideration.
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 10:12 am James Faldyn said:
I and thousands of other small bussiness owners are looking for a truck for our need. Me I am a small business
owner of a small farm, then there are the lawn keepers with 2 or 3 workers like me. We do not have a heavy
load, but need the good milage because the truck is used for travel also. Your dealers keep wanting to sell me and my friends a 3/4 or 1 ton vehicle, I don’t want that truck and don’t need the extra cost or fuel use. I an the others I talk to agree that what they need we CAN NOT get.
Try this, a 1/2 ton 1500 series with a crew cab and a long bed, with a 5.3 liter engine. Myself and friends have said we will never ever have a truck, with a bed less than 8′. A short bed truck is for looks and not work. t
The short bed is nothing more than an open trunk.
I am talking about thousands of small workers, not just a hand full. I Would have traded my extended truck two years ago if I could find a 1/2 ton crew cab long bed. PLEASE HELP US….
to this comment On September 7, 2009 at 10:14 pm Goodboy said:
Love the Idea.
In my experiance, I have been forced to always get an SUV for the simple fact that there is not a truck that can do it all. I remember the Envoy XUV, which was a good attempt but became very long truck.
The one truck on the market now that look to almost be there is an Honda Ridgeline. It has it all for the customer moving up from an Accord or Camry, but not Real Men like ME!!!.
The 4 door is a must for the family and a bed like a Chevy Avalanche would be great. I also love the Hummer Truck, that should be the base for this project.
It looks to be able to adapt to all peoples interests, like cycling, towing, working, hiking and dating !!!
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 2:20 pm Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the comments. You’re the first person to bring up “dating” as a design consideration
I won’t ask you to be more specific.
I’m trying to understand what you would require for a do-it-all, REAL truck.
Does tha Avalanche already do what you need? Was the Envoy XUV a “real truck”?
What is it about the Hummer truck that you like?
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 10:45 am ed said:
“Girish Wagh, a 34-year-old divisional manager, designed Tata Ace.”
“Wagh’s position of honour did not come by chance, though not entirely by design.
Says executive director Ravi Kant:
. . . ‘We wanted to infuse a very different thinking to revitalise our processes.
. . . Letting a young team drive an important project did exactly that.’
Says president P.M. Telang:
. . . ‘It started as a small experiment,
. . . but ended up being a great exercise to revisit everything
. . . we learnt in decades about manufacturing.”
“During his market survey, Wagh had got many hints.
. . . A farmer in Andhra Pradesh told him that he preferred four-wheelers
. . . as they meant better social status in his village.
. . . If he had one, he would even get a bride easily.”
“Ace will sport car-like interiors and its noise and vibration levels
. . . are closer to Indica’s (car) than to the truck family it belongs to.”
http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/Tata-Motors-Ace.html
Here is a competitors truck VS Tata Ace-1T
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/iipcache/65558.jpg
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/indian-car-scene/39495d1218997388-1-ton-tata-ace-delhi-090.jpg
Ask yourself:
Which one would a man pick and why?
Which one would a woman pick and why?
Here is the Tata Ace Van
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/iipcache/55745.jpg
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 4:01 am Steve said:
“Some people love the “raw” appearance, some despise it. This approach was debated quite a bit and it will be a challenge to get it right.”
There’s already a Ford Ranger. The BNT can’t just be a Ford Ranger. My observation: in the long run, If a vehicle sold for utilitarian purposes looks different because of purely utilitarian decisions, people usually come around.
Good example: Honda Element. Weird-looking? Yes – but every bit of weirdness is driven by the design constraints of “must load mountain bikes straight inside”, “must be cheap” and “must be easy to clean.” A lot of people hated it, but it sells anyway.
Bad example: Pontiac Aztek. Really just a minivan that looks different for the sake of looking different.
If you give people minimalism in the service of ***actually cutting costs (including the savings of increased manufacturing life) while retaining functionality,*** an aggressively minimalist approach can succeed. A car is a big purchase, and people (especially those in the market for a BNT) will take the time to spot the difference between serving their needs and pandering to a trend.
There’s also the detail that if you keep it under $15K with A/C and keyless entry, absolutely no one will care what it looks like. (You can do keyless entry without power windows: one solenoid for a door lock is a lot cheaper/easier than the entire power window mechanism.)
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 2:10 pm chiefpontiac said:
VW Rabbit truck was not a success? Measured how, because it is no longer in production? A BNT certainly can be FWD or better AWD wit hthe front always “on”, just the way the Ridgeline is so successful in a larger, more luxurious way. The Element, OTOH, lacks something very basic to BNT, it lacks GCW. First versions boasted a cargo weight including driver of around 850 lbs. 4×180 left 2 passenger’s luggage at home.
to this comment On September 8, 2009 at 3:27 pm Robert Sprayberry said:
The majority of what I am seeing here is the concentration of blogs favoring high gas mileage. While this is laudable in a car platform, those of us that actually use our trucks to pull or haul heavy loads are out of luck. The engines that achieve 30+ miles per gallon have absolutely no pulling power. If there isn’t going to be a high torque, high horsepower engine in this truck, then I’ll just hang on to my 1975 Cheyenne. It really is a bare necessity truck, has a long bed, 350 ci V8, basic bench seat, and hand cranked window roll downs. It will outpull and outhaul anything that is being discussed here. If you want a grocery getter, concentrate on the Bare Necessity Car, not the truck.
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 1:23 pm Kenz300 said:
Can you help stop the GM market share decline?
It will take building the BEST in class vehicle. I heard GM say for years they are fixing the problem.
I hope this time it will be different. Build a quality vehicle inside and out. If it is the best people will find it and buy it.
GM has a long way to go in the small /medium car market. Cash for clunkers showed what people wanted to buy in small vehicles. Why is the Toyota Corolla a top seller world wide?
Toyota and Nissan are now moving to take market share in the truck are of the market……
There needs to be a sense of urgency by every GM employee to build the BEST vehicles.
The customer experience at the dealer also needs to improve. Slick sales people that take advantage of customers need to be fired. Dealers that have poor customer service and high complaints need to be eliminated.
I know this is a discussion about small truck design but it is all related. Build the BEST small truck with the best reputation. Remember the Taliban Toyota — This was the small truck of choice in a rugged country because of it’s reliability. This vehicle needs to be built on a platform of quality. EVERY part that goes into the vehicle needs to be questioned — is it the best quality it can be
to this comment On September 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm ed said:
Here is an example of a “low priced,” “Simple” and “Multi-use” Sustainable transport.
. . . A small light truck/van ideal for any business.
. . . It is perfect for use in cities or rural areas.
. . . Its versatility for different uses and
. . . offers low operating costs.
Has zero emissions, meeting the most demanding environmental requirements.
The vehicle dimensions are perfect for
. . . loading (L x H x W): 3,788 x 1.828/1.585 x 1.500 and
. . . box dimensions (L x H x W): 2,200 x 1,470 x 300.
http://www.micoche.com/noticias/2009/0909-3-tata-movele-ace.jpg
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.micoche.com%2Fnoticiasid.asp%3FId%3D8978&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 10:40 am chizzy218 said:
I saw something pretty cool on a lexus concept for frankfurt that I think could work for this truck. This concept has Iphone/Touch docks in the headrests. Forget the headrest and create a dock like this for the main console.
http://jalopnik.com/5356357/lexus-lf+ch-concept-has-headrest+mounted-iphone-docks
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 11:04 am Brian Spalding said:
I think some of the negative comments from truck owners about size requirements surround one size fits all. One of the worst things we did was GROW the S10 into the Colorado. The gas milage benifit was lost and so were the sales. I work at the Shreveport plant and see this first hand. I cannot blame folks either. If I am spending my hard earned money and can get a Silverado for the same price and basicly the same gas milage…no brainer Silverado every time. My wife likes the Colorado but even for her needs she wants the most for the money. My wife would love a small truck she could use for basic hauling needs that was easier to park, got better gas milage and would clean up easy after the rug rats have been inside.
I like the configurable idea and customizable plan. Most of the time I could see the truck left in passenger mode for her and the kids…at least 5 passenger capability , 6 optional with front bench seat….six being a mix of adults and kids NOT six adults. I would use it to run to the lumber yard or hardware store to save gas over my full size.
I own a 22 foot Deck boat with a tower, no a small truck will not pull it, but thats ok not everyone has things that big. Car companies have too many options on vehicle size that are not really options. Equinox vs Trail Blazer vs Traverse vs Tahoe vs Suburban…whew. A little bit bigger…a little bit bigger….you get my drift. This concept touches on what I think we really need, a real choice.
Last but not least Diesel. The stigma is gone! GO for it! Torque in a truck who would of thunk it.
oh yeh 4X4 low range with lockers is a must.
thanks for keeping hope alive, we need this kind of product decision making to make a “real” new GM not the 50 versions of the same thing. One size does not fit all.
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm Oldchevyman said:
Wade, i have one comment, GM should not wait to long to bring out this small diesel truck, because there is a truck from India to be out in 2010, that sounds a lot like the pickup people are asking for here on the Lab!
to this comment On September 10, 2009 at 3:52 pm Scott Ewing said:
I agree with almost all of RockstarServicesLLC ideas. I added some and removed some but he is on the right track as far as I am concerned!
DIESEL engine or hybrid (can’t you pull a diesel from Europe)
easy access and entry (bad back)
composite fenders and bed (no rust)
optional inexpensive navigation (under $300 please! like Garmin)
automatic or CVT only (keeps cost down and you aren’t going to sell enough manuals)
optional roof airbags
optional AWD
optional traction control on 2WD
real 4X4 option pkg (like H3 w/lockers front and rear)
MANUAL WINDOWS (save weight and wiring)
MANUAL STANDARD SLIDING REAR WINDOW (we all need it, give it to us)
STANDARD AC (who buys a car or truck without it really)
SEATS THAT ACTUALLY SLIDE UP to get in the back (look at the New Beetle seats)
to this comment On September 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm ed said:
A “Bare Necessity Truck” means different things, in different countries.
http://i.treehugger.com/files/bike-carries-car.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01410/Bicycle-cart-flatb_1410311i.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01410/tricycle-polystyre_1410326i.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/24bogux.jpg
http://www.allcambodia.com/images/phnom%20phen%20ladder%20wagon%20transport%20cambodia.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/474649645_c4a8270266.jpg?v=0
All have “Air” but no cupholders
to this comment On September 13, 2009 at 6:23 pm TerryB. said:
Toyota has addressed the Bare Necessities pickup with their BTTF Concept.
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/09/toyota-tacoma-truck-concept-the-truck-toyota-should-bring-back-to-the-future.html
Shrink it down to the size of the 84-88 Toyota. Multi-fuel, Iron Duke power. Include the options of a 6-speed manual and a solid I4 diesel. IFS, or solid front axle for those of us that don’t mind a truck riding like a truck and want a little more for off road. Long bed regular cab the only other body style. Stripper if you want it that way, or optioned to individual order. Explore recycled plastic for the fenders, door skins, bed, etc… the parts that frequently get beat up. Crank them out mostly unchanged for the next 20-30 years. Given that the style of the original BTTF truck is still valid almost 25 years later, it seems almost too easy.
to this comment On September 16, 2009 at 9:24 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for sharing the link. It looks like Toyota is getting the same request for the old-type small trucks.
to this comment On September 14, 2009 at 5:18 am Aaron Curiel said:
As a generation X I do expect a lot from my vehicles.. I would love to buy a truck like this one!!! That bulkhead idea is genious, it’s similar to the idea that the avalanche has although much cheaper I “HOPE!” I’m all for buying a truck but just as you mentioned it’s all about the gas mileage. I bought a small Mazda 3 just because I was only getting 15 mpg in my blazer. If the American automakers had a cheap truck solution that gets good gas mileage, I would be the first person in line to buy one!
to this comment On September 15, 2009 at 10:14 am chizzy218 said:
Going back to the interior. Please consider something clean and similar to this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XEEIzU0UA1M/Sq7ekjkIp9I/AAAAAAAAPUM/dBbHvRHL5uU/s1600-h/Picture+9.png This is all that we need!!! Waterproof materials and screen for IPod/Phone or other MP3 player interaction. I am not saying copy this design, but this is the direction that I believe the interior should take. Y’all ask for inspiration well here it is. Oh and on a random but related note I think the tow rating should be between 2k-3k lbs.
to this comment On September 16, 2009 at 9:39 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the interior reference.
Jason Drews did a simple interior that offered add-on components for Ipod, etc.
Did you browse through our interior sketches (accessible by clicking on the image below the intro video)?
We only included a couple of images. Any feedback?
to this comment On September 17, 2009 at 10:55 am chizzy218 said:
Yes I have seen the interior mock-ups and I really like them. I actually like your interior choices so far… the main thing I wanted to point out was the simple mp3 interface. You guys are definitely going in the right direction. I am excited by the possible return of the small, inexpensive, but capable truck. I learned how to drive in an S10 and had so much fun in the old bulletproof Toyota 4×4. To many trucks today are psuedo-luxury bohemoths.
to this comment On September 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm Matt Glowacki said:
Another thought came to mind the other night while on the topic of interiors – probably more of an Industrial/Military flare to the design – but pegboard came to mind. Maybe something like perforated metal or plastic for the dash, roof liner, door panels, and maybe even seat backs. Maybe not every square inch of these surfaces as that would probably be a visual overload, but “peg board” in some key areas around the driver/passengers.
