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



  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Hi, everyone. As you've probably noticed, we have been trying to refine the discussions into more narrowly focussed topics. Our objective is twofold. We want to make it easier for people seeking specific information about their vehicles to find it easily and without having to wade through hundreds or thousands of postings.

    To those ends, we will be shutting down the general make/model discussions and work exclusively with specific issues. This requires us to populate the make/model subsections with relevant, interesting and timely topics. Rather than having the hosts simply create boilerplate topics for each make/model, we feel that you, the owner, the make/model enthusiast and the prospective buyer can best judge what those topics should be.

    You can help by adding a discussion (it's easy!) or suggesting one here.

    To add a discussion, click on the last link in the "You are here" line at the top of this page. That will take you to the topic page for this make/model. Review the list of topics and click on the "Add discussion" link when you've decided what topic you'd like to add. Follow the directions and you're done! Feel free to add more than one. Just avoid duplicating existing topics and try not to make it TOO specific!

    Your help and continued participation in the Forums is greatly appreciated! Thanks.
  • Sorry to here of the change, I enjoy following all issues related to a specific vehicle, I have enjoyed your site in the past, however if you feel you need to break-up the forum into separate topics, I do not believe this site is going to be very beneficial, thanks George
  • I agree with George.

    I don't want to read messages about Tahoes. I want to ONLY focus on 2007 Tahoe issues - ALL of them. :confuse:

  • Unlike the previous posters I welcome this change. It's far more familiar to those of us that visit other forums on the net, and far easier to find information about topics that interest you. Especially when a single wide ranging topic tends to have a lot of static with things you don't care about. This has led to having to search hundreds of posts to find a single piece of information in the past.

    Good job Edmunds!
  • I agree,

    Nothing is more frustrating that to go thru dozens of posts for all years (versions) of vehicles. The Ford Truck Enthusiasts website is a good example of how to break-up into meaningful pieces, while still allowing global searches.

  • You make a valid point, and I understand and respect your position as I hope you will respect mine. I have $53k invested in a newly designed Tahoe in it’s first year of production. In my first 3.5 months of ownership, I have had it in the shop 9 times for a variety of issue, ranging from poor MPG to the Air shocks not working properly. With this investment in a vehicle that is still in it’s first year of production, I am looking for a single source of what problems others are experiencing (all Problems), real life performance issues, and modifications other users have experienced. For instance, I experienced a leak in the rear hatch when washing the Tahoe, ended up being a poorly attached grommet on the rear hatch. I know of 2 other readers who experienced the same issue, both who thanked me for posting my experience/fix. Neither of them were looking for a post related to a leaking hatch, however they both were monitoring the general 2007 GMT forum like I do. It’s just a personal preference, I understand you opinion, I just hope there is some sort (no pun intended) of compromise. Thanks George
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,968
    Maybe I'm missing something but that looks like a forum with several big "groups" (think Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe group) with page after page of threads under each group. Over 1,000 pages with ~20 threads per page. Wouldn't a sub folder by issue be a bit easier to browse?

    If you track the Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe group here, then you can follow all the discussions, or decide just to track the ones about, say, transmission issues or tires. Seems like that would let you organize your browsing easier if you don't want to track every post about the Sub/Tahoe.

    The Advanced Search on the left sidebar is our global search; it doesn't seem that most people want to search that way though. But it'll continue to be available.
  • Maybe it’s just me, I guess I am just different. I check this site several times a day, and have signed up for the e-mail notification just because I do want to read every post related to the 2007 Tahoe. I only see 102 pages, am I missing something? George
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,968
    As often is the case with computer software, there are several different ways to do things. I like to use the tracking - I've subscribed to all the groups in SUVs (and a few others around the forum) and every time I pass by the computer, all my Tracked Items show up in the list. I can pick and choose which discussions to read there, but more often I just read the new posts using the Read New Posts link.

    The email notification will pick up every Suburban post too I guess. I don't use it but it's similar to tracking and you can turn it on for any or all of the Suburban discussions.

    Lots of people just Browse by Make/Model using the link on the left and click through from there. But tracking is more efficient imho, and it will pick up any new post in the ~47 Sub/Tahoe discussions that you subscribe too.

    By just subscribing to this discussion, you're missing the 2007 Tahoe/ 20"Wheels one, so that's another reason to regularly check the top level group if you aren't tracking all the discussions in it.
  • If you want some suggestions, PLEASE change the software you use for this bulletin board. Trying to follow discussions by topic on this board is frustrating. I have tried both the outline and date format and neither is friendly. The outline format on this board doesn't work as seamlessly as many other bb software applications widely used by high volume sites. Take a look at the various freeware apps out there that many high volume sites use and try one for yourself to see what I mean. For Example MegaBBS, phbBB, Simple Machines Forum, etc.
  • I don't understand why so many people are shocked at the mileage these trucks are getting. Did you really believe they somehow figured out how to get significantly better mileage while simulatenously increaseing HP and torgue with the same engine and drivetrain? If they could do that we wouldn't have seen $3.00/gal. If you don't need to tow something then why didn't you buy a mini van?
  • Gary is you nav. touch screen? Also were they fast on the shipping of the unit?
  • Failure of a manufacturer to meet documented product performance claims is not normally considered to be a "surprise". However, it is considered to be unlawful. Class action lawsuits are a possible remedy.
  • It is not a "manufacture’s" numbers it is the EPA's numbers aka the Federal Government. They are the averages of several tests, some lower, some higher. They are also done in a controlled environment. Go to the EPA's website and search around you will find the standards and how they are tested. It is no where close to how the vehicles are driven in real life.
  • ahightowerahightower DFWPosts: 429
    That's true that it's the EPA's, not the manufacturer's numbers... but GM sure does like to advertise that 21mpg highway figure.

