GM DEFENSE AWARDED A $214.3M CONTRACT TO PRODUCE THE U.S. ARMY’S INFANTRY SQUAD VEHICLE

4WD said:
Been wondering about the off-road capable SUV too … ? Something a bit different from the Rubicon vs Bronco show pending.
Click to expand...
building a BOF softroader to go after the 4runner is a pointless endeavor and will end in failure

the market is saturated.
 
Said above, "....they parked a Colorado in front of my house. Cool looking vehicle..... I see very few of them on the road. Unless I'm missing them..."

I agree. Wife's coworker has a more basic one and I've never seen one since and I notice things. Are Colorados overpriced?
 
Kira said:
Said above, "....they parked a Colorado in front of my house. Cool looking vehicle..... I see very few of them on the road. Unless I'm missing them..."

I agree. Wife's coworker has a more basic one and I've never seen one since and I notice things. Are Colorados overpriced?
Click to expand...
Everything is overpriced right now due to the obvious...

When the current gen Colorado came out, it was the favorite among most enthusiasts. It then hit a wall and was plagued with transmission issues. That tarnished its reputation quite a bit. The midsize king Tacoma was also plagued with issues, but they weren't part failures, just awful drivability issues that people to this day do not like.
 
Blinker said:
Im surprised they haven’t built an SUV from this chassis yet. I suppose they don’t want any more body on frame SUVs. It would have been the PERFECT blazer replacement.
Click to expand...

They have for almost 10 years in most places except North America as the Trailblazer and Holden Colorado.
1630185393276.jpg

It's not very good looking, but that would be easy enough to tweak for US tastes.

They won't sell it here because stuff like the Traverse is more profitable and easier to get higher MPG out of.

Ford also has an SUV version of the Ranger for everywhere but North America that is about as ugly.
 
Jake_J said:
Seems like more of a niche vehicle, $214 million isn't actually a lot for a defense contract so I wonder how many vehicles that will work out to. If I was an infantryman I'd think I'd prefer a vehicle that offered even minimal small arms fire protection.
Click to expand...
probably xviii airborne corps units will get these for contingency operations. first armor will still be driving their tracks!
 
"Ok guys, let's do this. We're heading into enemy territory. Oh sh$t we have the 8 speed transmission shudder!" :LOL:
 
Jake_J said:
Seems like more of a niche vehicle, $214 million isn't actually a lot for a defense contract so I wonder how many vehicles that will work out to. If I was an infantryman I'd think I'd prefer a vehicle that offered even minimal small arms fire protection.
Click to expand...
The total production ISV contract award value is $214.3 million to procure the initial Army Procurement Objective of 649. The approved Army Acquisition Objective is 2,065 vehicles.

I think its a good fit. Proven platform. Parts are abundant so there is no need to reinvent the wheel so to speak.
 
I'm sure our enemies will appreciate some much needed creature comforts and handling and armor when we give them billions of more dollars in equipment... GRRRRRRRRR
 
PimTac said:
The reality is that GovMo is trying to mimic Hyundai. Hyundai has a defense subsidiary and they are very busy building all manners of vehicles , weapons, ships, and so forth.
Click to expand...
GM has a long way to go if they want to come even close to the industrial weight of Hyundai Group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top