Things like cup holders, storage pockets, over head bins, I-Pod stands, and “Oh Jesus” handles could be moved around to suit with no tools required. No need for HVAC vents as you could use the perforations as the diffuser. Take it a step further and you could use that “raw” look to facilitate mounting things like door handles, window cranks, radios, DC electric outlets, switches, etc.
to this comment On September 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm Pettee said:
Good Stuff. This is a really exciting concept. Current full size trucks (extended and crew cabs) are too big for many home garages, and tough to maneuver in tight parking lots. The Colorado / Canyon are too small for some of my hauling requirements. For me, something in-between the full and mid size would be perfect. Love the idea of a reversable bulkhead.
Many people like to buy vehicles they consider extensions of their personalities. Their vehicle has to “fit.” This truck says it all – great looks, smart, tough, versatile, efficient.
Interior sketches look good too. I think I saw something about the possibility of some painted steel interior. Reminds me of the early trucks (1950’s – 1970’s) with partial steel dash and door panels. If done carefully it could have a cool retro look. Similar to what was done with the interior of the new Camaro. Definitely in favor of a stripped down interior – no power locks / windows / mirrors. Hard to find a truck today without those features. Many can’t afford to pay $30K + for a new 4×4 truck. Most people I know want the utility, but can’t afford all the amenities that come standard.
Overall I’m psyched about this concept and hope it becomes real. I’d jump at the chance to buy one.
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm Jeff said:
Hey Wade,
I happen to be paying attention to the TV this week end an saw a commercial for GM’s new “don’t like it, bring it back policy”. In the background, as the guy is walking through the design center, you can see the front grill of a small gray GMC. Is that the BNT???
Jeff
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 4:51 pm Wade Bryant said:
Nothing in that commercial has escaped the scutiny of car enthusiasts. Many of the partial-vehicle “peeks” in the commercial are still officially under wraps so I can’t divulge what they are. Sorry.
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 2:59 pm whitmore said:
I like the idea of the Bare Necessities truck. It would be great to have a 2 or 4 door S-10 sized configurable truck that gets 30-40mpg. I want to have a truck that can haul 4 people, but carry lumber or other cargo either while carrying 4 people or just myself and one other. Basically, I would like to see an S-10 sized avalanche with an evolutionary take on the current Avalanche design.
Also, I would like GM to consider a “pure pricing” format for the Bare Necessities line, similar to what Scion does, where there are a lot of standard features built into the price of the vehicle, but there are lots of options to add on, a la carte. I don’t like the fact that I have to buy the sunroof in order to get the upgraded stereo or leather.
Maybe a hybrid of Scion’s “pure pricing” would be a smart option, where if you just wanted an upgraded stereo, it would be one price but if you wanted the stereo and sunroof, you could offer a bundled price. That may be a logistics nightmare, but I think it would be something to look into and would fit nicely with the Bare Necessities line of products.
Offer a basic vehicle for a sub 20k price tag or even sub 15k price tag. To keep the price low, you could even cut out power locks and windows, and price it out as an option. I’ve got a ‘97 S-10 regular cab with pretty much manual everything. Power locks and windows are nice, but they are not a “Necessity.”
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm Wade Bryant said:
Your thoughts are right in line with almost everyone’s (including me).
The desire for a-la-carte options is being voiced by many, including people who’ve commented in the Small Premium post.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm Ihor said:
I agree with just about every word, but the only place leather and Bare Necessities intersect is on a cow! If the options are too numerous the production costs go up and your price points would be out of reach. Leather doesn’t make the truck drive or work any better and isn’t very compatible with a hose-out interior. And another respondant mentioned interior colors. Three choices should be enough for any intended buyer, one of them should be of type that calms the nerves, lowering the incidence of road rage!! Otherwise grey will do just fine.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 9:30 am whitmore said:
Ihor,
I feel the same about leather…I was only using it as an example. Also, I am not saying have tons of options, just enough to allow customers to add exactly what they want that isn’t standard, without having to buy 3 other things they don’t want. Scion seems to still be doing alright with their program and they import everything.
I don’t know what that magic number of options is, but if websites like this continue to work, I’m sure the folks at GM will get a good sense from us what we would like to see as a-la-carte options.
to this comment On September 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm ColoradoLS said:
There are many great ideas here! I would like to suggest that while a new ECO truck is being considered, why not offer an refresh on the Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon? Why not dress up the current model as an interim upgrade with an interior similar to the Malibu? Offer some other lighter interior colors like tan or cashmere, and a two tone leather like Coca/Cashmere. Some people want a little nicer interior, maybe a softer. car-like dash material. The Colorado is the right size for [people like me who want the utility of a cargo bed with maybe a topper on it, and also room for at least 4 or 5 passengers. The Chevy Colorado that is sold in Pakistan has interiors available in tan, with electronic dash, etc. Why not here?
How about some engine teaks on the current 2.9 cyl and make an XFE version? These are low cost upgrades that I am sure would renew interest in the Colorado/Canyon. I currently drive a 2005 2WD Colorado Crew Cab and would love to buy another if it would just come in some other interior colors.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 1:46 pm chizzy218 said:
If this does not come to pass as a seperate model please infuse this feedback into the next Colorado/canyon. However, I think you would be hitting the target at the right time if you made this a seperate model. Not to be negative, but I think this has been a major issue for GM. People needed the Volt 1-2 years ago. This could be iconic. Not to press but, I think you should create two concepts and show them at the Detroit NAIAS and then, like you did with the Chevy Spark, let the public decide on the look that they would prefer. This would be the next step in keeping the consumer involved and keep the interest up. Then after a couple of months of polling, produce the winner within the next 12-15 months. You have the opportunity to do something great! Oh if you need a test driver in Texas I would like to volunteer.
to this comment On September 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm GM Green Bare Essentials Pick-up Truck said:
[...] Source: GMblogs [...]
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 11:49 am Veinless said:
Why not have an extending box? Either have the box bed fold in half at the tailgate back onto itself, or put half of it on rails above the real bed. This will allow a compact 4′ x 4′ box that extends long enough to carry a 4′ x 8′ piece of drywall.
to this comment On September 23, 2009 at 12:17 pm Joel Batt said:
The comment I hear most about trucks from perspective buyers is that if we had a front wheel drive truck, they would have all trucks and no cars. They need the bed for light hauling, and do not want a rear wheel drive vehicle or the expense of unnecessary four wheel drive.
to this comment On September 24, 2009 at 2:26 pm MTUH3 said:
This would be a great truck for my retired father looking to same money on fuel. He is on a real big gas saving kick now. The fold out cab is a nice feature… but I like the folding midgate like the Avalanche.
I am glad I heard the work Diesel mentioned, disappointed at the word Hybrid. If this truck can hold up to the robustness of it full size brothers, I think it can be very sucessful.
However, if this vehicle was available tomorrow… I would not buy it.
to this comment On September 25, 2009 at 12:27 pm MTUH3 said:
I am not sure on the “Bare Necessity” idea when there is talk of Hybrid power, flippable cabs, IPODs, Sattelite Radio… ect. I think of a small vehicle with a generous gas or diesel engine. I think the price tag should be around the price of the newer, more outfitted side by side and UTV’s. Why would I spend 20-25 grand on something that is not much better than what I can get lighter, and for 8 to 10 grand cheaper. The only difference I see between the truck and a side by side it the ability to get a plate. I just don’t think there is enough people living in populated cites willing to own this vehicle. I think it would be a niche vehicle segment… and GM has not proven they know how to market, sell, and manufacture niche vehicle segments. Why would some one from the Midwest, Southwest, or Large Suburban areas purchase this vehicle? They will have multiple vehicles, one for the family trips, may be a trailer or truck to get supplies.
I would make the colorado platform larger, put in a diesel, EDUCATE people on the benefits of diesel, sponosor bio-diesel plants and research for those that feel bad about the environment, may be offer an electric version for the urbanites that want to do the city clean ups and gardens.
to this comment On September 30, 2009 at 10:24 am Jeff said:
MTUH3, in responce to your Sept.25 comments, “Why would anyone in the midwest or southwest buy one of these?”
The answer is really simple. Because we need a truck on a semi regular basis but don’t want to drive one every day. I will take my case in particular. I live in suburban/rural michigan. I own small acerage (5) heat with wood, and own a small orchard. I need a small truck for landscaping and caring for my trees, chemicals in the back seat = bad juju, and hauling fire wood. I drive a camaro because I enjoy it, but not so much in the snow. Now if GM or someone else were to build a truly compact 4×4 pickup, i would gladly pay for two cars in the garage. I realized years ago that the car I want to drive and the car I need are not the same. I feel that others are coming to the same conclusion. American families are going to become three and four car owners. As the economy changes people will not be able to afford driving the big SUV or pickup back and forth to work every day, but they still want to be able to pull the boat, camper or whatever. I know I am not alone in this as most of the people I work with are in the same boat. Really the only question is whether or not GM will build it.
to this comment On October 2, 2009 at 11:36 am Wade Bryant said:
I think you are spot-on. Quite a few people need a truck, but in the currect economy some people have sacrificed their multi-vehicle household and have had to make vehicle capability tradeoffs.
I beleive strongly in the Bare Necessity Truck idea, particularly if we can deliver a vehicle that can replace two vehicles in a household.
Thanks for all your comments and input. I know the LAB discussion on this topic has slowed down, but it is an ongoing topic here at work.
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm MTUH3 said:
Jeff,
That is what I am getting at. If I was you, and I know I am not, I would just buy a Side by Side / UTV for those pruposes. Great gas milage, compact for storage, pick up bed. Electric option.
Besides… the MDNR and SOS are in debates whether to make UTVs and Side by Sides SOS plate legal…
If that happens, can you really make a truck to compete?
to this comment On September 28, 2009 at 7:20 pm Mr 77blazerchalet said:
Regarding “Turbiodiesel” Aug 15 comment about Blazer Chalets: I own one, a ‘77 version. It’s 3 tons, gets maybe 10 mpg on a good day, the Blazer part of it is prone to rust, and the camper’s interior parts are overly heavy and not designed well. But mine is also is such good original condition, I’d hate to alter it for fear of wrecking its collector value.
Quite possibly the way to vastly improve the thing is to get: 1) get an aftermarket fiberglass 76-87 Blazer replica tub from usbody.com, 2) find an orphaned vintage Chalet shell – I know where several are – and 3) proceed from there with lightweight but sturdy new camper interior items, and state-of-the-art new Blazer frame & mechanicals that provide performance with fuel economy. The key to happiness here would be to thoughtfully engineer the Chalet shell to be relatively easy to remove. Basically, GM did NOT make the original Chalets and GMC Jimmy Casa Grandes to be anything but a one-piece mini 4×4 motorhome. Yes, they can be taken apart, but it is a heckuva chore.
There’s tons of aftermarket GM parts to support the Blazer part of it, and there’s a staggering amount of RV products to choose from, too. No particular “re-inventing the wheel” needed here, nor need for ground-breaking technology, but an interesting exercise in rounding up the best latest innovations to an old retro concept, to create the best possible eco/fuel friendly off-road camper / SUV pickup. And, such a project could be undertaken by the average motorhead who has good mechanical skills.
to this comment On October 1, 2009 at 12:21 pm Tacky said:
A bare necessities truck needs to be able to haul 4′x8′ building materials, and have a towing capacity of over 5000 lb, 7000 lb would be better. If I cannot tow and haul large objects it is just a bare necessities car. I like the ability to swap space between the cab and the bed, most of the time a short bed, extended cab configuration would work for me. Traction is a concern, there is little that is worse in the snow than a 2wd truck. Perhaps winter tires and traction control could be used, but i suspect 4wd is needed.
to this comment On October 3, 2009 at 11:11 am jjalvare said:
I like the idea of a small truck such as the Subaru Baja with the storage ideas of the Honda Ridgeline. I had a Saturn and the plastic body parts are an ugly site when the plastic coating begins to peel off. The reversible bulkhead sounds good, but how much for repair work aftera side impact and could the body shop ever get it fixed perfect so the you don’t have water leaks or too muck wind noise. I like the idea of quailty after market parts to make my ride look and run great, think Subaru. I would buy a 4 cyclinder with multiple valves. I don’t have to hual 4×8’s or a boat but I do need a truck to go up to the mountains. So we need good gas mileage, storage, aftermarket parts, and a quality built vehicle. I’m readyto write out a check.
to this comment On October 4, 2009 at 11:51 pm ed said:
Mini Truck w/Lift
http://www.americasminitruckcenter.com/uploads/photos/medium/DSCN11961.JPG
Mini Truck w/freezer
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/219747025/WULING_0_3_Ton_Freezer_Mini_truck.jpg
Mini Truck Trailer
http://www.streetlegalatv.ca/images/mini-truck-lumber2_ossy.jpg
Mini Truck Street Legal ATV
http://www.streetlegalatv.ca/images/p1040192_lj8x.jpg
Mini Truck w/Hydraulic lift
http://www.streetlegalatv.ca/images/mini_truck_rear_lift.jpg
Mini Truck Hauling Hay
http://www.corbinequipment.com/Jan9-08%20mini%20truck%20pictures/mini%20truck%20picture%203.JPG
Mini Truck Hauling Donkey
http://www.mandrequipment.com/images/photo_page/mini_truck_donkey.jpg
Mini Truck w/forward cab = more room in bed
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MUonsrt2iJwkEM:http://www.montanacowboytradingpost.com/champ-compare.jpg
Mini Truck Hauling boat
http://www.cape-ape.com/images/trucks/withboat.jpg
Mini Truck Emergency Hauling trailer
http://media5.dropshots.com/photos/149/20080702/200951.jpg
Mini Truck Campus Security
http://www.urban75.org/photos/newyork/images/ny247.jpg
Mini Truck w/street food vender
http://importfood.com/media/minitruck_kan_6l.jpg
Mini Truck Hauling brush/trash
http://www.texomaminitrucks.com/images/camera019.jpg
Mini Truck VS Regular pickup
http://www.pdxmini.com/pix/compare/Width.jpg
Mini Truck Tourist taxi
http://image40.webshots.com/40/5/43/18/368854318fMEvJC_ph.jpg
How many functions are there for a well designed Mini Truck?
