Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
edited September 13 in Chevrolet
Well, the current Tahoe/Yukon date back to 2000 when they were completely overhauled. They have been tweaked here and there, but there's no hiding their age. The next generation Yukon/Tahoe really have to be good to compete against the Expedition/Armada/Sequoia and the other numerous crossovers.

In addition to redesigning the Tahoe/Yukon, GM is also redesigning the Silverado, Sierra, Escalade, EXT, ESV, Avalanche, Suburban and Yukon XL. They will be on sale in spring 2006. We'll probably see a production ready Yukon/Tahoe at the 2006 Auto Shows.

Here is the Inside Line article.

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2007/gmc/yukon/100491429/preview.html
«134567101

Comments

  • I will repeat here, what I have said elsewhere. I am really disappointed in GM for putting this design forward in it's present form. I'm not talking about the body style or anything as trivial as that. I am talking about the whole approach to fuel effeciency.

    GM had (perhaps still has) an opportunity to provide far and away class leading fuel effeciency and instead they decide to provide more power through a larger V8. AS IF the 5.3 of today WASN'T large enough! At last report the new and improved Tahoe/Yukon is slated to receive a 6.0 liter motor! So GM has decided to take the effeciency gains from their new Displacement On Demand technology and drop in more power - because we just didn't have enough before! Yes, this was the wisdom that came out of GM headquarters in this - the time of $3.50 (and climbing) a gallon regular unleaded. Let me put this another way. Instead of going for the gold - in fuel effeciency - GM settles for a pitiful 2.1 mpg improvement in fuel economy. This assumes the optomistic prediction that Edmunds quotes of a full 15% effeciency gain and 14 mpg city driving.

    No wonder GM and the other domestic auto makers are in such trouble.

    Anybody else still wonder why Toyota is posting such huge sales increases?
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    Who said Panoz and Saleen were in such huge trouble?

    The 2006 Corvette Z06 has a 7.0 liter V-8 with 26 mpg, 505 hp, 470 lb-ft of torque, a huge aftermarket, etc.

    GM needs to use its 4.2 liter 275 hp I-6 in more cars and trucks.

    They new 2007 GM trucks and suvs aren't even officially released.
  • Who said Panoz and Saleen were in such huge trouble?

    GM's troubles are pretty well documented in the media.

    The 2006 Corvette Z06 has a 7.0 liter V-8 with 26 mpg, 505 hp, 470 lb-ft of torque, a huge aftermarket, etc.

    Apples to Oranges comparision here. The power to weight ratios of those two vehicles can't be compared, but I will give you the surprising fuel economy numbers of the Vette. You don't usually think of a Corvette that way, but it does surprisingly well.

    GM needs to use its 4.2 liter 275 hp I-6 in more cars and trucks.

    This is EXACTLY the line of thinking I am suggesting. Smaller, more fuel effecient motors with good numbers. It is an opportunity that they don't seem to recognize.

    Don't believe me? Do a little Googleing for Displacement On Demand, or Allison advanced hybrid bus technology and you will see all you need to see with a little reading. GM currently plans to use the effeciency gains in lieu of a bigger (heavier no doubt) motor that will yield a modest 2 mpg gain. NOT good enough. Now this doesn't mean that they can't change their mind, but the reading you can do on DOD and the upcoming hybrid technology will tell you their current plans. The truth of those plans as they stand are short sighted and just plain wrong. When gasoline hits $5 a gallon (it is not far off now) - who will want to spend $140 to fill the tank on a Tahoe?

    They new 2007 GM trucks and suvs aren't even officially released.

    I am hoping there are changes to the current plan - but official announcements are coming. Search around for yourself and see.
  • "At last report the new and improved Tahoe/Yukon is slated to receive a 6.0 liter "

    Can you point me where is this info coming from? I'm very tempted to take the current employee discount to get a new Tahoe. But if the 2007 has a 6.0, I will definitely wait for it even it means to pay a bit more. I know gas is keep going up but HP rules in my book.
  • I haven't been ignoring you 4rider, I just didn't have much time to dig around for that information source. Here is the link -

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_2_185/ai_n12937473

    The Feb. 2005 article talks about how the different GM hybrid systems work and at the very bottom of the article it contains the information about the 6.0L V-8 for the Tahoe/Yukon.

    This system is going to have to turn a REAL WORLD 25% improvement in order for people to notice the difference. Even at that 14 mpg (average for current Tahoe) to 17.5 mpg isn't all that great. Especially considering the fact you'll pay a handsome premium to get into that model. In addition, any tax credit that people are expecting to offset this extra cost won't be there because the tax credit amount is based on how much improved the hybrid model is versus the average vehicle in that class. The hybrid tahoe isn't projected to be THAT much improved so the tax credit will be minimal.
  • beach15beach15 Posts: 1,305
    This info on the '07 Tahoe is being released from GM today around 9am, so keep your eyes open on the net for the first postings of it....
  • Hey, thanks a lot for posting that link! I really appreciate it, and I'm sure others do as well!

