Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

13468961

Comments

  • machmanmachman Member Posts: 1
    Test drove the 2007 Tahoe yesterday. Currently I own a 2003 Expedition Eddie Bauer that my wife loves, but made here wait 'til new tahoe came out before deciding on new vehicle.

    Ride is very nice. Comfortable seats. interior amentities seem nice and well thought out. Leg room for 2nd row looks better than our expedition....

    But (you could sense that coming) even though the comparison chart that the dealer showed me suggests more interior room (except for behind 3rd row) than the expedition. When we parked side by side the Tahoe definitely seems smaller.

    AND

    this is the big part. this is our main family vehicle so my wife drives 90% of the time. We have 2 kids and 2 dogs. How in the world could they NOT figure out how to do a power fold flat 3rd row. Seems like a no brainer. Those fold up seats are a waste, space killer. So you might say well take them out when not needed. But our previous Expedition was that way. We owned for three years and I think I put the 3rd row seat back in 4x the whole time, while we would of used it a lot more if we had it with us.

    I was so disappointed to see this, been waiting on this vehicle for 4 months just to have what from a consumer point of view seems like a no brainer option missing.

    Anyone heard about any possibility that they correct this with 2008 version? Maybe I can convince wife to hold out another 12 months.
  • sp7sp7 Member Posts: 3
    I just purchased one yesterday
    I have always been a GM truck fan previously owned
    Tahoes,Suburbans,Yukons&Denalis.My favorite was always my Tahoe 2002 Z71. Now purchased the new 2007 Tahoe
    I figured what better way to fully try the truck out than to buy it. Yes it does not have that Rugged Good old Tahoe look but it has its own personality. Alot of nice improvements but a few minor things which i agree with others on here i would have liked to see. #1 Yes it would have been nice to have the 3rd row hide in the floor. #2 I would have liked to see the 2nd row fold down slower with a cutoff in case you decided for child safety to disconnect the auto 2nd row. #3 I wished they offered a Locked driver armrest like they used to years ago. #4 The gas tank cap does not lock when you lock the vehicle(NOGOOD). I live in Jersey and the night i finally got out of there after all the paperwork We had a Hail & snow storm so i got to try out the Auto 4x4. Handles just as good & if not a little better than my old 2003 Yukon Denali Allwheeldrive. Yes there are some minor issues GM will probably work out by 08 model but overall its a fantastic truck with alot of bells&whistles. right before this i drove a 2005 ford excursion for a few days and then a ford expedition. Let me tell you there is nothing out there in this class SUV that drives or handles like a GM SUV no matter if fords seats go in the floor or not. Ford has alot of handling issues and so does Chrysler.
    I would like to see some of those minor improvements on the new 07 tahoes but OverALL i still would not trust my Kids Safety in any other trucks than GMs Suvs. I have seen accidents with both type trucks and have driven All. You cant compare Apples with Oranges. I trust GM & thier research way better than Ford or other rice burner companies.
    My wife drives a 2004 Range Rover. I have been trying for years to convince her the newer RR are pieces of Sh!! for the money!nothing like the old fashioned Ranges. Now while seeing and driving my newer 07 Tahoe i beleieve she has seen the light of what is quality and how much you can actualy get for your money. She is now thinking of trading in her Range rover for a New chevy Tahoe 07. Unbelievanble. Cant wait till more new ones hit the road and are seen. GM will finally put Ford & many others in thier Place.
  • dardson1dardson1 Member Posts: 696
    I've been trading for 30+ years and more often than I'm proud to say, but the first year of any car (no matter who makes it) is usually worth avoiding. I certainly hope Chevy has this one nailed, and it's possible since they didn't try to reinvent the wheel. That's why I bought an '06. Let someone else do the real-world testing.
  • sp7sp7 Member Posts: 3
    I agree with that point
    Letting somone else try out the new model
    But i just couldnt wait since its such a nice vehicle and new kid on the block.
    The 06 and prior yrs are still excellent trucks
    and we still own 2 in the family.
    Good luck with your 06. I read that next years model 08 is supposed to be part Hybrid.
  • 06lly06lly Member Posts: 21
    Back in the good ole days, what you are saying about quality and waiting a year or so was probably true. Times have changed. It is now very common for the new models to come "out of the gates" with quality that surpasses the models thay are replacing. This is true for domestics and imports. Manufacturing processes are getting better and these improvements are frequently implemented at the time of a model changeover. Then, there are the performance and feature advances etc that you give up by waiting... Now that they have dropped the prices, your best bet would clearly be an '07.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I agree with you on a lot of vehicles, as I've owned several first-year models in the last few years without issues. But I'd be very skeptical of one that was rushed to market like the '07 Tahoe. Just over a year ago it was scheduled for Summer '06. With sales tanking, they rushed the suppliers and told them they were pushing up to January '06. They have also tried to push ahead the truck release, but have only been able to skim a couple months.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    I used to sing the same song...Take a look at all of the major product launches the "big three" have had over the past three years. Not even close to "trouble free".
    Don't forget, Lutz pushed this launch up six months to get these things on the market. I am not preaching doom and gloom, but it would be no surprise if there was a recall or two on the first run of these units.
  • mlm4mlm4 Member Posts: 401
    The 2007 Tahoe may be "all new" but especially when it comes to these full-sized trucks not a whole lot of the core mechanical technology really is "all new". The Tahoe seems to be more evolutionary than revolutionary. I would expect a lot of the individual components to be very similar in design to those used on the previous generation trucks, for better or for worse. It seems like the package has changed more than the truck itself.