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 6:51 am Steve said:
It seems like the commenters are falling into two camps:
1- People who want a real-life basic compact pickup, not the bloated monstrosities that the Tacoma and Frontier have become over the years. We don’t need to tow 4000 pounds, and are willing to drive an “underpowered” vehicle if it means we can get 30+ MPG and use it as our daily driver in addition to making runs to the building supply store. This is the original BNT concept.
2- People who want a pure work truck – a longbed GMC 1500 that can tow 5000+ pounds – but want it to cost less. (like Tacky)
The second group is easy to take care of: make a no-frills trim level of whatever your full-size pickup is. They’ve got a million different options already, and their only complaint is that it ought to be cheaper. The first group is what this discussion is about, because those of us in that market have no options.
So, I’ll talk about option 1. Let’s do some use cases, because if you’re designing a utilitarian vehicle, everything follows from use cases.
I think it’s clear from this discussion that there are people who need a longbed and people who don’t. Either you’re hauling 4×8 plywood and sheetrock on a regular basis or you’re not, and the difference between a 76″ and a 98″ bed (in two-seater mode) is substantial enough that people who don’t need it (like me) won’t want the extra length. (Anyone who parks on the street knows why.) I think there is a market for both: the longbed is for people who use it frequently as a work truck, and the shortbed is for recreationists: people with motorcycles, mountain bikes, snowboards, camping gear, and other things they need to haul around. But let’s go through the use cases.
Case A: longbed version, for people who need to haul 4×8 regularly. Target markets:
* People who do lots of work on their houses or rental properties
* Contractors and other small businesses that need to deliver lots of bulky things from time to time, but don’t need the weight or towing capacity of a full-size pickup, and need decent gas mileage with gas at $3/gallon and up
These people prefer RWD or 4WD, because they will be regularly putting lots of weight in the bed.
Case B: shortbed truck, for people who don’t need to haul 4×8 regularly. Target markets:
* Outdoor people who need to haul mountain bikes, snowboard/windsurf/surfing/camping gear, and who sometimes sleep in their truck.
* Motorsports people who need something to haul dirtbikes/quads
* People who like to work on their yards or houses and need to haul plants, plumbing supplies, and so on, but who don’t do their own sheetrocking
These people want 4WD for recreation, and FWD for daily driving because it spends a lot of its time commuting, unloaded.
Many of them will want a shell (not a full-on camper, just a shell for cargo security)
This poses some questions:
* What is the relative size of the market for Case A and Case B?
* Can we please both use cases with the same truck? 4WD adds expense, usually decreases mileage, and may no longer be “bare necessities”…but I’m hearing from a lot of people who want work trucks that they need 4WD (which makes sense if you ever need to drive around a muddy lot, not just into your driveway).
To me, that is the basic conundrum: is there a market for a BNT that doesn’t have some sort of AWD/4WD? I don’t know, and I’m interested to hear what other people think about this issue. That’s why I personally pushed the electric AWD idea: it seems easier to do a simple electric friction drive that can get you unstuck from a stop or low speed (and that’s all) than to make all the transfer cases, viscous couplings, and whatever required for a “real” 4WD system. But I’m not an automotive engineer.
to this comment On October 6, 2009 at 11:34 am ed said:
I mostly agree with you.
You could combine case A & B and make a 98″ Long bed out of a 76″ Short bed.
Size: Mini Truck w/forward cab VS Mini Truck w/regular cab ( add 12″ = more room in bed)
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MUonsrt2iJwkEM:http://www.montanacowboytradingpost.com/champ-compare.jpg
Size: Mini Truck VS Regular pickup, use the Tailgate (add 12″ = more room in bed)
http://www.pdxmini.com/pix/compare/Width.jpg
And don’t forget, that Mini trucks already pull good size trailers
http://www.streetlegalatv.ca/images/mini-truck-lumber2_ossy.jpg
http://www.cape-ape.com/images/trucks/withboat.jpg
http://media5.dropshots.com/photos/149/20080702/200951.jpg
But most of all, I like the Electric AWD idea:
How about w/GM’s (all electric) Skateboard with swappable batteries.
http://www.i-car.com/graphics/about_icar/current_events/advantage/2002/online_advantge_0603/full_size/fig_3.gif
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 9:23 am ed said:
Did you ever count the number of people riding in a
. . . “CrewCab pickup truck” OR see anything in their tiny “Bed?”
The answer is almost always . . . “One” and “None.”
The exceptions are usually the ones with a sign on the side.
It seems the only type of people that buy these vehicles are the
. . . “Mine is Bigger” and “I’m afraid you’ll hit me” types.
Now count the number of people in the little cars and trucks.
The answer is almost always . . . “Many” and “A Lot!”
The whole “Point” of a “Truck” is to “Work!”
Several little trucks can be bought for the price of one big truck,
. . . can be earning money in one or more locations
. . . at the same time and
. . . be set up to perform many, many different functions.
When a recession hits the little trucks can better adapt to work conditions,
. . . responding to opportunities, thru economy, simplicity and flexibility
. . . and keep people employed.
In the city little delivery trucks, slip thru traffic quicker,
. . . find parking spots faster, and
. . . cost a lot less to operate.
Like the Iphone, little trucks are small and simple in design,
. . . but BIG on function and BANG for the BUCK!
. . .
to this comment On October 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm RD said:
A bare necessity truck, by definition, would need to have very limited options & accessories but a pair of retractable ramps & a means of attaching a winch would be very handy for pulling stuff up into the bed of the truck.
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 10:20 am Kenz300 said:
The truck market is changing…… the price of fuel has reduced the casual truck user from the market.
Whether you are a casual truck user or a small business person that needs the truck for work, the truck must be fuel efficient. When oil went to $147 per barrel many truck/SUV owners parked their vehicles and began looking for a more economical form of transportation. I still own a full size truck but it is not my primary vehicle due to the cost of operation.
I hope this “bare necessity” mantra is not just an excuse to make a cheap looking and performing vehicle.
GM should have learned it’s lesson from the Cimmoron, Vega and Aztec. If you plan to make a small truck make it the best in class. DO NOT MAKE A SO SO VEHICLE. GM needs to make the best in class.
Your market share has been declining for years. Make a quality vehicle that a person can be proud to own.
Make a vehicle that is best in class and will help to increase GM’s market share.
Hyundai has gone from a joke brand to a brand that is taking market share each year.
What can you learn from Hyundai’s turn around? Look at what they did and how they did it.
If they can do it so can you……or at least I hope so. GM will not get many more chances to get it right.
You need to make sure every new vehicle is a winner. Just being in the competition is not good enough.
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 3:31 pm MTUH3 said:
Looks like this is moving from one of the ideas I thought I saw in the video. That is should have the idea to be a daily driver. Family owns one car and it is this thing. Take the family places and haul stuff.
The idea I get from the posts, and my experience is that this should not be considered a families only vehicle and as a supplement to the stable. I would like to see GM go after this as a UTV, not a real vehicle. Just because it is GM doesn’t mean it needs to make “cars and trucks”
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 5:17 pm ed said:
Mini truck launch in 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxWzGCZoQjk
to this comment On October 7, 2009 at 9:23 pm ed said:
Looking at a truck from different points of view
. . . can be helpful or confusing.
As a fleet manager,
. . . you’re continually looking for ideas to cut vehicle operational costs and
. . . boost crew efficiency.
. . . Managing trucks with box truck bodies is one area
. . . to uncover potential cost savings and
. . . increase productivity when it comes to body specs.
Think about it.
. .. Could a 2-foot longer box make a difference
. . . in getting more deliveries done in fewer trips
. . . significantly lowering transportation costs
. . . while gaining revenue per day?
What if a fleet manager spec’d a lower box height
. . . (in relation to the top of the cab)
. . . to reduce wind drag?
. . . What difference would that make in fuel economy savings?
Or, what about cargo access?
. . . Would adding a side door make a difference
. . . of saving perhaps 5-10 minutes per stop,
. . . allowing your crew to get more jobs done in less time?
How should you spec box trucks
. . . to realize maximum cost savings and
. . . crew productivity in your fleet?
Here are 10 points to consider.
1. Truck Objectives
• What exactly will you haul in the truck?
• What total cargo weight will you need to haul?
• How much space will the cargo require?
• How will cargo be loaded on and off the truck?
2. Chassis Selection
• What are the GVWR requirements?
• Cutaway or standard chassis cab?
• Dual rear wheel or single rear wheel?
• What is the chassis length?
• What is the tire size?
3. Body Dimensions
• What body length, width, and height, does your cargo require?
• Clearance might be an issue?
4. Body Placement
• Do you want the body to sit lower for easier step in?
5. Sidewall Material
• What type of sidewall material is best for your application and budget?
6. Box Interior & Tie-down Options
• What interior lining should you choose?
• Tie rings?
• E-Track?
• F-Track?
• Pacific lining?
• Universal lining?
• FRP interior?
• Scuff plates?
7. Door Types and Location
• Roll-up rear door?
• Swing-open rear doors?
• Side door?
• Swing doors?
• Roll-up side door?
• Slide-open door?
8. Floor Options
• Pine floor?
• Laminate hardwood?
• Aluminum?
• Steel floor?
9. Roof Options
• Standard aluminum roof?
• Translucent roof?
10. Cargo Loading Options
• Forklift package?
• Walk-up ramp?
• Liftgate?
• Tuckaway gate?
• Railgate?
• Beavertail?
http://www.government-fleet.com/Channel/Equipment/Article/Story/2008/11/Spec-ing-Box-Truck-Bodies-to-Maximize-Productivity.aspx
http://www.government-fleet.com/Channel/Equipment/Article/Story/2008/11/Spec-ing-Box-Truck-Bodies-to-Maximize-Productivity.aspx
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 3:01 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
1. I believe I’d begin the design process with a minivan or (since the brainiacs who ran “Old GM” into the ground decided to quit making minivans and ignore a 700,000 unit/year market) a FWD “Crossover” platform:
Make the top removable/reconfigurable,so that I can have a fully enclosed minivan (err- okay, “crossover”), a short-bed pickup with 2 rows of seats, or a longer-bed pickup with just the front seats. Anybody who “needs” a pickup should have the skills to unbolt a few panels, maybe provide the buyer with a weatherproof storage box to hold the body panels he doesn’t need today. Design the parts so they can’t be assembled wrong.
2. Make the whole thing from components that don’t rust, like composite body panels over stainless steel spaceframes, like the Fiero, only more rustproof.
3. Every sedan with a trunk should have a lid that removes or locks in the vertical position. The Subaru Baja was a “sedan without a trunk lid,” and for that matter, so was the Ford Ranchero. Just expand that idea a bit.
4. Make it modular. Slide out the “Crossover” module, which makes up the body behind the front seat, slide in the “pickup” module, or the “camper” module.
Check out the Mercedes VRC concept from 1994…
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 2:47 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Sometimes I need a “people-hauler,” sometimes I need a cargo van, sometimes I need an open-bed pickup:
Start with a FWD Lambda-based van with rear seats that fold flush with the floor (this is why it needs to be FWD) , make the cargo-area roof and windows removable, be sure the fold-down tailgate can support whatever cargo capacity the vehicle is rated for. It would be nice if the cab could be closed off from the weather, too.
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm Tyler Beas said:
Wade,
This is a great idea for the younger crowd as well as those who need some utility but not necessarily a full size Silverado/Sierra. In my opinion this is what the Colorado/Canyon should be with no need to have both on the market as it would be very difficult to make a case that this type of truck would not be directly cross shopped with the small twins.
The designs use of various space saving designs seems to be very well thought out and doesn’t look like an afterthought. The cab forward design is very attractive in the renderings from some of the photos and is also an easy fix to a simple problem. The interior seems to be rather spartan which is not a bad thing, but developing bucket seats that are extremely thin, as you see in many concept cars, could benefit ingress/egress and back seat space. While on the back seat topic, please note that many of these fold-away back seats in the short cab trucks tend to act as torture chambers for anyone who may be unfortunate enough to occupy them. A new design of “thinner” seats could greatly impact the comfort of the rear passengers. I personally know many people who get the 4 door trucks for people hauling duties because the slightly extended cab trucks are not designed well for hauling people. Eliminating this flaw in backseat design could yeild many more buyers with families or just a need to transport people to lean toward a smaller truck.