    The new Tahoe looks great inside and out. Gone is that ugly flat slab sided dash of the previous GM trucks. I love the wood panelling and the new steering wheel design.

    More importantly, these new pictures of the Tahoe hint at what the new Suburban, Escalade, Silverado and Avalanche will be like it. If the Tahoe is any indication, I'd say GM has nailed it this time. It's back in the game with the Expedition, Durango, Armada and Sequoia.
  • The inside of the Chevy looks great. I can't wait to see the exterior design of the Yukon/Yukon XL. I hope they give us the option to have both the GPS system and a 6 CD player. It's either one or the other, but not both. (unless you go upscale to Denali or Cadillac)

    Finally, does anybody have any idea what engines will be offered in the 2500 versions? I do some towing and need the big block to pull the trailer.
  • The front looks very nicely integrated and quite attractive overall without being overdone. The interior is awesome and the segment leading 20 MPG with DOD should silence many of the critics. Toyota(and everyone else) will have a difficult time competing with this excellent fuel economy for a vehicle this large and heavy.
  • vanman1vanman1 Posts: 1,397
    It finally has a nice interior.
  • Anyone have an educated guess on the location (state) of these new 900 platform Tahoe pics?
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    Looks like a winner. Anxously awaiting, by the time the Suburban comes out I'll be ready to trade mine in.
  • The rear-end is more minivan than SUV, but the face is much improved, and the interior is like night and day.

    From 290-400HP. NICE! :D

    Too bad they waited until the end of this SUV-craze to make a good one.

    GM: A dollar short and a week late, again. :(

    DrFill
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    I'm reading Autoweek and I can't believe how nice the interior is on this thing. Is GM finally learning how to put together a proper interior? If the Chevy version looks this good, the Cadillac Slade interiors should be really something.

    image

    They should have switched over to one of those BMW/MB style colum shifters though. That shifter just sticks out too far, but other than than this really looks good, especially around the air vents. The dash looks looks padded and soft like a high-end product should be.

    I had always said that interiors of the current trucks were their weakest point by far. I mean the dashboard and steering wheels are right out of a 80's C/K pick up, (ugly as hell) even in the Escalades, but that has changed dramatically it appears.

    The exterior isn't bad looking either. I like how it hides the true size of the thing. It looks like its the size of a Trailblazer.

    image

    M
  • Are these pictures correct?? While the interior is vastly improved...no fold flat third row seats?? Are you kidding?? This absolutely takes the new Tahoe off my list. I can't believe this is correct!?!?
  • dan165dan165 Posts: 653
    Having left my old Yukon for a Grand Prix, seeing these pictures makes me want a Tahoe. It will be interesting to see if the 20mpg is close to reality though. Wonder if mild hybrid systems could be added for further efficiency?
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    I agree that no-fold flat seats are disappointing. I'm sure for GM to make that happen, they would have needed to incorporate an IRS, (which from what I've read), got chopped when they decided to bring the new model out sooner.

    Since I use my Suburban for towing, I don't know if I want the added complexity of an IRS. Yes they can improve ride and handling, but in my SUV, I don't know if I want to worry about rear alignments, and 1/2 shafts etc.

    I don't really miss a fold Flat seat in my Suburban. It has plenty of room behind the 3rd row and 99% of the time our 2 kids like to have a row to themselves. I like that too, since they don't fight from separate rows.

    Now I'm reall curious on the powertrain specs, engines, trans, rear end gear ratios etc.
  • As someone who is going to be in the market for a full size SUV in the coming months, I anxiously awaited pictures of the new GM products. I figure given the benchmarks in the industry,and GM's dire need to hit a home run, this new product would be nothing less than a grand slam. Not quite

    The exterior looks fantastic in the pictures. As another poster stated the pictures appear to make it look smaller than it is. This is a good thing especially in the era of $3 per gal. fuel. This is a vast improvement over the old slab sided model.

    The interior doesn't even look like a GM product of old. From the pictures, it looks to be a very high quality cabin loaded with features designed to be a very inviting place to be. Looks like Bob Lutz had a hand in this design.

    The problem with this new model is the third seat. How could GM possible believe that they had the new standard of the industry with a removable third seat. The competition has had a hide away folding seat for several years. Typically when you design a new product, you try to incorporate the best features from your competitors. Is GM still so high and mighty that they think they don't have any competitors? What were they thinking when they designed the seating for this vehicle??

    Just when you think the General may be getting turned around, they slide back into the GM of old.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    No IRS, no fold flat seat. The only SUVs on the market with a fold flat 3rd row have IRS to allow room for the seat to fold the seat flat. The Durango 3rd row does fold, but It's not completely flat. I'll wait to see if GM made any modifications to the 3rd row, because currently they are way to heavy
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,724
    I agree 100%. No IRS and a goofy folding 3rd-row seat is going to hurt this model. FWIW, the new '06 Armada now has a split-fold 3rd-row seat (finally!).

