Would the GMT 360 platform lasted longer if it was available with a 5 or 6 speed auto

Bscfrank914

Original poster
Member
Aug 10, 2012
151
In my opinion the 4 speed automatic was a bad choice by GM. Don't get me wrong, I love my 9-7x and the tb I use to own, but boy does the 4 speed suck. Gas mileage, when babied for me is 11.0 mpg in the city, highway its 17.0 mpg. Out of curiosity, what do you guys think? Should GM have swapped in a 5 or 6 speed auto?
 

jonbo2002

Member
Sep 27, 2012
213
I don't think the trans has anything to do with the sales, maybe a little but not enough to stop the platform. the biggest problem is here in the U.S. everybody wants these crappy unibody crossovers, or a full size suv or truck.
 

Bartonmd

Member
Nov 20, 2011
545
Bscfrank914 said:
In my opinion the 4 speed automatic was a bad choice by GM. Don't get me wrong, I love my 9-7x and the tb I use to own, but boy does the 4 speed suck. Gas mileage, when babied for me is 11.0 mpg in the city, highway its 17.0 mpg. Out of curiosity, what do you guys think? Should GM have swapped in a 5 or 6 speed auto?

Truck 5-6 speeds came out about the time that the TB production was stopped (Allison doesn't count), which was the same time that a redesign was scheduled to happen, before Alfalfa got marketing to kill the GMT-360 line, saying that it was taking sales away from the full-size line. Having said that, the only thing that more gears does for you is more ratio coverage. I can't speak for the I6, really, but I don't think the 5.3L in this vehicle really NEEDS more ratio coverage. Stock, I normally did ~14 city, 15-16 mixed, and 19.5-20.5 on the highway.

Mike
 

Bscfrank914

Original poster
Member
Aug 10, 2012
151
If I remember correctly, I read an article that stated part of the reason the tb was discontinued, was because of its inability to reach the mpg requirements as set by the government. I also know sales plummeted in its last year, which also lead to its demise. :frown:
 

mnypitTBEXT

Member
Jan 29, 2012
133
Bscfrank914 said:
If I remember correctly, I read an article that stated part of the reason the tb was discontinued, was because of its inability to reach the mpg requirements as set by the government. I also know sales plummeted in its last year, which also lead to its demise. :frown:

Lets face it, the design had gotten old. No real changes in its entire run. It needed a facelift, instead GM chose to eliminate the only mid size SUV that could actually tow something bigger than a jetski. Then they wonder why they went bankrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: $ Khalid ! 9130

TexazReece

Member
Dec 4, 2011
1,341
mnypitTBEXT said:
Lets face it, the design had gotten old. No real changes in its entire run. It needed a facelift, instead GM chose to eliminate the only mid size SUV that could actually tow something bigger than a jetski. Then they wonder why they went bankrupt.

:iagree:
 

Bartonmd

Member
Nov 20, 2011
545
Bscfrank914 said:
If I remember correctly, I read an article that stated part of the reason the tb was discontinued, was because of its inability to reach the mpg requirements as set by the government. I also know sales plummeted in its last year, which also lead to its demise. :frown:

There is no fuel mileage requirement from the government, in this range. If there were, they would cancel all the full-sized trucks and SUVs. There is a corporate AVERAGE fuel economy requirement, but no requirement for specific vehicles. Fuel mileage would/could have been addressed in the redesign that was scheduled. I'm sure it was before you, but when we were back over at Trailvoy, there was an Engineer who worked for GM truck at the time that this all went down (billdaman was his screen name). He had posted on one of the "why are they cancelling the redesigh?" threads that marketing had already OK'd the redesign, and wanted the redesign, but the head of GM global engineering, Jim Queen (known as alfalfa) convinced the brass above marketing's heads that mid-sized uni-body SUVs were where it's at for the US market, and the 360/370 line was stealing business from the more profitable full-size SUV line, and that the redesign should be cancelled. The brass agreed and over-ruled marketing, and the TB died. Over-seas engineering actually did the redesign several years later, which is what we're seeing now. I remember him saying something about that the Lambda was supposed to be another option along side the TB, not replacing it. The Lambda platform was actually designed to tow 3k#, but when Lutz came down with Queen and cancelled the 360 platform, word was that there was a gap in the lineup, and the Lambda had to be rated to tow 4k#. A few days later, nothing had changed in the design, but the Lambda platform was now rated to tow 4k#. It was much more political inside GM than technical, or governmental.

Mike
 

mnypitTBEXT

Member
Jan 29, 2012
133
Bartonmd said:
There is no fuel mileage requirement from the government, in this range. If there were, they would cancel all the full-sized trucks and SUVs. There is a corporate AVERAGE fuel economy requirement, but no requirement for specific vehicles. Fuel mileage would/could have been addressed in the redesign that was scheduled. I'm sure it was before you, but when we were back over at Trailvoy, there was an Engineer who worked for GM truck at the time that this all went down (billdaman was his screen name). He had posted on one of the "why are they cancelling the redesigh?" threads that marketing had already OK'd the redesign, and wanted the redesign, but the head of GM global engineering, Jim Queen (known as alfalfa) convinced the brass above marketing's heads that mid-sized uni-body SUVs were where it's at for the US market, and the 360/370 line was stealing business from the more profitable full-size SUV line, and that the redesign should be cancelled. The brass agreed and over-ruled marketing, and the TB died. Over-seas engineering actually did the redesign several years later, which is what we're seeing now. I remember him saying something about that the Lambda was supposed to be another option along side the TB, not replacing it. The Lambda platform was actually designed to tow 3k#, but when Lutz came down with Queen and cancelled the 360 platform, word was that there was a gap in the lineup, and the Lambda had to be rated to tow 4k#. A few days later, nothing had changed in the design, but the Lambda platform was now rated to tow 4k#. It was much more political inside GM than technical, or governmental.

Mike

Yeah, and its direct competition can tow nearly 8k. Great idea on GMs part!!
 

RayVoy

Member
Nov 20, 2011
939
GM having the 360/370 trucks in it's lineup never made any sense to me (I love the truck, it just didn't fit in the lineup).

Think about it, to maximize profit, it make sense to share the SUV body with a pickup body. It is done very successfully with the full-size trucks, was done very well with the S10 size trucks, but the Trailblazer SUV had no pickup variant.
The other problem the 360/370 trucks faced (IMO) was that they were too big to be mid-sized and not quite big enough to be called full-size.
Along with the SUV with no matching pickup, they had a pickup with no matching SUV.

The new Trailblazer now fits into the lineup. It will share parts with the new Colorado; unfortunately (for lovers of the old Trailblazer), it, like the new Colorado, will now be considered mid-size.
 

Jkust

Member
Dec 4, 2011
946
It's funny how wide the mileage varies amongst each of us. Each of my three 360's all with the 5.3/4AWD/3.73 and two with DOD have gotten very similar mileage. I agree that when you are on the highway going 70, it needs another gear or two. That said, i've driven the lambdas for a month at a time and hated the six speed and massive lack of power/torque and same poor mileage. I generally like everything else about them. I bought all of my 360's to tow my boat and snowmobiles where I need a little more oomph in many situations.
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,483
Posts
639,847
Members
18,716
Latest member
sloftin

Members Online