Glancing through many of these posts it is evident that a modular theme is very popular. I am not a big supporter of this idea only because it drives complexity and most importantly cost. For a vehicle like this to be successful, it can’t be in direct competition with its larger bretheren. The starting price should allow people to cross shop this smaller, more eco friendly utility vehicle with the smaller more eco friendly cars and crossovers that people will most likely be cross shopping a vehicle like this with, think $16,000-17,000 starting. Of course there will be people who like the size and utility but may require a bit more power and/or creature comforts so they should be available, but still should be approaching a full size trucks price with equal or more utility up to a max of around $28,000 (do not enter into the 30s like the Tacoma has).
Standard features should match those of the smaller cars this vehicle will be mimicking in the truck market:
A/C (no excuse not to have it)
Cruise control
Automatic transmission (unless many customers demand a manual)
Composite bed and select body panels
Stain resistance cloth (mesh preferebly) seats
FLOORMATS!!! (how is this EVER not standard)
CD player w/ AUX input, Bluetooth (who doesn’t have a cell phone nowadays) and driver info capability (same as on my G6)
2WD w/ stability control and ABS
16″ wheels
4 wheel disk brakes
Tow Hooks
Multiple Air Bags (4-6)
Small 4 cylinder turbo diesel or 1.4-1.6 DI Turbo 4-cyl gas engine
Options should include:
Tow hitch
4WD
16″-18″ wheels with off road tires
18″-20″ wheels with sport tires
Suspension changes with respect to engines and tire packages
Multi-disc CD changer w/ satellite radio
“Topper” for bed
Toneau Cover
Modular add-ons for bed
Engines:
Gas – DI 6-cyl; DI + Turbo 6-cyl (Denali?)
Diesel – Turbo 6-cyl
Overall this has the ability to be a very big hit and could be one of a kind for the first few years on the market (think retro mustang). Please do your best in bringing this idea to dealerships, you will have atleast 1 buyer here.
to this comment On October 12, 2009 at 8:57 pm ed said:
Chinese trucks could be part of GM’s global script for . . . India?
. . . But NOT in the USA? ? ?
. . . Why NOT!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12718&p=85610#p85610
to this comment On October 13, 2009 at 3:31 pm Kristine DeBaeke said:
Wade,
Like the BNT concept… I hope keeping it down the Bare Necessities translates into limiting the number of electronic control modules. These little “computer” modules can help a vehicle handle a multitude of functions- from telling if the front passenger seat has a light weight passenger that could potentially be a small child and turning off the airbag accordingly to interfacing with the doors, windows, lift gates and entertainment systems.
Limiting these to just the bare necessities could help control not only the vehicle price, but also the vehicle weight and long term repair costs.
I love the bells and gagets but not every car needs 20+ mini computers on-board.
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 1:30 pm napa1 said:
I remember when a basic small truck was the “norm”
Some ideas are; no door upholstery, rubber floor mats,no headliner, plain metal dash or composite, plain fabric covered bench seats, crank windows, wing windows, manual door locks, dash instruments needed; voltmeter,speedo, odometer w/trip, minimum of others only, option AM/FM manual radio, optional 4 speed manual or automatic tranny, small steel front bumper,small steel rear bumper with built in trailer receiver. bumpers NOT connected to the rear fenders, 4,5 or 6cyl OHC engine, heater and AC optional, fenders with extra clearance for mud roads or larger tires, spare tire[the correct size] a good and simple jack, Very plain looking exterior[if some guy wants to customize he can] very good road clearnce as needed in rural areas or works in the city also, basic 4X4 needed for the lower income people in the rural areas.
Just thinking on a cold and rainy day!!
to this comment On October 14, 2009 at 3:22 pm Wade Bryant said:
We can certainly eliminate the controls for all the power features that this truck wouldn’t have. I suspect a high percentage of the sensors and controls are related to safety, emission controls and other non-negotiable functions. I do know that the reduction of electrical wiring, etc.. can help us reduce weight and cost by a substantial margin.
Good ideas.
to this comment On October 16, 2009 at 6:53 pm t_wade said:
First, let me say fantastic idea. I agree with a lot of the comments I have read about the powertrain. I don’t really see a need for a hybrid bare necessities truck at this point, but I like the turbo 4-cylinder diesel, direct injection v6, and turbo i-4 ideas. Basically the powertrain needs to have the power necessary for truck capabilites, the fun to drive aspect (manual transmission, plenty of power), and if it could get 32MPG daily, it would be very impressive. As far as styling goes, the concept sketches shown with the big GMC badges are awesome, very agressive, but not so much that they are offensive. I think that some of the main styling goals should be to develope a concept that people like, and not loose it all when production occurs. I don’t know about most people, but the original Colorado concept, called the SS something looked really good, but the production model, not so much. I am a big fan of sports cars, I like agressive with a sporty stance. This doesn’t mean off road sporty, but performance oriented sporty.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 2:43 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
After some serious thought, I realized that the “bare necessity truck” could also be the “bare necessity car:”
I usually drive by myself- let’s say 75-80% of the time, so I seldom need even the second seat.
I rarely have more than one passenger- so let’s say I need the second row of seats 5% of the time.
More often I’m using the car as a grocery-getter, so I need room for 4-6 bags of groceries, less than 10% of the time.
About as often as I need the second row of seats, I need to haul something bigger than 6 bags of groceries.
What I need is a 2-seater that can haul a refrigerator or 4′X8′ sheets of material, but that can be expanded to haul more than 2 people:
A minivan (or “crossover”) with seats that fold flat into the floor, with a removable roof and rear windows (converts to pickup truck mode), to haul the tall stuff.
At minimum a 4-6 seat crossover/sedan with a removable trunk lid, so I can haul the big stuff.
to this comment On October 20, 2009 at 8:41 am Wade Bryant said:
Yes, we have also considered a very small version of this concept that would be more carlike. I think there are several different opportunities around the basic-vehicle concept.
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 9:47 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I have no doubt that GM designers and engineers can flesh out the details for a fine product. What concerns me is the almost inevitable phenomenon I think of as “design creep,” where the best-intentioned ideas are somehow overcome by accountants who want to cut costs to the bone, and marketing gurus who want to turn every product into a “luxury sport” or “personal luxury” clone (remember back in the ’70s, when every car company had to have a “Thunderbird clone?”)
Forget that American “luxury” brands lose value faster than any other kind of vehicle.
Yes, I think it’s highly likely the “bare necessity car” and even the “bare necessity truck” will be made, but I also strongly suspect they will grow into bigger, fatter, more decadent versions of themselves, with all the latest “must-haves,” like CD players and leather seats and wall-to-wall carpet- and who knows what else-
How about this-
Give us the very basic options: Automatic transmission. power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, cruise control (I consider these either “safety” items, or items more economically installed during manufacture), maybe even pre-wire for stereos and speakers, but let the dealers install most of the other stuff, including carpets or floor mats.
For this to be a viable concept, you don’t even need to drastically redesign the basic pickup truck. I think it’s mostly about keeping the luxury options list short, avoid the creeping tendency to make it into a Cadillac, and, most importantly, selling it at a value price.
to this comment On October 19, 2009 at 1:30 pm ed said:
Are GEM electric vehicles better than Miles Automotive electric vehicles?
. . . or is it because they cost 1/2 as much?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12807&p=86304#p86304
to this comment On October 20, 2009 at 9:20 pm ed said:
India’s engineers, are highly motivated to be “Frugal” and
. . . survive in an environment that rewards low profit “Reverse Innovation.”
Multinational Corporations engineers may “Talk the Talk” when designing “Basic,”
. . . but find themselves distinctly handicapped,
. . . when trying to “Walk the Walk,” in a competition against
. . . India’s engineers, who make a living,
. . . crafting purpose-built products
. . . for the rural poor at slim profit margins,
. . . hoping volume will make the difference.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12841&p=86642#p86642
to this comment On October 21, 2009 at 9:10 am Jeff said:
Wade
Since we have have been posting comments about this truck for almost 3 months know, and it seems like there is alot of support for it, any chance you could give us an update on where you are in the process. We can all assume that you are validating and prioritizing the comments made here and other sites. But I guess the question is are you still in the concept phase preping to take it “upstairs” to get a green light to move forward? Or have the powers already blessed this child and you are working on the nuts and bolts engineering of a platform? Or are you somewhere else and if so what would be the next step?
Jeff
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm Wade Bryant said:
I know everyone is interested in knowing how “real” these vehicle concepts are. In Advanced Design there is a lot of fluidity to the process and there is not always a simple go/no-go decision made in the early stages. I’m never at liberty to divulge production plans for vehicles before they are announced so I can’t answer your question. I will say that this subject-matter is still of great interest to us and we’re continuing to adjust our plans based on the responses to Bare Necessity Truck on the LAB. I’d love to tell you more, but I just can’t.
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm Jeff said:
Thanks for the responce, I’m not trying to pry but I am curious. If this program goes forward would you envision it riding on an existing platform, i.e. the new Equinox, or are you leaning toward an original? The Equinox I think brings some interesting possibilities for powertrains in to play with it’s hybrid system that would nearly meet your MPG goal. You had mentioned in an earlier post that you may not take BNT through the concept on the autoshow circuit process. Would you ever consider the “Project Driveway” approach of getting real world, drivers on the road thoughts?
As for the dimple finsh—-that would be a no. Not even for 20% on the MPG’s.
to this comment On October 22, 2009 at 1:16 am EMeyers said:
Pure genius. Less is more. Give me a high torque turbo diesel and a 6 spd. manual that is built to last for a minimum of 250k miles. Give me the choice of a “faux by four” package where I can get the look and ground clearance of a 4X4 without the weight. Give me quality components and I’ll gladly pay for them. But please integrate a sliding window into the rear (even if its a manual slider). I routinely haul 12-16 foot pieces of crown moulding in my 1998 Ford Ranger (220k+ miles) thanks to my sliding rear window and the ability to route the moulding through the slider and tuck it under the dash on the passenger side. Overall you have a great concept. There is a hole in the market right now for efficient trucks – please fill it. Current Midsize trucks don’t get much better milage than the full-size units – and consistently show little or no innovation throughout the entire market. There is a real opportunity here. Just make sure the vehicle and its innovative features are absolutely sorted out before it is released to the public. Durability and real world functionality must be uncompromised. Satisfied truck buyers are your best spokesmen.
to this comment On October 23, 2009 at 9:36 am Wade Bryant said:
A dimpled-surface truck for improved highway fuel economy…would you accept the look??
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/mythbusters-golf-ball-like-dimpling-mpg/
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 8:37 am chizzy218 said:
I am all for maximum efficiency, but there is a limit. I do not want to drive a 2500lb golf ball.
to this comment On November 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm Matt Glowacki said:
Absolutely would accept it. I think it would provide a visual cue that the vehicle was intended for efficiency – just like the Saturn Green Line’s. However I do believe there are more efficient ways to induce boudary layer turbulance than using golf ball dimples. Some aircraft use “turbulators” at the tailing edge of the wing to get air to “stick” to the wing better at high attack angles. Competition downhill skiers have suits with extra large seams at the trailing edge of their legs/torso that act as a trip wire and does the same thing. The end goal is to break up one BIG wake into smaller – less engergy asbsorbing wakes.
to this comment On October 26, 2009 at 10:22 am Randy said:
One thing they taught in the Marines is the “KISS” Keep it Simple Stupid. You do have a nice concept truck, but you know as well as me it will take years to get it out and cost millions to put it in production. I like plan A.
Put the 4.5 duramax in the 1500 that will be a winning combo. And DO IT NOW !!!!!!!!! I would like mine in blue, 4×4, X-cab with a long bed and nav system, no sunroof please they always leak. I am will to pay $50,000.00.
When can I pick it up ????????
to this comment On October 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm stansire said:
Base on the information posted on this website GM seems to be making lots of progress now. As a customers I’m still interested in finding out to what led the company to the financial downturn a year or two ago?
to this comment On October 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm ed said:
Tata Motors expects 60% jump in light truck production
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12918&p=87525#p87525
to this comment On October 28, 2009 at 10:49 am Matt said:
I love the idea of this truck. I have a 98 S-10 regular cab 2 wheel drive with 229000 miles on it. It has served me VERY well over the past decade. I use it mostly for comuting. I currently have a 80 mile daily commute which is down from about 120 a few years back. The truck is a 2.2 four cylinder with a 5 speed that regularly gives a combined gas mileage of 28mpg. I also haul stuff on a fairly regular basis. usually it is just light bulky items like hockey equipment or home improvement stuff but I do need it to haul heavy stuff from time to time like gravel or dirt. I would be happy with a 1500lb capacity for the bed. The bed must be capable of 6 feet when in cargo mode! I also need it to tow as LEAST 4000lbs. Enough to pull around a small boat or pop up camper.