    As far as expecting big changes for 2008 it won't happen. GM may substitute a redesigned part here and there if it proves problematic but that's about all, the features won't change so quickly.
  • ranchz71ranchz71 Member Posts: 3
    I use my Yukon for pulling my boat, going to my ranch, hopping curbs, and even off-roading on occasion. I go on a camping trip in the mountains in New Mexico every year, and load the Yukon up with gear drive through some nasty stuff in 4-Low. I also use it to drive clients around almost every day.

    I like the clean interior of the new Tahoe/Yukon but I am pretty worried about the utilitarian issues (especially off-road and curbs)that it may have.

    The front bumper looks as if it would crack in half if you tried to hop a curb, there is no ground clearence. It does not look like it could handle the camping trip either! Also, on occasion I back into the boat trailer with my rear bumper and everything is ok. It looks like the rear bumper on this thing would get trashed if that happened!

    I have been a GM truck fan for a very long time and I have been planning on buying an 07' under the assumption it would have many of the same qualities of the previous generation. Now that I have seen it I am keeping my fingers crossed the upcoming Z-71 saves me.

    All of this is leading up to my point, GM I still use my sport utility for more than picking up the kids from soccer practice, so to preserve customers like myself please give the Z-71 a little ground clearence and some off-road ba**s. :mad:
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    I think GM should move the Tahoe/Yukon/Slade/Denali platform upscale with more and more content to get better margins to make up for the guaranteed lower volumes in the large SUV category. They should have more options, maybe offerring the Duramax in the 1500 model, lots more real leather, heated windshields, etc. etc. They might sell more of these in the blue states if they had more upscale content.
  • davids1davids1 Member Posts: 411
    I disagree! Respectfully, of course!
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    I called my local GMC dealer at the beginning of the week to see if they could tell me when the 07 Yukons were going to show up. He said they had 2 of them but couldn't show them to me because they didn't have the window stickers?

    So today I was in the area and stopped by...Had the salesman paged that I had talked to a month ago and he took me to the back lot and there they sat. Black SLT and a Steel Gray SLT. Look pretty much the same on the inside as the new Tahoes. Both had 3rd row seats and Nav and moonroofs. I know they have big eyes (headlights) but I like them alot.
    My salesman was doing a new car delivery and never made it back before I had to go, so didn't get inside. IMO the black looks especially good and really looks more upscale than the previous generation. The rear spoiler and upper body corners? are also black and helps to give a better look with black.
  • gmfangmfan Member Posts: 188
    How can you compare the Pilot and Tahoe. The Tahoe is wider, heavier, and its chassis is based off a truck platform, while the Pilot is a tall station wagon (car), with a five-speed automatic since it has less torque. Does the Pilot really make an 8 seater? I would compare the Tahoe to Sequoyah instead Tahoe to Pilot, but that is just my opinion.
  • singletarysingletary Member Posts: 3
    I made the mistake of letting my wife drive the 07 Tahoe. She REALLY likes it and pretty much wants one soon. She has a 2000 Tahoe, 4x4, Leather, etc., etc. that we paid 34,000 for in 2000. I was really suprised on what they are wanting for these 2WD LT2 and 3.

    I read in Forbes that they are not selling as many as Chevy expected so I am hoping for some rebates etc. in the near future.

    Anyone want to tell what they have paid thus far? I was quoted 38K for an LT3 2WD which is the best price I have found.
  • horns1976horns1976 Member Posts: 56
    Today, I drove an LT3 4x2. Sticker - $41K. Dealer said he would sell to me for invoice, $37.7K or GMID price which was about the same. You can get GMID certificate from GM employees. There were many posting about this on the H3 forum. Also, if you have a GM mastercard with GM earnings on it, GM is upping your earnings to $2,000 and this $2,000 can be used on most 2005 and 2006 vehicles and on the new 2007 SUVs. The $2,000 in GM Card earnings comes from GM so that comes off after you make your best deal.

