Howdy, Stranger!

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





Chevy Tahoe

18990929495205

Comments

  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,231
    well based on some of these "sites" most folks with the chattering are complaining of oil consumption as well. ironically, I've got no chatter, but have consumed about a quart in 4400 miles. Go figure. Maybe I'm wrong, happened once or twice before;)

    Any idea when the PCV valve was updated? My '02 was built in May I believe and like I said, it's using a bit of oil.
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    Mine was built around 12/00 and had the old style. The new style probably came out before 3/02 but I am not sure how much before.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Engine - Higher Than Expected Oil Consumption

    File In Section: 06 - Engine/Propulsion System

    Bulletin No.: 01-06-01-029

    Date: December, 2001

    TECHNICAL

    Subject:
    Higher than Expected Engine Oil Consumption (Replace PCV Valve)

    Models:
    1999-2002 Chevrolet and GMC C/K Models
    2002 Cadillac Escalade
    with 5.3L or 6.0L Engine (VINs T, N, U - RPOs LM7, L09, LQ4)

    Condition

    Some customers may comment on higher than expected engine oil consumption. They may further comment on consumption in the range of 2,000 miles (3,200 km) or less per quart (0.946 liter) of oil under normal driving conditions.

    Cause

    The condition may be due to the PCV Valve flow rate under certain engine operating conditions.

    Correction

    1. Verity that the oil consumption is not the result of an oil leak or other engine concern.

    2. Dealer should perform an oil consumption test. The vehicle should have accumulated over 4,000 miles (6,450 km) before establishing the oil consumption rate. Reference Service Bulletin # 01-06-01-011, Information on Engine Oil Consumption Guideline, for details.

    3. Remove the PCV Valve and inspect the hose going to the intake manifold for signs of excessive oil being present.

    4. If excessive oil is present in the PCV hose, replace the PCV Valve Type 948C (2) with a new-style fixed orifice PCV Valve Type CV2OO1-C (1). See Fig. 1 - PCV Valve Identification.

    Important :Do not install the new style fixed orifice PCV Valve on vehicles equipped with the 4.8L V8 Engine (RPO LR4). Use of this orifice on the 4.8L V8 engine may affect engine idle quality and engine RPM control.

    Important :The new style fixed orifice PCV Valve contains no moving parts, and does not rattle when shaken.

    If the vehicle has an orifice style PCV Valve, investigate other causes for high oil consumption.

    Parts Information

    Parts are currently available from GMSPO.

    Warranty Information

    For vehicles repaired under warranty, use the table.



    What's interesting is that I decided to replace my PCV not because of oil usage but rather mileage on the truck. I was given the old style PCV valve by the dealer since NAPA doesn't have a replacement unit available in the aftermarket. I tried to get the new style being offered but the local dealer doesn't stock them forcing me to order it via the internet. BTW, for those interested, the new part no. is 12572717. It should have been listed above in the TSB but the pictures don't copy/paste into edmunds for some reason.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    Tahoe (essentially the same vortec V8 engine) and both had a slight knock on start up, and it went away as soon as I drove a few hundred feet. You have to listen carefully to hear the knock over the radio, but it is there. Some apparently have real loud knocks, which would concern me if I had one of those - but I have not had a loud knocker yet. Never had an oil consumption issue, but I don't keep these vehicles past 6 months/about 3,000 - 4,000 miles, and I drive carefully (don't hot rod it) - so my experience may not be the norm. GM has these engines "leaned out" to improve gas mileage, so you also get a bit of a rough idle, especially with the A/C on - but I have had this condition with every GM vehicle I have owned. Personally, I would buy the 5.3 or 4.8 vortec without hesitation.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    2002 Yukon SLT with Autoride to get the best ride possible. I noticed no difference between the Autoride and standard suspension in the Yukon/Tahoe. There may be a slight improvement over very washboard roads, but not enough to warrant the extra $$ for me. The Autoride is said to provide better load leveling when pulling a trailer, but I would never pull a trailer with a 1/2 ton vehicle - I would get a 3/4 ton vehicle like the Suburban/Yukon XL 3/4 ton - just my preference. I prefer an equalizer hitch and swaybar (Reese or Drawtite) for load leveling. Just a basic Tahoe/Yukon will be a big improvement over your current Jimmy, but you really should have your wife ride in both vehicles (with and without autoride) before you spend the money. Try getting a test drive on a rough road - the car salesmen always know where to find one - they do this all the time. One other big consideration is the seats. I find the basic bench seats to be easier on my back than the 8 way deluxe leather bucket seats - but a long trip is rough with either seat. A custom made aftermarket lumbar support on a bench seat is the best option I have found for my back. Have your wife vist a "Relax the Back" store if she has not done so already - they have a lot of products and good information. Good luck to you and your wife.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,231
    I agree, the bench seats were far more comfortable to me. Plus I find the fold down console better as well. Throw in the extra passenger space and buckets just weren't for me. Can't get a bench seat on an LT though, so you're up the creek if you want any of the LT options like leather.