The biggest downside to my S10 is the regular cab. I have a growing family and need to be able to put the kids in the back seat. extended cabs can’t take car seats. A crew cab Colorado would be a good fit for me but the gas mileage is too bad for my commute and the price is too high for my budget. I have been wanting chevy to build a mini version of the avalanche since it came out and this is very close to what I want in a vehicle. I will always have a truck of some kind but I will never consider a full size truck because they are just too big for my needs and wants. If you can keep this modular design in the low $20’s and the gas mileage in the low 30’s and give me the practicallity of my S-10 with the seating of my malibu I would buy one in a heartbeat.
a wish list for this truck would be
-the convertable bed cab configuration for sure.
-a direct injected possibly turbo 4 cylinder
-a 6 speed manual tranny
-6 ft bed with 1500lb capacity
-4000 lb tow rating
-simple four wheel drive option
-call me sacreligious but I would take a unibody if it can deliver the above weight specs.
-basic interior amenities… rubber floors that are easy to clean, ac, basic power options like windows and locks
- 30mpg minimum
- stow away rear seats like a chrysler minivan even if you have the cab in passenger mode so you can stow stuff locked inside the cab.
-give it nice styling similar to the new equinox or better yet the avalanche. I like the function over form, but remember the aztec. it was very practical but all you ever hear about it is how ugly it is. most people are not going to buy a vehicle they don’t like to look at.
- give it a little ground clearance but noting crazy (I like the stance of the acadia) and tires that can get you out of snow or mud.
- make it rugged enough to take the abuse of a truck. I like the composite bed idea. it gives you the inside durability of a spray in bedliner but without the rust. (which is currently starting to take my s10)
please build this soon, my s10 won’t last forever! (although it is trying)
to this comment On October 29, 2009 at 9:50 am whitmore said:
Matt,
I am in the same boat and agree with most everything you are saying( I don’t need 4WD or the towing capacity).
I can even do without power locks and windows…currently do that now.(I would gladly take it though if they have the numbers you are suggesting.)
You have said pretty much what I have said about this truck. I’ve got a ‘97 reg cab 5speed S-10 with only 127K, but I need more space for my family.
I just hope Wade and the rest of the folks at GM are going to keep this going. If GM wants to remain viable in and ever-changing “go green” market, they need to be first to the road with cars and trucks like this.
Everyone can live a bit simpler these days.
to this comment On October 29, 2009 at 9:59 am ed said:
Two concepts we saw today are the most interesting in terms of design
. . . we thought they were pretty cute.
. . . Both take on the
“small on the outside, big on the inside” philosophy
. . . by using clever design to maximize cargo room room.
The basket
is a tiny take on a kind of pick-up truck crossed with a roadster.
. . . though both descriptions are a stretch.
Measures less than 3.5 meters in length,
. . . the basket seats four and
. . . has a removable soft canopy at the rear
. . . giving passengers the option of an open air ride.
The rear seats fold flush with the floor
. . . to create the utility space, and
. . . the front passenger seat can also be folded
. . . for carrying longer items.
The DecaDeca
a true box on wheels that uses some
. . . clever modular seating to create a surprisingly
. . . large cargo space accessible through both
. . . the rear and a sliding side door.”
http://www.gizmag.com/daihatsu-concepts-tokyo-motor-show/13173/
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 5:40 am ed said:
BARE NECESSITY TRUCK: Multicar, 100 applications, 3 attachment points.
http://www.multicar.de/multicar/frontend/index.php4?pre_cat_open=534
http://www.multicar.de/multicar/frontend/files.php4?dl_mg_id=1116&file=dl_mg_1239334992.pdf
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 6:11 am ed said:
Multicar is like apple, in that it, sells the “Basic Item (Truck)” in different (3) sizes, to meet users needs.
It markets the “Basic Item” with the most popular applications, that customers want. (high volume, low cost)
It lets other companies make the tools for the 100’s of other applications (no capital tied up & no risk)
Then it markets all applications, thru the internet and takes a commission on each item sold. (Processing fee)
. . . (over a Billion applications sold World Wide, by Apple to date)
This “Business Model” seems to be working for them.
to this comment On October 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm hammershipdown said:
Chevy Luv – it’s simple – you want a barebones truck, offer 3 sizes, small, medium and large – i think you have large under control, but small slipped away somewhere long ago. There are some great comments here – manual windows – not every new car or truck has to have electric everything. Revive the”Luv” – but please change the name! and stick to your classics for design influence. The Chevy Trucks from 1967 – 1972 look aweswome today – So, remember where you came from!
to this comment On October 31, 2009 at 3:44 pm TerryB. said:
When it comes to optioning out a BN Truck (or car for that matter) a couple of things come to mind. I don’t mind manual windows and locks on my personal driver. Same thing for manual mirrors. OTOH: when it comes to what my daughters/wife drive, I’m happier their vehicles lock up automatically, and that they can close all the windows with a few buttons.
Then there’s A/C. I may not need an engine block heater, but when it gets up over 100f with a relative humidity of 90-something, I WANT air conditioning.
But there are options I’d like to have that are only available as part of a package now. This is something I don’t understand in the days of computers. Why, when I was a kid, could my dad order his Chevy exactly the way he wanted it, but now, 50-some years later, I have to accessorize by option package only? Does not compute.
Is there a reason you can’t start with a bare-bones package, take a deposit on the order at the dealership, and run the special order down the line the next week? I bet it wouldn’t even be that hard to assign a tracking number to each order and let the customer follow their car down the line. Got cameras on the assembly lines? Let the customer follow by webcam from station to station. Make a big deal out of personalizing ‘their’ truck or car. Rebuild GM one customer at a time, and let each customer tell you what a BN vehicle means to them.
to this comment On November 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
Another example of an approach to the “Bare Necessity Truck” is the Jeep FC series, built on the CJ5 and CJ6 chassis. Nearly every component except the cab and bed was shared with the CJ series, making development costs extremely cheap.The biggest flaws were the high, forward bias of the vehicle CG, and the relatively narrow vehicle track and short wheelbase, but the COE (Cab Over Engine) design also resulted in a relatively long cargo bed for the wheelbase. For the “Bare Necessity” design, it might be advisable to look into the COE configuration, using a liquid cooled “boxer” 4 cylinder engine in a FWD-based 4WD setup, like the Subaru drivetrain design.
By using the “COE with FWD boxer-engine” approach, the basic platform could be shared with the “Bare Necessity Car.”
And could lead to the multi-purpose vehicle “Minivan That Converts to Pickup.”
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm Wade Bryant said:
Those were cool trucks. COE designs are difficult with today’s safety requirements.
to this comment On November 13, 2009 at 10:58 am TerryB. said:
Seems like GM has the beginnings of a snub-nose pickup with the Astro design.
Even if you set the cab back a foot or so for more front crumple zone and to reduce wheel well intrusion, you’ve still got a shorter nose than a conventional truck. A lower overall height might help, too.
Or go to a V4/W6 configuration and put the entire engine out front to take an impact on a reinforced firewall. How much pulling power could your engineers get out of a W6 DI or a V4 diesel?
to this comment On November 10, 2009 at 8:22 am chizzy218 said:
Here is even more evidence that the BNT is needed. There is an autoblog article that states that Ford has even further delayed a new ranger. I have been overseas and have always wondered why Europe and Asia gets the cool small trucks and we get the bloated bohemoths with no option for anything else. This is even more fuel to put this project through. The IS a market for this.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/report-mullaly-says-global-ranger-and-ka-wont-be-offered-in-fo/
to this comment On November 12, 2009 at 1:59 pm Wade Bryant said:
Good link. The Ranger was the last small pickup in the market here. I had heard it wouldn’t be replaced. If you ask market forecasters to judge the small pickup market they all point to declining sales in small and midsize trucks as reasons to stay away from this segment. I think that a lack of great small trucks could be part of the reason for few sales.
I think the enthusiasm expressed on the LAB shows at least some interest.
Thanks..
to this comment On November 17, 2009 at 4:59 pm chizzy218 said:
I think you are right there has not been a great small truck in years. The Ranger has been around for about12 years in its current incarnation. That is not what I want to spend my money on. Build the BNT! You will hit a market that is primed for useful, efficient and fun transportation. BTW saw another competitor for the BNT that I would by. I think this will have that Jetta TDI engine that gets 40+mpg. Simple useful and unfortunately not sold in the U.S.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://loadinform.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/interior-2010-vw-amarok.jpg&imgrefurl=http://loadinform.com/2010-volkswagen-amarok/&h=298&w=448&sz=24&tbnid=LyrDhLHBxDeYWM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvw%2Bamarok&usg=__oEpjcmBA4JYWOpV5xtyaM2Cbzu4=&ei=rQwDS4eqJIz_nAfjiJxi&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBAQ9QEwAw
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm ed said:
“market forecasters! ! !”
Did they ever mention customers desire for
. . . “Easy maintenance for do-it-yourself upkeep”
. . . “Less is More” “the fewer the parts, the less to break down”
. . . Loss of Customers who want “low Cost to purchase, finance, operate and maintain.”
. . . “Pollution Anxiety,” “Renewable Energy Anxiety,” “National & Personal Economic Anxiety” and
. . . . . . “Employment Anxiety” much greater than “Range Anxiety.”
There are a lot of people, NOT buying, what your “market forecasters” are selling.
76 million people will be retiring soon and
. . . will be looking for all of the above.
If you don’t supply the answers, your competitors will.
. . . then maybe more jobs will be going out of the country.
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 2:42 pm ed said:
“Global Emissions Anxiety”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13491#p91805
to this comment On November 15, 2009 at 10:56 pm Don P said:
“Why does GM not have anything similar to the Terrain and Equinox that also has a pickup bed? A product with pick-up truck utility and the mileage that the new equinox demonstrates would definitely sell. The Colorado does not count. I already own one and get only 20 mpg with mine (crew cab 4×4) on a regular basis. Also, why does GM not just bring the Diesel Colorado over here for sale???? I know that there are emissions issues and GM backed off on the 1/2 Ton diesel production when diesel prices spiked, but this too would sell like crazy in the current market. Just wait until Mahindra’s diesel starts selling like hotcakes in 2010. maybe then GM will take notice and offer what myself and many others want to drive. I just can’t believe that GM does not see the need for such a vehicle. I have many friends who want one. Additionally, one can go online to various blogs or columns and see all of the comments that people are making regarding the anticipated arrival of the Mahindra. Most of consumers apprehension about it are no track record for reliability and the poor aesthetics. Many of them state that if GM or Toyota would start offering the diesels that are already produced in Europe or South America that they would quickly purchase them. Please reply with any knowledge of potential models in these areas if there is anything in development. Otherwise, I guess I’ll be trading my Colorado in on a Mahindra in about 2 years (I’d hate to have to do that). Thank you for your time.”
These are comments I had just e-mailed to someone in GM PR. Then I found this site. Ya’ll need to get the word out more on this concept and site so more can comment.
Here are my quick requirements:
32 MPG minimum.
Towing capacity of 5000 lbs (6000 would be better).
Engine does not have to be diesel, but this would be preferred for durability/longevity. Also, I like the idea of diesel over hybrid.
I currently commute 106 miles daily and perform my commuting in a VW Jetta TDI that gets 48 to 50 MPG. Then I have my Colorado 4×4 Crew cab for those times when I need to tow (jetski, small boat, 4 wheeler) or haul (4 wheeler or building materials). I also use the truck for hauling general landscape materials and supplies and for when I have to haul gas cans or 55 gallon drums of fuel.
I would LOVE to be able to have just one vehicle for commuting and for my utility use. It is not cheap to keep all of the vehicles insured either, although it still is cheaper with the mileage the Diesel Jetta provides. 98% of my miles are with only me in the vehicle, but at times, I have to carry my 2 children (in carseats) and my wife. I would also need to make sure that the back seats could accomodate child seats with enough room for front seat passengers to reasonably comfortable. PLEASE keep this design moving forward. I think that it would be a sales success while at the same time helping our country use less fuel. Keep it moving!!!!!
to this comment On November 18, 2009 at 3:22 pm chizzy218 said:
Also I know that automanufacturers partner with electronics companies for stereos and what not. Here is an inexpensive head unit that would take care of the incabin audio in one fail swoop. She is not the prettiest girl at the dance but she does the job. Plus it has a bit of a retro feel, if you are seriously thinking of ressurrecting the LUV.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/18/dual-electronics-xml8110-in-dash-iphone-dock-announced/
to this comment On November 21, 2009 at 11:07 am Don P said:
What kind of mileage does the Diesel Colorado get? I know that they are produced overseas and understand that there are emission hurdles to overcome in the U.S., but that may be a great base to start from. It would satisfy most of the requirements that I have seen listed above. Additionally, the torque of the diesel engine would allow for a higher towing capacity. I know that the Toyota Hilux diesel and the Mahindra diesel get greater than 30mpg as they are currently produced for the overseas markets. I know that does not satisfy the 40MPG that some would like, but just getting something to the market that achieves 30MPG or better that has great capability and is simple would be a great start and would sell. I also think that a small Turbo diesel has a better reliability record long term that any yet to be developed hybrid. I would like to own something that I can put 250,000 miles on and not worry about replacing batteries. I had a Saturn that I rolled up 240,000 miles on prior to getting rid of it. I was used a a commuter car so i could keep mileage down on my truck and so gas expense would not kill me (my daily commute was 90 miles round trip at the time).