    It's a shame because this is the best looking GM truck ever.

    Bob
  • Being a 20 year GM full size car/truck driver, I have some mixed feeling about the new Tahoe.

    I'm glad to see the 5.3 has now 325 hp. However, I was hoping for 350hp which could realy put competions out for a significant periord of time. I am not sure the 5.3 will be even stack up to the power in the 2007 Sequoia. The 6.0 and 6.2 are fantastic. Unfortuately, GM does not say the 6.0 and 6.2 will be available on Tahoe. I think the 6.2 will be only be available for Escalates and Denalis .

    The displyment on demand trick dated back to 20 years ago on some Caddy models. I think now it will work much better and great on open freeway but not so great on daily city driving.

    I like the interior which is far bettern then the current one. However, I think the exterios is much softer now and more like a mini van with the raked back windshild and lowered front facias. If I wanted aero dynamics, I would have looked for an sports car.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    I don't think the answer is increased HP, I mean it's great to put in a flier, but what we want in an SUV is torque and more than 4 gears. That's how the Nissan Armada/Infinity QX56 out accelerate and out tow the Hemi Durango and the current Suburban/Tahoe/Escalade.

    The Nissan/Infiniti 5.6 does not have the most horsepower, both the Hemi and 6.0 Escalade are putting out around 340hp & are both slower pulling and non-pulling than the Armada/QX56.

    325hp is nice from the 5.3, but if torque output isn't improved at a lower RPM and a 5speed trans isn't offered it most likely will be no where near class leading.

    I find the 5.3 in my '00 Suburban to be marginal when towing my 5,000lb boat, the going gets pretty slow thru the hills, HP isn't the problem, torque is.

    Overall, I'm looking forward to seeing the new trucks/SUV. I don't have a problem with not having an IRS, but if the powertrains aren't improved by much I'll probably look elsewhere.
  • 06lly06lly Posts: 21
    The problem with this new model is the third seat. How could GM possible believe that they had the new standard of the industry with a removable third seat. The competition has had a hide away folding seat for several years. Typically when you design a new product, you try to incorporate the best features from your competitors. Is GM still so high and mighty that they think they don't have any competitors? What were they thinking when they designed the seating for this vehicle??

    Yeah but.....

    The fold flat seats is all about trade offs. The IRS coupled with fold flat seats is $$$ and that takes away from what can be spent in other areas. Then you have to consider that when they fold flat, the resulting cargo space is typically smaller than it is with the non fold flat seats when they are removed. Also, the IRS is not the best for towing, off-road use or durability.

    The beauty of the new Tahoe design is how you end up with two nice flat levels with the seats folded. This space will pack with suitcases and boxes quite nicely.

    Also, there are usually compromises in the size and seating comfort of the seats when they must fold into the floor.

    So a lot of trade offs here. Overall, when you consider the $$ and the functionality, I think this is an excellent design.
  • I understand who HP and torgue work perfectly. I just did not go that much details when complaining about the new 5.3 I also know that the new 5.3 has similar torque and towing capacity so there isnt much improvment in terms of heavy loading.

    What I really want is to have the 6.0 available as an option in LTs. So that Tahoe can fend off serious challenges from Armada and 2007 Sequoia. Like you mentioned, without having a definitely edge on the power front, the new Tahoe will not see the days it had before when there was no real challengers.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,724
    I think if you put the new Tahoe next to an Armada, or an Expedition, both with IRS and fold-flat 3rd-row seats, the advantages of the IRS/fold-flat seats will become very apparent.

    I'm not in the market for a full-size SUV, but if I were, the Tahoe's 3rd-row seat design would be a dealbreaker for me. It's a shame because I think this is the best looking GM truck ever.

    Bob
  • You are exactly right. And that was my point when I wrote my initial post. GM supposedly started with a clean sheet of paper on this redesign. The IRS may not work for a small percentage of the people that buy these vehicles. However when you look at the vast majority of buyers out there, I will bet most would gladly take the IRS and folding seat over the new design.

    GM's market share is roughly 1/2 of what it was 20 years ago. If there goal was to try to appeal to a minority of the market, they nailed it .

    Once again the General needs to get its head out of its ___, and realize that they no longer own the market in the US. If they ever want to turn things around, they need to listen to the comsumer and give us what we want. Look what the Japanese have done in 20 years by listening to us.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    and those idiots at GM didn't put a diesel engine in this thing?

    A modern turbo-diesel would improve mileage a good 30%. Imagine 20 mpg city, instead of 14. Low 20's on the highway. Better towing. And they didn't do it. Fools.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,653
    and those idiots at GM didn't put a diesel engine in this thing?

    A modern turbo-diesel would improve mileage a good 30%. Imagine 20 mpg city, instead of 14. Low 20's on the highway. Better towing. And they didn't do it. Fools.


    I agree
«134567101
This discussion has been closed.