    These trucks really rely on the auto-leveling suspension as even with what I consider a light load, the truck squats quite a bit. I have the standard suspension and you have to drive it a couple miles to get the level feature to work. Not a big deal for me, but it seems silly I can hook the same trailer to my Cherokee and it squats maybe 1" where the Tahoe will squat 4". I have a feeling the Z71 with a more truck-like suspension would handle it better. I didn't find any difference driving an auto-ride and the standard suspension, and that included some "chip-and-seal" type roads. Both wallowed around about equally in my opinion. Both ride very good though, as far as taking bumps and not jarring you around. The auto-ride suspension also has a lot of hoses/wires running around under the rear axle, which I can see getting ripped off if you ever go off-road. I do drive through fields sometimes so it was a consideration for me.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    I checked out the differences between the 2002 and 2003 standard Tahoe LS this weekend. For those who may be interested, there is a lot less standard equipment on the 2003 compared to the 2002. Missing as standard equipment on the 2003 are:
    Electrochromic outside rear view mirror
    Power passenger seat
    Lumbar adjustment for driver's seat
    Power Door lock near rear liftgate
    Underhood light
    Air filter indicator
    Homelink in short roof console
    Luggage rack cross bars
    Cargo net

    Added to the 2003 model are:
    RDS radio with cassette and CD
    Full rear wheel well liners
    Different electronic monitoring in instrument panel
    Moved monitoring adjustment knob from center lower to upper right instrument panel and the knob now has a tighter fit.

    I'm sure I missed some things, but these are the things I noticed.