I likely seem very biased to the diesel option. I am to a degree due to my current diesel Jetta and the excellent mileage I get. However, if GM would just produce a gas powered, capable, mid size truck that tops 30 MPG – I’d be all for that and would be in the market for one.
to this comment On November 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm ed said:
Have you seen an explosion in light commercial vehicles?
India has!
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13299&p=90227#p90227
to this comment On November 24, 2009 at 3:52 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
30 mpg trucks are possible now, 40mpg trucks not far away, without massive reinventing anything, just efficient aerodynamics, like these:
http://www.evworld.com/images/pknox_toyota.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/imgs/knox/knox-1962-dodge-z.jpg
http://www.aircraft-computational.com/aerocap/2008-Dodge-Dakota+AeroCap_Med-1.jpg
http://content.techrepublic.com.com/2347-1035_11-188187-188195.html?seq=8
Backyard inventors can make drastic improvements in the efficiency of existing vehicles with just a few bits of corroplast and some aluminum struts- and a bit of creativity.
Gotta wonder what they could do with GM’s R&D budget…
to this comment On November 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm Mark Matthews said:
I ran across this website awhile back, this guy get’s it. He’s using 3-4 cylinder diesel tractor engines in full size pickup’s & getting 40-50 mpg. They may not be the fastest or most powerful trucks on the road, but how many full size trucks can claim that kind of mileage.
Check out the video link on the left side of the page.
http://www.shadetreeconversions.com/
to this comment On November 25, 2009 at 10:54 am Rick said:
I love the idea behind this truck. I’m like many of the posters here – I own a home, have a family, and a job that doesn’t require I own a large truck. I need a high-mileage vehicle for my day-to-day commute, a truck for weekend projects, and room for my family when they come along. It’s gratifying to see that an American company is working on such innovative designs. Build this truck, and I’ll buy the first one off the line, and I’ll promote it to the hundred college students I have in my classes every semester.
to this comment On December 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm TerryB. said:
Seen the details on the new VW Amarok pickup? Only save for GM is that they aren’t planning on offering it in the US (at this time). Three levels, Basic, Midline, and Highline. 4-cyl diesels. Direct injection gas. Regular or crew cab. Even apparently comes with the BTTF chrome light bar in the bed from the factory. GM builds small pickups all over the world too; where’s ours in the US?
to this comment On December 1, 2009 at 2:34 pm chizzy218 said:
Ok here is even more gasoline for the fire. This is basically what I want. Once again I stress the fact that it can not be bought in America, but if it were I would put my name on the waiting list. The BNT needs to be spec’d along these lines. Tough, not too small and efficient. Paint it black and I would by this. Hell you could even call it a Colorado BNT.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/01/officially-official-volkswagen-amarok-pickup-makes-the-scene/
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm Tim Filippi said:
Well to begin with the design of a fuel efficient small truck was answered in the “answer me now”. The S10 should not be brought back in the USA as this does not cover “all the bases”. Americans want towing, hauling, recreation activity vehicles that require more fuel and braking requirements. The laws of physics cannot be overlooked especially safety during a crash event. Now suppose we take this seriously about building such a “truck” being fuel efficient and is capable of doing most but not all of our desires. To start with is by reducing mass. This is accomplished by doing a unibody construction. The traditional body on frame has to be thrown out “old school”. Stiffness in this is utmost important for crash events and the use of hold downs more efficiently. Next is the location of the hauling loads established “between” the wheel base center lines not over the traditional axle (more on this later). Power train is front wheel drive “only” no all wheel drive this is to reduce mass and having a four cylinder engine coupled to a six speed “automatic transmission” no manual. Reducing the complexity of assembling and incorporating so many variables to the vehicle build increases cost that can be saved by not having so many different configurations. The reason on having the load be more centralized is because of the front wheel drive having any additional weight being placed in the vehicle does not reduce any significant traction required to move it. The advantage to front wheel drive to save weight is apparent when the vehicle is not in use for hauling as traction is in front with the drive train weight being over the front half shafts. This is better for towing with an empty “bed” again as stated earlier drive train weight forward over front half shafts. As for a flip cab storage the sealing will be a nightmare and the rotating section will definatley need reinforcement during crash as to the attachment locations outboard either side of the vehicle and in the close out cap design during hauling so that objects are retained enough from intrusion on occupants seat backs preventing to much load path into this area. Yes it can be done but is the public willing to buy….do I hear clinic…second definition in Merriam Websters dictionary. It has been reported that pickups are driven more empty than loaded for the general public recreationally not construction or purposefully. To that an SUV with towing can pull a trailer which has a lower center of gravity lower loading height than any truck. Further more I would rent a Home Depot truck beat it up and return it for $19.95 and a tank full of gas for those moments of DIY.
to this comment On December 5, 2009 at 12:38 am ed said:
Are Americans “too sophisticated?”
. . . to buy Inexpensive, Simple, Basic,
. . . . . . Electric Mini vans & pickups,
. . . . . . . . . from GM-SAIC-Wuling?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=15#p91622
to this comment On December 7, 2009 at 10:52 am ed said:
Tata Nano based half tonne pickup truck
. . . that will hit the Indian market next year.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13380&start=30#p91782
to this comment On December 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm onesuperspytwo said:
I like the concept of the Avalanche better, here’s why. The pasthrough idea, another iteration of the Saab idea from hacthbacks means that road noise and externalsounds and ellements seep in. As good as the 9000 was with this concept when the partition which seperated the hatchback (usable trunk area) was removed there was lots of road noise and the ineveitable loss of performance due to t he loss of rigidity. The Avalanche got the usable space, (truck /SUV formula) right and slaes success and product evolution followed. I am sure that surveys of truck owners say that we want efficiency, because like most others I use my truck for everything. Grocery hauler, runs to the store, pick up the sofa, pick up the summer mulch.
The idea that you are bringing forth sounds a lot like the ridgeline concept, and those are going the way of the Doe, Doe bird. I have owned a pickup for most of my adult life, as well as an auto (my wife drives the car), and my favorite was the Avalanche. I originally leased it because I liked the way that it looked, I hated to give it up, but like most investments, the residual after the lease was far from what the value was and I elected to give it up. But my point is, I now own a used Dodge, lots of power, great looks, but that fuel milage hurts every thursday, which for me is fill-up day. The Avalanche has a distinctive look, great perfromance, and performed all of the tasks that I asked of it.
As a truck guy, I rarely use my truck for more than a go getter or round about, but, prefer a truck that looks like a truck. I’m considering a used Sierra Denali, or Cadillac EXT in a couple more years once the values fall again because the reality is that trucks are engeneered to last and are built pretty well these days. Unless a vehicle comes along thats worth the premium of a new vehicle, then I’ll suffer at the pump and continue to buy used forfieting truck payments. Here’s why, at the end of the day I’m willing to pay a premium at the fuel pump with no payment. The math for me is simple truck payment and insurance for a new vehicle of say $800 a month or lower insutance premium and no truck payment for 60 months. Trucks are pretty rugged and maintainance for a truck is usally minimal if you keep up with the scheduled mainenance so a truck that is five or six years into its life cycle has 7 to 10 more years to maturity. This makes a truck built in 2007 coming off of a lease a better buy than a new truck. To trade in my ten year old truck for a 5 year old truck with minimum money exchanged is a better value than buying a new truck a losing 30% of its value when it drives off of the lot.
This probably isn’t the conventional thinking, but with a full on recession in progress deserves consideration. I think that Toyota is trying a bare bones truck concept which takes away many of the luxuries of pickups like remote mirrors and power door locks. For people that just want a get down and dirty truck that makes the bacon, its a good getting back to the basics approach used by the ck series from the 70’s. But again, I’ll wait for a lighly used vehicle and pay for the gas until a fuel efficient alternative that “LOOKS LIKE A TRUCK” comes out.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 10:16 am Wade Bryant said:
Thanks for the comments. I think the way you’re thinking IS becoming the norm (buying used). Hopefully a more all-around practical/affordable truck could make the new truck option more appealing.
to this comment On December 13, 2009 at 6:37 am kts350 said:
Australia has a love affair with smaller trucks (or Utes as we call them)we currently have Commodore utes and Colorado’s I think something like this would be winner specially if it can offer alot better fuel economy..
I know many people down here and belong to many car forum and I think Holden and GM could win a lot of sales from the competition here if they can offer a bigger truck then we get now with way better fuel economy..
to this comment On December 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
GM makes a number of efficient, small trucks- for markets other than the US. I can’t see how a “clean sheet of paper” design is more cost-effective than certifying existing designs for the US market, but that’s probably one of the reasons why I’m not a GM executive.
to this comment On December 23, 2009 at 3:29 pm timbates09 said:
Most of the trucks I have driven have been my fathers GM trucks, but that was also in the time of “I don’t care about Gas prices”. I have a desire to get a truck next, a vehicle that can haul, tow and just be my everyday vehicle. I have 3 small boys, so a crew cab style would be better. I tend to be on the side that agrees that the technology is there to have a truck with 40 plus on the milage and still have the power to be a true truck.
To get everything in one vehicle, isn’t very reasonable. Paying insurance for every vehicle you need or desire is not an option as well. My Volt to get to work, my camaro for my mid life crisis (well, actually I do want the camaro), the truck for doing all the projects in mind. If the auto industry got behind changing how the insurance system works, it would also benefit sales and peoples choice.
Insurance should be the driver is insured, pays a small amount per vehicle.
I would assume that the auto industry is doing something towards this already. The platform vehicle that changes body, to be a car or minivan, next a truck. Would that have different rates for the road as the insurance companies love to charge.
to this comment On December 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm ed said:
Americans are “Too Sophisticated (Stupid) to buy these $3,500 Basic Vehicles”
. . . (they want to pay $20,000-$40,000 for something that does the same thing!)
]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGA8s8PeDLA
to this comment On December 25, 2009 at 5:45 pm TerryB. said:
Small practical pickup. Almost a COE, with 4WD, storage in the bed sides, and a little 4-cylinder. Maybe even a diesel. Why not a GM version with 2 or 4 seats? Even looks like a tough little work truck. Face only a mother could love. Back end not much better.
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/html/autoshows/tokyo2007/xhead.html
A 2007 design from Suzuki, could have been in the showrooms this year. Why isn’t it?
to this comment On December 30, 2009 at 1:01 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I like the X-Head concept- with a little tweaking, it’s close to what I had in mind for a “bare necessity” truck. It just needs a bed sized wide enough to carry 4′X8′ sheets of material, and adding a removable fiberglass bed cap would make it suitable for about 95% of my vehicle needs.
to this comment On December 29, 2009 at 4:20 pm Ihor Sypko said:
Wade, how’s it going? Hope some of this input isn’t distracting you away from the core concept. The new year should be free of “re-inventing the wheel” side issues or hopes of new versions of the same old designs. I’ve got confidence that the realization of this truck will satisfy those who can’t find a perfect vehicle out there. This doesn’t mean the BNTruck will be perfect, just way better for anyone concerned with economy, quality, and utility in that order. Have a Happy New Year.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 10:21 am Wade Bryant said:
Going well, thanks for asking.
This conversation isn’t the least bit distracting. It reinforces many of the discussions we are having around Bare Neccessity Truck and other new products.
Happy New Year.
to this comment On January 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm jh said:
As a programmer I tend to follow one simple rule that I feel GM has overlooked so many times in the past and present. It’s the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) principle, following this simple concept should yield positive results.
I’ll admit it and do not mean to offend anyone but the vehicle has been around for way too long to still be wondering what the people want. I had a GMC Envoy and a GMC Yukon and I got so sick of all the design / engineering issues that I promised myself never to buy american (GM) cars until these mishaps were corrected. I now own a VW tourag and a Toyota Matrix and couldn’t be any happier with the experience.
That is what GM is missing it’s the driver’s experience behind the wheel. It comes from following the KISS principle. Believe it or not I love morning commutes on my tourag (German vehicle). Why? Well quite simply because it is a simple cross over SUV that rides very well. It’s comfortable, intuitive, its like web design WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get). I don’t have to open a 3000 page manual to find out what a button does, its a simple concept. And the same goes for my matrix, it is simple basic and to the point. Why does anyone have to suffer driving when they shell out 30k (Envoy) or close to 50k (GMC Yukon).
A prime example is the mammoth Yukon. I was actually scared driving this thing especially backing up…why you ask. Well who in their right mind puts an enormous blind spot right on the trunk glass in the center so you barely can see what is going on? The back of the yukon opens so that there are 2 doors rather then one piece (on some other models I noticed you guys have done this). Well I just could not imagine why the engineer / designer decided to do this. Designers should be forced to drive the car and ensure safety / quality (quality assurance team???).
I think GM lost it’s touch by trying to throw too many bells and whistles and so many different features rather then ensure quality in their product. Hence the problems they had and will continue to have as long as they have so many different cars (yet in reality it is the same darn vehicle with a different name, can you say pontiac / saturn??). Stick to the basics, design a NICE compact car, then design a NICE truck, then design a NICE X over, then design a NICE luxury vehicle. Quality test them till your eyes bleed, fix issues and make the experience better. Stop producing x * n vehicles where x is a product and n is the number times the product appears, design one x and make it better to ultimately drive the CUSTOMER (the driver’s) experience. That is what counts, not how many models look almost identically the same yet have a different name.