    Having said that, I've never failed to get EPA estimates when I drive sanely and maintain my vehicles. And I'm tiring of this topic quickly.
  • Been there...done that. Only the naive are missing the reality here. Once more: the blame game will not fix the problem. Once more: EPA's numbers are misleading and a disservice to the public.

    Legislative action? Oh yes, we have that now.

    Why does it take federal legislative action to correct a product performance claim problem? Why has U.S. EPA not changed it's methods of estimating fuel ecomnomy for 21 years? Why did it take a mandate in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 to effect change in fuel economy estimates?

    Section 774 of EPACT 2005 instructs the EPA to create new fuel economy measurements that more accurately reflect today’s speed limits, city driving conditions and the use of air conditioning and other fuel depleting features.

    Was it reasonable to use 45 miles per hour as the representative highway speed for testing for 21 years?

    Are city driving conditions in Los Angeles representative of most city driving conditions in our country?

    Do we not use A/C to survive the heat and humidity in places like the south half of the U.S.?

    Please don't take my word for it.

    From the U.S. Senate Committe on Energy and Natural Resources...

    Chairman's statement:

    “The EPA hasn’t updated fuel economy estimates since 1985. We instructed the EPA to update their fuel economy estimates after hearing from frustrated and disappointed consumers who weren’t getting the mileage from their vehicles that advertisements had led them to expect.

    “I consider this provision in the energy bill one of the most potent consumer protections in the bill. It will literally influence how American consumers spend tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a vehicle is one of the most expensive choices a family will make. With gasoline hovering at $2.50 a gallon, fuel economy estimates play a huge role in that choice. I am pleased that the EPA is moving swiftly to implement this provision in the energy bill.”
  • ahightower says, That's true that it's the EPA's, not the manufacturer's numbers... but GM sure does like to advertise that 21mpg
    highway figure.

    GM global marketing isn't stupid. They are smart guys. They got the same MBA I got. They know a good thing when they see it. Why would they contradict innaccurate EPA "estimates" when...they favor Sales of GM products?

    ahightower says, Having said that, I've never failed to get EPA estimates when I drive sanely and maintain my vehicles. And I'm tiring of this topic quickly.

    You may be tiring...but you won't be getting the 16 - 21 MPG fuel economy in a Tahoe anytime soon.

    Sanity and maintenance have nothing to do with it.

    The basic physics of a 5.3L V8 pulling a 5500+ lb load with the a/c on...the cumulative member experience documented many times over on this 13-14 mpg o/a....the independent 3rd party fuel economy testing done by Consumers Union of 9 MPG's long term Tahoe testing 12.5 MPG...the U.S. Senate Energy Committee's research...all these data sources explain why. They get it.

    I get it.
  • You know what Rspencer, you have preached and preached that none of us will get the EPA estimates for our new 2007 Tahoes. Well I would like to join the others by saying please don't tell me what I am or am not getting. I have taken my 2007 LT3, loaded w/ all the bells, 3:73 gears 3 people and gear for the three of us for a weekend travelling between 68-80 mph for approx 270 miles and gotten 17.9 mpg. I drive approx 15 mi to work with say 9 of it hwy and the rest steady traffic and I get close to 14 mpg. Now understand this my non-hwy commute is up and down hills of at least 15% grade, so while I am not climbing Mt. Kilamanjaro I am going up and down some hills that drop the mpg significantly. Please leave us alone, and let us share our experiences with each other. If you don't get the same mpg then say, "I don't get that good mpg." Do not continue to question the accuracy of our statements. I don't work for GM I was once a Jeep salesman, and now work for a law firm. By the way why are you driving with the A/C on in mid-October. I am sorry if I offend you but I have seen your posts for several months now and like many others just want you to listen instead of always criticizing others.
  • Amen twernst. As I've said before I have an Avalanche. It's not rated quite as high as the Tahoe and yet I still see figures on par with the EPA numbers on my sticker (and above if I really try hard). Further, those numbers are still above the numbers rspencer seems to think aren't possible. My latest tank, which in additional to my regular daily highway commuting includes quite a bit of cruising residential neighborhoods (stopping to check out homes for sale while allowing the Av to idle, etc). And the DIC AVG MPG is already back up to around 18mpg. As I haven't passed the 1/2 tank mark yet it IS going to go up a bit more before I fill up next time. While the DIC may or may not be a bit optimistic, it's never been off more than 1 mpg. Keep in mind that this is a 5800lb vehicle- a bit heavier than your Tahoes, and rated a bit lower for EPA numbers, with 4.10 rear end gearing.

    As far as those quoted magazine results for fuel economy, in Edmunds' blogs they've admitted that where and how they drive may effectively lower their overall averages (I criticized their Camry / Accord for only returning between 22 and 25mpg the way they drive). I agree that the EPA city test using "LA" as the standard is unrealistic. Much of the rest of the country comes nowhere close to being as congested as LA for our city driving, so we get higher city numbers. ;)
  • No offense taken. Your 14-17.9 MPG is underachieving mileage. Where's the 16-21 MPG?
Sign In or Register to comment.