    I really miss the electrochromic outside rear view mirror. To get that feature I guess you need to get the LT version for $4K more.
    I did recommend in the owner evaluation forms on my last 3 vehicles that GM move that adjustment knob and not have such a big hole around it. A lot of dust accumulates inside the instrument panel out here in the desert so I would always put a black felt washer around the knob to keep the dust out. It looks like the new knob might be dust free. Could GM actually have taken some customer input and made a change?
    The full size rear wheel well liners are nice - don't have to scrub the undercoating to remove the mud and dirt as with the half-size 2002 liners.
    I think my next customer survey will include a suggestion to allow customers to select some of the options they removed as standard equipment on the 2003 LS. I wouldn't mind paying more for the options - just don't want to spend $4K on a lot of things I don't want and which will depreciate rapidly if not instantly. Clearly, GM is marketing this 2003 Tahoe to nudge customers to the higher priced LT. This strategy might backfire if Ford and Chrysler can get in the middle of this price range with lower priced selectable options instead of high priced packages - should be interesting to watch - dealers tell me customers are more price sensitive now and hesitate on the high priced loaded vehicles. Looks like one of the few selectable options is the third seat, for which GM appears to have about doubled the price in the past few weeks. I'd say we really do have inflation in this economy - at least for Tahoes.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    I wonder how much GM saved on that one. Wish they dumped the OnStar instead.
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    how many old Suburbans I see moving along the road. Maybe they're easy to fix. Maybe they're cheap to fix. Maybe they're useful enough that owners live with the $ they take to fix. Maybe those big old, sloppy, GM engines are pretty good. Whatever, I sure see alot of old ones out there.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    expensive and overpriced for them to justify buying another.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,231
    and bring premium money on the used market. The suburban is always ranked extremely high in resale value. Take a look at some prices they are bringing. Over five years they are equal to the landcruiser in resale % and far better than most other utes. Even 10-15 year old burbans bring premiums.
  • 03tahoe03tahoe Posts: 83
    and easy to self maintain. Will not buy a 2003 since they removed so many standard items, don`t offer a full option set and raised prices so much. Wished they would offer the quad steering on the half ton units - if they had I would have purchased a new Tahoe. With severe spine problems I can`t twist around to check clearance while parking. It would be so much easier to park with quad steering. Don`t really care if cost is high I just want it. I will look again at all SUV`s on the market next year. Maybe the Forrester will enlarge to the Tahoe size and offer some neat new features in 2004. If so they have a sale. You are still buying a 2002 Tahoe today with a 2003 date on the invoice.
    My 92 needs a drivers window motor, new electric outside window mirrors, drivers door hinges - to correct the bad sag - and better rear brakes. She has only 165,000 miles on her so I don`t mind paying out a small amount for regular wear and tear. Just because my brother wants to buy my Suburban, will pay a local shop to convert my rear brakes to disk. He usually drives at high speed and I`m afraid that he will outrun the drum brakes ability to stop. For family you do this type of thing. Will most likely sell it to him next August for the cost of the listed repairs.
    The service manuals were of a better quality in 1992 and prior years. They have really gone down in quality in recent years. Have always bought the Service Manual set with each of my four Suburbans. In general quite satisfied with all four trucks = were great for a family of five. Need a smaller truck now. Tahoe size would be great. Would advise others to keep the old units a few more years - IF they are in good condition. My two tone paint job still looks great - no rust.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    eliminated as standard equipment on the 2003 model. I'm guessing about $1500-$2000 in options were deleted as standard equipment in 2003.
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    I've not followed any of this since I bought my Tahoe in Feb. Did the base price for the LS go down? If not, that's quite a jump in price.
  • ianshawianshaw Posts: 119
    Well - I took the leap and purchased a new spitfire red 02 Tahoe LT to replace my 9 month old pewter 02 LS. Between the color and the painted moldings, the new truck looks much more up-scale than did my old one.

    The above-noted posts about options and pricing are right on the money. The 03's have very few improvements, a considerably marked up price tag and are missing some important standard features. When you combine this with the great incentives being offered on the 02 models, I'm not sure why anyone would buy an 03 if an 02 was available. (The Denver area still has lots of 02 Tahoes on their lots.) Although I think I got an unusually high trade in value, GM's incentives have left me paying $20 LESS per month for an LT Tahoe than I did for an LS. And, other than the trade-in, the only money I put down was the money I would have paid for the 90 days that I don't have to pay under GM's new incentive scheme.

    However, for me, buying a new Tahoe seems like a risk. My old one was in the shop for 20 days during its 9 months of ownership (alignment, front diff. replacement, transfer case replacement, oil consumption tests etc.). GM is not going to get a third chance if this vehicle is not "built like a rock!!"
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    I'd buy another if I'd had your experience. In my 9 months with an 02 LS, I've been to the service department 2 times. Total time in the service department for fairly minor problems.........12 hours. I consider that unfortunate but acceptable. Twenty days....wow!
  • psp1996psp1996 Posts: 18
    Does anyone know if the Tahoe's New Dark Gray Metallic is the same as the Yukon's Carbon Metallic?

    TIA
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,231
    For those the have factory running boards but DO NOT have the fender flares, Husky makes some nice moulded mud-guards for the front of the Tahoe/Yukons. From the goodwrench site and my dealer, GM does not make a set for the front with this set-up. I don't really like the looks of the fender flares on the Tahoe, but without something up there I was getting mud all over the sides of the truck. These guards do the trick and blend in with the running boards nicely. Just a little FYI for those with the same problem.
  • cosbencosben Posts: 2
    Do anyone of you Tahoe owners have experience the following A/C problems. When A/C is on the LOW fan setting and the truck is idle ( stop or park ) a weird air pressure leak noise occurs. It could only be heard inside the truck. Also a loud humming type noise as well. I've taken my Tahoe 4 times to the dealer and they have no clew on how to fix the problem. One service advisor tells me this is normal.They yet have to show me any other Tahoe with the same noise/vibration.