If you look at your competitors (VW, Toyota, Subuaru, etc), you will see they avoid duplication. They build one quality vehicle and enhance it to the point where it makes people want to drive. I was scared to drive the yukon (fuel, safety, quality, sound, etc). I love to drive my VW (smooth, rivating, adrenaline pumping fun!!!).
Stop making something so simple become so complex by inter twhinning all these things that no one cares about. A car is a tool, it should be strong, durable, do its job and you should be able to safely put it away and reuse it when you need it. The job of a hammer is to drive a nail in, they are solid, simple, and fairly cheap; so why cant a car take me to work safely, use little gas, be cost effective so I don’t have to worry about the interest rates or that enormous down payment on a moving hazard, and be an enjoyable experience?
It all boils down to the KISS principle, a fairly simple basic principle that GM has avoided for too long.
to this comment On January 6, 2010 at 12:20 am ed said:
I couldn’t agree with you more. But K.I.S.S. and WYSIWYG have little effect,
. . . when there are all ready, more “vehicles” in the USA then there are people.
I need an inexpensive electric mini-truck (Batteries NOT included)
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13776#p94572
to this comment On January 8, 2010 at 4:29 pm chevychevy said:
what i need from a truck is 4×4 capabilities, cargo room for camping, mountain biking, skiing, hiking ect. i currently live in the flat lands of nebraska (currently driving 95 sonoma 5 spd 4 banger) but when i get out of school i will be moving into the mountains. i am looking at buying a used colorado reg cab manual 4×4. but if this truck would be perfect for me. you cant really market this truck to farmers and contractors, you need to go after outdoors men. the people out there buying jeeps and subarus. people that want everything, 4 passengers, towing, and this and that need to look at full size trucks. the room in my sonoma extend cab is plenty, it would be nice with a shorter bed and wheelbase and hey i got myself a bare necessity truck already, haha. the reversible bulkhead is nice, but it kinda defeats the purpose of bare necessity. i remember when if u wanted to fit 4 people in a truck, you all had to squeeze onto the bench seat. i’m 24 so thats old or young depending how old you are, but yeah if you only got room for 2 then you automatically dont get stuck with driving your friends around. bare bones if it doesn’t serve a purpose you really don’t need it, thats what i need from a truck. off road capabilities, good gas mileage, hauls stuff……….not people, and if i need to tow anything i’ll borrow a bigger truck.
to this comment On January 9, 2010 at 5:05 pm chevychevy said:
i guess i should clarify, i want this truck as is! after i read my last post again it didn’t sound supportive enough. i definitely support this truck or whatever variation you decide to make…..i was just giving my perspective from a younger point of view. i’ve only owned gm products my whole life, i’ve drove many others and ridden in many others but stayed loyal to the general. you have a chance to change gm’s image with this truck, the bare necessity car, volt ect. you need to go after the young hipsters and the like. old hippies and whatnot are pretty set in their american is bad mentality when it comes to cars and trucks. you need to do something like ford did with getting ken block to switch to driving the new focus instead of subaru for his rally car, for a good pr move to get the kiddos to think the general is hip again. hip hop culture likes old chevy’s so they buy new chevys if they have the money. need to try and do the same thing with hipsters, skaters, rich greenies, and still keep the good ol’ boys. not an easy task i know, but hey thats why the pr guys make the big bucks……..bottom line, just make this truck for a hip good ol’ boy like me, haha
to this comment On January 15, 2010 at 3:32 pm Piper1177 said:
When I first seen this concept, I hoped that it would be the next full size truck. On the exterior design, GM has been conservative and didn’t copy Dodge and Ford. (Thank goodness) This concept has great lines and an aggresive stance. I’ve liked GM trucks because you could customize them to be sleek or for a huge 4X4. Then I read it wasn’t the full size truck, I was disappointed. This is a chance for GM to once again become the leader in design. With the idea’s of better gas milage and using new materials to same weight that should be a no brainer, but as for buyers, keep the options list long to allow for customization. If people want diesel, be able to provide it, if they want maual windows then let them order them.
A basic truck needs to be able to carry a sheet of wood 4×8. Towing capability is up to the person to determine what they want. I have a 97 GMC 1500 5 speed with the 4.3 V6. I know I’m not going to haul a horse trailer with horses in it and I would never try, but I knew it would be better milage then the 5.3 V8. I also have a 6 litre V8 that I can tow the horse trailer with 4 horses but the milage isn’t close to the 4.3.
As for this concept, the idea’s are great about the milage and towing ability and the idea of being able to converts the box into cabin space and vice versa, however I don’t believe that is the best way to have a panel that rotates. What was once outside is now inside. In Canada it gets cold and it snows here and I don’t always know when I’m going to take more people. I like the Avalache with the midgate and if there was a way to keep the weather proof in the 2 seat configeration. If the Avalanche didn’t have the plastic pieces that come from the roof to the box to allow for more versatility. Keep the idea’s coming and the creative juices flowing.
to this comment On January 19, 2010 at 11:08 am ed said:
GM to start manufacturing LCV’s at Halol in Gujarat from 2011
The first LCV will be like a pick up van similar to Tata ACE,
. . . second one may be a Multi Activity Vehicle, and the
. . . third one will be a van somewhat similar to Versa, Balendran said.
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13960#p96089
to this comment On January 21, 2010 at 11:17 amJon Johnston said:
There are rumors that Ford will discontinue the Ranger in the US. That will be the end of compact pickups. All the remaining “small” trucks are too close in size, fuel economy and price to full-size trucks.
Chevy has a great opportunity now to offer a modern no-nonsense small truck in the US with no direct competition.
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm Brian said:
Well, I’ve never considered owning a new truck because I need 4 seats, and a truck with 4 seats and enough room for my family, has always been out of my price range. Now with the conversion from 4 seat to 2 seat creating more cargo room, that could work.
What about just a cheap good looking truck, with that feature (reversible bulkhead)? Use a rugged (and cheap) all time 4WD system with a good 5 speed manual and a 4 cylinder turbo diesel (R428 DOHC Motori?). Polyurethane interior, no power extras, heat/AC power steering + brakes, and a strong suspension. The sketches look great. I’d love to see one in the flesh with even the cheap unpainted gray bumpers and fender flares. Fifteen inch steel wheels with 35 inch tires (at least for the show truck) would set it off nicely. If it retailed for under 18k with 4WD, you’d have a home run.
to this comment On January 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm Brian said:
Just watched the vid about the reversible bulkhead, I love it. Not sure if I really like the design of the animation, but some of the basic free hand sketches are very cool.
I know GM just axed several brands, I’m sure due to competition within the family, but I think a new brand with cheap and eco-friendly cars could be a great thing to pursue.
to this comment On January 30, 2010 at 10:06 amMike Margiotta said:
wow just wow, i cant believe i didnt find this website till now, i am a design student preparing my portfolio for entry into art center and that video gets me so pumped, all my design buddies are into audi, beamer, blah blah blah, but no no no im holdin it down for GM. Always a defender and promoter, the Madre just got a brand new malibu and she loves it, too bad shes back in Boston so i cant enjoy it too, haha. But ya, im just sayin GM has always been my dream job and always will be, you guys inspire me so much so please keep postin good reference my buddies were droolin over those truck sketches sayin they liked the style and askin where i found em. Love the truck concept btw i got a crazy name for it, THE S-10! haha no i got an 01 blazer 5spd that i just put a hurst short throw in and its so much fun, no matter what you name it make sure you offer it in stick!
Much Respect,
Mike
to this comment On January 31, 2010 at 6:50 am Randy said:
Great idea, great looking truck, 4 banger diesel is the way to go. BUT stop all the talking and build the dam thing !!!! I love Chevy Trucks but the mpg sucks. I am buying a Mahindra truck for the mpg, and I know GM will lose alot of sales because they don’t have this truck on the lot.WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR ???
to this comment On January 31, 2010 at 7:19 am Randy said:
If want to know what the customers want, I will tell you. They want a real truck, One they can buy and drive home, not a concept that we can dream about. I do not like the looks of the Mahindra, but I love 30 mpg, so it is my only choice. I think I will have 200,000 miles on it by the time this truck is out. Build the truck already, use the 2.5 or 3.0 diesel engines that you are using overseas. Lead the way for a change. Are you telling me GM is
going to let India beat them in getting a 30 mpg truck to the US market ?
to this comment On February 2, 2010 at 11:03 pm Randy said:
Hey Wade, When is the truck going to be on the lot for me to buy?
to this comment On February 3, 2010 at 7:01 am ed said:
India, small pickup sales grow over 70%
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14147#p97998
to this comment On February 6, 2010 at 12:54 pm ed said:
Think out of the Box “Basic”
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14238#p98536
to this comment On February 8, 2010 at 6:33 am ed said:
Simplifying, Doesn’t Necessarily Make vehicles Simple
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14246#p98797
to this comment On February 8, 2010 at 10:00 am dastehr said:
I love this idea! As an Avalanche owner, I am familar with the conversion idea. Unfortunately, my Avalanche sits much of the time now because my HHR Panel is much better on gas. I would buy one of these as long as they weren’t extremely ugly.
to this comment On February 9, 2010 at 9:14 am chizzy218 said:
If this blog is still being looked at here is what I am thinking. Build the BNT. Now I am really impressed with the the Granite concept. If you incorporate a truck bed on to that, or use about 90% of the design, I would trade my Honda in tout suite!!!. That is what we need and the Orlando/ Granite platform would be a great starting point. you would save costs by using common components and with the right engine, maybe a europena diesel, you could get excellent economy. Come on Wade. This is what we want. Well this is what I want. This and an Ipod/pad ready radio standard. I could see it now the Granite XT and the new “S10″ Let me know what you think..
to this comment On February 9, 2010 at 11:39 pm ed said:
The original “Bare Necessity” truck.
http://www.thecj2apage.com/images/1946spread.jpg
to this comment On February 11, 2010 at 1:13 am tampa truck toppers said:
The Bare Necessities Truck is exactly what the name suggests. I do believe there are others like you who really want a small truck with flexible space. Great stuff!
to this comment On February 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm Chops said:
I’m currently shopping for a truck. I have a Mon-Fri. job, and I’m a handyman/landscaper on the side. I’ve always wanted a GM truck. This would be perfect! If it existed. It’s not only GM that is behind in this area of the market. Guess I’ll be buying a Mahindra.
to this comment On February 24, 2010 at 3:21 am chizzy218 said:
Uh oh. Here comes Ford http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/23/spy-shots-next-gen-ford-ranger-global-quad-cab-spotted/
to this comment On February 25, 2010 at 10:43 am whitmore said:
I just heard that GM might discontinue the Colorado and Canyon in the next couple of years. What does this mean for the BNT? If GM doesn’t have confidence in the smaller truck market, how are we to believe GM will continue to dedicate research into the BNT? Maybe they’ve already killed the project.
I do understand that this concept is different from the current market of trucks, but are they willing to throw away this segment and start over with the BNT or are they going to move indefinitely out of the small truck market all together?
I don’t need a Silverado sized truck. I could use a Colorado or smaller truck with evolutionary Avalanche styling, great gas mileage, flexible configurations, and a-la-carte options.
I love to hear some feedback.
to this comment On February 26, 2010 at 10:39 pm Brian said:
Wade-
My first vehicle was an ‘88 Chevy S10 that made it to 220,000 miles with only routine maintenance. If you can come up with something in that size range (fits in a garage), with that kind of reliability, that stresses high quality construction without bells and whistles (all I really want is a 2-3 liter diesel or at least a gas equivalent, a manual transmission, 4wd) I’ll buy one. Sure, I can afford an overblown flashy, fullsize truck, but my truck’s job is to get me from point A to point B, as cheaply and reliably as possible. Dragging 4000+ lbs of steel (a fullsize truck) around with me everywhere turns my stomach – I don’t need it, therefore it’s a waste. Frankly, if Toyota ever imports the Hilux or if Ford drops their small diesels into the Ranger I might have to cave and buy one, but I’m hoping you get something to market before they get smart. I’ll happily pay a premium for quality, reliability, and capability – I won’t pay for luxury features or something that can compete with a main battle tank in terms of size and weight. Thanks for pursuing this project (it’s badly needed), and I wish you luck!
to this comment On March 4, 2010 at 2:08 am Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
A local Ford dealer is offering a handful of 2010 F-150s for $13,900 (before all those nickel-and-dime-us-to-death taxes and fees). Of course it’s bait-and-switch, but they actually do have 20 or so in stock, as of March 3 at 5 PM EST. I checked, even drove one (the red one).
That’s a real “bare necessities” truck- stripped of just about everything extra (they do come with AT and PS/PB, but they’re definitely “bare” otherwise). If they had a diesel option (I’m thinking 250- 300 cid inline DI 6) I’d probably get one this month.
I may have to anyway, the Trans Sport trans failed last month, I can’t see putting $2500 into a 15 year old vehicle, but I can’t do without a hauler.
to this comment On March 4, 2010 at 8:55 am chizzy218 said:
Ok I think I have found a picture to describe some of my earlier posts about how the interior entertainment interface should go. http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/04/nokias-terminal-mode-spotted-in-the-wilds-of-the-geneva-motor-s/ It is simple, cool and all you have to do is plug in your phone.
to this comment On March 10, 2010 at 12:28 pm chizzy218 said:
http://www.insideline.com/volkswagen/amarok/2010/2010-volkswagen-amarok-first-drive.html
There is a market for the BNT Look at the comments of this article.
to this comment On March 23, 2010 at 9:54 am whitmore said:
Wade,
I just read that Ram is planning on bringing a small, Ranger-sized truck to market. Can you comment on where you guys are at as far as bringing any concepts of the BNT to the public?
Is this project just dead? There seemed to be a lot of traffic on this site when it was started, but things seemed to have fizzled out somewhat. I think a truck of this nature is a great idea. My 1997 S10 has 130K on it and is still running pretty well, other than the fact that I think my fuel pump is going bad.
I would like to get another small truck that can carry my family as well as being able to haul a few things. I know there is a big lead time when bringing something to market, especially will all the Toyota problems, but we have yet to really see any kind of true concept of what this truck can be. I really hope your team is preparing something with this initiative.
To be first to market with a product like this would be a great boost to GM, especially since the ancient Ranger is the only small truck left here in the U.S.
Wade, can you please give us an update of some kind? Even if it is that you won’t have anything until next year as far as a concept is concerned.
Thanks so much for your time!
to this comment On March 30, 2010 at 9:24 amBrian Colvin said:
Dear Wade Bryant,
I see there was a LOT of activity by yourself early on in this blog, but it has trailed off. I’m hoping it means your too busy making this truck become a reality to spend much time here.
to this comment On April 19, 2010 at 1:55 pm chizzy218 said:
Please do not kill this project. I would like my next vehicle to be a small gm truck like the old s10. Nice solid affordable and well put together. You guys seem to be on the right train of thought with this project. Please keep this alive.
to this comment On April 22, 2010 at 7:48 am Mike52 said:
Please get this truck out to us as soon as reasonably possible.
to this comment On May 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm efi-diy said:
I look at my ‘51GMC – in stock form its dead simple. This lets make a truck like a car pendulum has swung to far to the car side.
Get back to basics.
2 door
bench seats
6spd manual transmission
6 spd auto optional
RWD
2900 vortec base engine
optional 3700 vortec – turbo charged
optional 4 cylinder turbo diesel – Isuzu makes one.
optional 4wd with a manual shift xfer case – the shift motors add weight and complexity – no need for them.
make the rear seat back fold flat to form a SEALED load floor (easy to clean). Need to have the back of the front seat act as a bulkhead – prevent load penetration into the seat area. Make the rear seat back part of the rear cab wall – fold the seat down and you open the access to the box. Folds flat.
No power electric anything as std. equipment.
A/C std.
G80 equipment code std.
Make doors removable
Composite body panels
Have one and only one trim model – any and all optional features can be ordered individually. Why should I have to buy a premium stereo if all I want is say A/C.
Under 2700# curb weight wet. (2wd 4cyl MT gas)
Under $16,000 base price this will allow the 20-28 yr old’s to afford a truck they can modify.
Some out of the box ideas:
make the bed/box easily removable with available boxes/load available :
- a flat bed
- a purpose designed bed for carrying motorbike/ATV’s
- a enclosed box – windowed camper or extra row of seats and windowless for deliveries etc.
- service truck box with built in tool boxes …
to this comment On May 8, 2010 at 1:18 pm TerryB. said:
So…
With the changes in management, you guys seem to have lost interest in this whole customer input thing. Basic truck a dead issue now?
to this comment On May 13, 2010 at 4:46 pm whitmore said:
TerryB,
I have to agree with your comment…..Seems as though this project was really just for show. I seriously hope I am wrong. I know these things don’t happen overnight, but they can’t give us some kind of update?
Probably not going to make any of the vehicles shown on the site…. Again, I hope I am wrong!
to this comment On May 19, 2010 at 11:14 am TerryB. said:
A shame. The HHR could have been Chevy’s Beetle; Same body style forever, just improve the innards over the years. The Panel version could compete directly with the Ford Transit van. They build small pickups around the world, but won’t bring them to the US. More than enough odds and sods of parts out there to give us the 21st Century version of the LUV pickup.
No Orlando in the US. The Granite looks like all the other boxes. The Buick line is full of faux luxury, with no attention to the heritage of having at least one ‘banker’s hot rod’ in the lineup.
Maybe that’s the entire problem. This new generation of designers doesn’t have any grounding in the different aspects of GM heritage. Chevy trucks, ‘Like a Rock’. GM and ‘Professional Grade’ trucks. The Impala SS – why isn’t the Caprice on the general market? The current Impala shares no heritage with the Impala of old except the insignia. Caddy has the luxury cars, and also the high performance sedans that once would have been Buicks. Seen a Wildcat lately? Where’s the new Grand National? The Aveo says cheap instead of thrifty. Remember the Chevy II? I like the Malibu. But where’s the 2-door LTZ (SS)? With the loss of the Saturn Sky (or the Pontiac version) where is the ‘poor man’s Corvette’ in the lineup? Where’s the Astro, the poor man’s work van?
In short, what’s going on, both here and with GM?
to this comment On May 9, 2010 at 9:58 pm Joey said:
I own a 98 chevy S10, four cylinder five speed regular cab, and I love it. Could use a little more power to make it a little easier when pulling boats and jet ski’s but for most of my daily driving it’s just fine and gets great MPG’s. It has never broken down or needed major repair, the perfect truck for a 24 year old guy. I finally am getting to a point where I want a new truck and as soon as I started looking I realized that the truck I want isn’t made anymore. Most Midsizes don’t get much better gas mileage and cost almost as much as full size trucks and I don’t want or need anything as large as a full size. This truck is perfect. What I need most is something that gets around 30 mpg, seat 2-4, and effectivly tows around 3500 pounds. Rear wheel drive would be most ideal for boat ramps but I might be open to the idea of an AWD or front wheel with available FWD. A price tag around 16/17K would be ideal. Please build this, my truck is getting old!!!!
to this comment On May 27, 2010 at 8:28 am elhigh said:
I drive an ‘87 Toyota PU that gets middle 30s MPG without really trying hard. I can almost break 40. It’s not big on power, it’s not very sophisticated. What it is is lightweight, modest, not full of unnecessary addons.
My recommendations:
1) stop selling the consumer on big power. Advertising is a game of emotions, and too long we’ve been pushing the hairy-chested ones, big power = big cojones, I’m the manliest truck owner, grr. VW, Toyota both made products that were very low on power compared to everything else on the market, but sold them like hotcakes anyway, because they marketed how practical the products were the 90% of the time when you don’t need big power. That other 10%, you may be a little inconvenienced, but that’s only 10%. Reap the benefits of huge savings over the duration of ownership.
2) simplify the drivetrain. Subaru bit the bullet and gave up offering AWD as an option. You want a Subie, you get AWD. That’s it. No added expense with running an extra assembly line, no weird combinations popping up by checking the wrong option boxes. I think AWD is probably the best way to go.
3) simplify it some more. Americans are forgetting how to drive a stick. That’s okay, automatics are so much better than they used to be, it’s not really an issue anymore. Used to be for reliability you bought a manny, for convenience you got the slushbox. No longer required. But re-complex it some: make the auto capable of engine-off coasting, and push starting. This used to be possible with old Chryslers, it’s not a bad idea. Having a car you can get started by just parking at the top of a hill is a nod from the manufacturer to the owner: “we understand it’s going to break down someday. We’re trying to make your life a little easier by making it less of a breakdown.” If you can get your ride going on your own, off to the shop you go, happy your sturdy little truck could lift itself by its bootstraps. The simpler the control technology in the tranny, the easier it is to fix later – if it breaks. Fuzzy logic controls and adaptive shifting and whatnot is hardly useful. Fewer bits and pieces means fewer things to fail. That’s good.
4) keep the engine choices few. A sturdy gas engine that gives decent performance. Nobody needs 200hp. What American drivers can really feel isn’t horsepower but torque. They think they want to be able to tow a lot of weight, even if their only tow load is a canoe. So a somewhat longer-throw, slower engine that makes fewer horses, but they’re big, furry-footed draft horses. And a diesel for the serious truck users. Turbodiesels make big torque early in the rev range, just where serious truck owners want it. I’ve only towed a few loads, the biggest weighed about 2400lbs on the end of my Toyota, and my 22R engine got the job done just fine. More torque makes the difference.
5) don’t size the truck for Godzilla. Don’t make the front seat capable of fitting three guys. Make the cab great for two 95% guys all the time, and two more guys once in a while.
6) Give the thing a real bed. I’m sick to death of seeing dinky little beds on trucks. Part of the reason buyers go to the fullsize trucks is that the mid- and compact-size trucks have tiny beds that are almost worthless. Remember when “long bed” meant “seven feet or more?” I do. That’s what’s on my truck, and you can’t have that anymore without getting a fullsize. Make it capable of carrying a big load. It doesn’t have to be the full eight feet long, but no more of these Lilliputian load beds. Make a real 49″ between the wheel wells, too.
to this comment On May 27, 2010 at 9:41 am whitmore said:
There’s still hope for us BNT fans!
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/05/sources-gm-working-on-return-to-small-truck-roots.html
Wade, Can you please comment?
to this comment On May 28, 2010 at 10:06 am chizzy218 said:
There is hope!!!!
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/27/report-gm-working-on-new-small-truck/
to this comment On June 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm Wade Bryant said:
Sorry that it sometimes appears that we “tune out” of these blog conversations. The comments around Bare Necessity truck have been very valuable and are influencing our future products. We run through cycles of getting feedback and going silent as we work on new ideas. If you read through ALL the comments in this thread you’ll see that almost every angle has been covered and the comments tend to repeat after a while, so things naturally slow down on the thread.
I can’t comment on the recent online discussions from the two sources mentioned above. I found the blog post and the comments were very similar to this BN Truck tread on the LAB. It’s interesting that everyone is excited about a small pickup but the exact content and configurations people want cover quite a broad range.
to this comment On June 9, 2010 at 11:46 am TerryB. said:
Wayne,
A blog of this sort more-or-less requires regular input from your side, even if just to say, ‘nothing to report, but we’re working on some new designs’, and maybe a sketch or two. Otherwise, we tend to think GM has gone back to preaching from on high, and not listening to the consumers.
And, maybe you could take a hint from the reaction to the small truck offerings. Give us a basic Chevy LUV/Toyota Hilux sized platform, 4-cyl 6-speed manual, and let us option it up with a check list rather than ‘packages’. Diesel, V6, auto trans, 4WD, stretch cab, upgrade interior; all as specified by the purchaser and built to order with regular emails reporting progress. If everybody wants something a little different, let them order to suit.
to this comment On June 9, 2010 at 11:47 am TerryB. said:
Argh….. Wade, not Wayne. Note to self, proofread better before hitting submit. Sorry.
to this comment On June 17, 2010 at 8:30 pm jadanave said:
Build it and they will come? No, they are already here.
to this comment On June 24, 2010 at 1:23 amWilliam H Lanteigne said:
I’ve given the swiveling bulkhead idea some further thought, and it seems to make less and less sense. I think it would be less troublesome all around to make the thing with a “conventional” 4-door cab, and a telescoping bed that extends from 5′ in “short” form to 8′ in “longbed” form.
to this comment On June 29, 2010 at 11:16 pm Tony H. said:
Yes please make this truck.
to this comment On July 25, 2010 at 4:36 am buffv said:
I love the idea of this truck. As crazy as it sounds I am currenly restoring a 1981 vw rabbit diesel pickup. It has some very good traits you may want to consider. The motor was changed out from a non turbo to a 1.6 non computer turbo diesel. The truck gets about 42 mpg in mixed driving. Pulling power is excellant for a small truck. I recently had over 1000 lbs of floor tile in the bed and the motor pulled it easily at freeway speeds. (Suspension was bottomed out!)
My sugjestions for your truck. Use a modern simple turbo diesel with one automatic transmission. No options on the engine and transmission. Have enough engineering in it that the one powertrain has the flexibility to perform all functions within its design envelope. Keep the hybrid junk and sell it to toyota. Advertise the ability to run on bio diesel.
Keep the truck as light as possible. The more mass you put in it the more problems you have to solve. Novel uses of materials?
Keep the truck as simple as possible. Minimize all the government crap that is put into some cars. 20,000 air bags in a car might get some people to buy it but I believe the smart use of high strength steel/crush zones and proper enginering can solve a lot of safety problems.
Maximize the flexibility. I love the idea of 4 to 2 seating with the flexibility of the flipping rear hatch.
Keep the cost down. One of the problems with the Colorado is that it costs too much. ( to close to a full size truck) Make this truck so cost effective that small businesses would eat it up for a delivery vehicle. There aren’t many good options out there for this catagory.
What about using something like the mesh used in some office chairs for the rear seating. Super light, simple, removable, low cost, flexible?
Sorry about the spelling. Its late.
Best wishes!
to this comment On August 10, 2010 at 7:55 am Lifted trucks said:
Excellent idea, I think it will work really very well.
I think Most of the time peoples don’t need the full capacity of our trucks or suv’s, but they just buy them to just show richness or else.
For me the flexible cargo/Passenger space is a great idea. Great job dude!