    Your feedback will be appreciated..
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    I haven't actually seen both but I'm sure they are the same. Chevy and GMC do the same with most of the colors, same color diff. name.
  • yukondyukond Posts: 1
    Has anyone experienced any starting problems? Most often it occurs during the warmer months but it sometimes takes two turns of the key before I can get it started

    Also, the Firestone LEs that came equipped are absolutely horrible in rain and snow. What would you recommend for a good all purpose/weather tire?
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    Try Michlein Cross Terrains. Get H speed rated if you can (better cornering and heat disapation).
  • I did put the Michlein Cross Terrains on my Tahoe
    P265/70R/16 and I love them. They are pricy at $180 a tire with RWL and $150 for BL, but well worth it. Smoothest ride I have ever had in a SUV, and rain handling is a sure grip.They have a 65K warranty and might very well be the last tire I buy for the truck.
    Dave
  • Cosben,

    My 2002 Tahoe vibrates and makes a low bass humming noise with the A/C on at any fan speed. I have an arbitration hearing on 10/31 to try to get a replacement. I don't have any hissing noise like the one you described. If you are experiencing the same problems that I described then I will keep you posted if you want. you can email me at david@theteskehome.com to discuss further
  • I have a 1999 tahoe LT and have had no problems with it except this service engine light that has gone on now about 5 times! some time after the SE light comes on (sometimes weeks), the car goes dead and I need a jump start and then it works fine for awhile and sometimes the SE light goes out by itself. I have replaced the battery & the wiring to the battery but it is still happening. I also took it to a dealer the first time it happened and obviously it is still happening. Has anyone had this problem or have any suggestions??
    Thanks, z
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    every GM vehicle I have owned has had a rough idle/rumble with the A/C on. This used to be overcome with an increase in the idle (via solenoid, I think) and commensurate increase in gas consumption (although I don't think it ever completely eliminated the rough idle/growl.)I don't know what the air pressure noise leak is.
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    I have noticed that after driving through even a small amount of water when approaching an intersection the rear tire will lose grip briefly when the light turns green and I hit the gas. At first I thought it was the transmission, but eventually realized the tire was losing traction.
    I've been driving a long time and never experienced anything like it except in the one pickup I've owned. Are these Firestones absolutely sorry tires?.....or is this a function of the Tahoe architecture? It definately reminds me of the pickup.....with all the weight up front and a tightly sprung rear end....but the Tahoe weight distribution isn't that extreme.
    I'd happily spend 4-5 hundred on new tires if I thought it would make a difference. Any thoughts?
  • cosbencosben Posts: 2
    loudmouthgoat & fortop,
    Thank you for your response... I've actually started the Motor Vehicle Defect Notification ( Lemon Law Process) this week. I've owned 3 Tahoes and never had this issue with the A/C. In fact I never had any issues with them. They are great trucks.

    In regards to the tire...Firestone tire are the worst... I actually upgraded my Tahoe's tires.
    I bought Falcon STZ01 size 285/60R/18 and they run awesome and look great. Obviusly I had to change my rims also...I now have the KRUZ, Snowdon wheels on them. The trucks looks great. Tires cost me $130.00 each and the rims where $300.00 each. It was all worth it, looks and rides great.

    I just wish Chevy could fix my A/C problem!
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,065
    Sounds like it could be a combination of over inflated tires and an open differential.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    have never had the A/C air leak noise either. I would agree that the new style Tahoe/Yukon and GM full size pickups are good value (and style) for the money.
    I have had no problems with the stock Firestone tires on either the Tahoes or Yukon. The rear end will break away on quick acceleration from a stop if the pavement is wet, even with the rear locker, but I rarely drive that way so it is not an issue for me. I did not care for the stock Goodyear tires on other late model GM vehicles I have owned (real hard riding), but the Firestones are OK for me. If I owned a vehicle longer than six months, I might buy those Michelins just for the ride improvement.
    Good luck on that lemon law.
Sign In or Register to comment.