    Personally, I liked the new Tahoe a lot. But, there's a 99.9% chance I will not purchase one due to the rearward visibility on the driver's side. There's a big blind spot and I don't trust mirrors.

    Also, I didn't think I would like the LTZ due to the 20" rims. I thought they would be too flashy. However, I saw an LTZ on the dealer's lot and I didn't mind the 20" rims. They aren't real flashy. I like the LTZ due to the rear suspension with automatic air leveling. That feature is standard on the LTZ and not available on the other models.

    Forgot to mention...the vehicle I drove made a whistling sound. :( I could clearly hear it from where I was seated in the driver's seat and the salesman could hear it as well from the passenger seat. I thought it was a window seal but he thought the whistling might be coming from the roof rails. At any rate, there shouldn't be a whistle-period.

    Also, I agree with any earlier poster that the third seat is a waste and I would not have it. :( (It's standard on the LTZ). I realize that it folds but to me it's still a waste. If I want to be able to carry 8 people, I'll buy a Suburban!! If I have a Tahoe, I want room in the back to carry luggage, groceries, etc.
  • mjansen1mjansen1 Member Posts: 46
    I compare it to a Tahoe because is seats 8, is AWD, and is not a minivan. I WANT a Tahoe but don't think I NEED a Tahoe. I will never tow anything, nor go 4X4ing. The Pilot gets better gas mileage, the third row seats fold down, and it is around 8K less. Oh, and people in this forum may not want to hear it-- but it is a Honda and that speaks volumes.
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    Plenty of Honda forums available to bash the new GM SUVs.
  • fandbpestfandbpest Member Posts: 5
    honda dosen't speak [non-permissible content removed] to me. it is a honda and thats why i would not buy a pilot, all because of the name tag. the reason so many hard working Americans are losing their jobs at GM and Ford is because of people who buy foreign cars.
    sincerely,
    fandbpest
  • mjansen1mjansen1 Member Posts: 46
    I'm sorry if I offended anyone; that was not my intention. I was merely stating that the known reliability of Honda is something I am definitely considering when purchasing my next vehicle.
    I own a 1978 Cheyenne 3/4 ton Camper Special with only 96K miles and I will never part with it.
    I am of course, also posting messages on the Pilot website touting the great, new 2007 Tahoe. Pilot owners have been quite helpful by sharing information about the advantages and disadvantages of owning a Pilot.
    Again, I apologize if people think I am bashing Tahoes or don't support my country. I am simply doing some research.
  • ahightowerahightower Member Posts: 539
    Yeah dudes, be cool. I don't think he was "flaming" GM here, just looking for some advice.
  • maximus_gtimaximus_gti Member Posts: 27
    Did you also know that honda has plants in the US?

    "Toyotas, Hondas, Subarus, BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, Hyundais, and others -- more than 40 models of foreign cars, minivans, SUVS, and pickup trucks -- are rolling off assembly lines at 15 plants in the United States...(MPH Magazine)"

    So they do bring a ton of jobs to the market, meaning the bashing of these cars doesn't do anything. If they bring a better product then buy it, if they don't, don't by them. All the pro american stuff is just nonsense. We live in a global ecomany and to be truthful, lots of the american automakers are leaving the US in search of cheap labor in mexico, china, and other places. Maybe you should boycot them for taking american jobs do to outsourcing. So while foreign companies are building more plants, american ones are moving to other places. lets just look at cars on their merit and not on their companies.
  • ahightowerahightower Member Posts: 539
    I think the argument is a little more involved than that. But there is a whole forum on the topic of domestic vs. foreign and what it means to "buy American". Let's just talk about the new Tahoe in here, mmmmkay?
  • gwmaggwmag Member Posts: 2
    Just received the info on the new 2007 Yukon and was extremely disappointed, not only is it very ugly (front and rear are covered with tupperware bumpers that wrap around the corners) but gets less MPG than our 2002. Our 2002 with 5.3 gets 17+ in town and over 21 on the highway. Why would I want to buy the 2007 that is advertised to get 15 in town and 21 on the highway with its have baked v8 four cylinder engine.
    If I want a 4 cylinder I will buy one of those little foreign tin cans.
    Seems as if GM can't leave well enough alone. Had a great looking SUV and has destroyed its apperence and engine design for a half way V8.
    Will not be one in our future purchase plans. Good buy Tahoe/Yukon.
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    I am glad the new Tahoes and Yukons have evolved into a new style and from what I have heard and read, better in other areas too, especially brakes.

    I am with you on the DOD. Still not sure about that.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    That's funny. Your '02 5.3 was rated for more than 15mpg city and 21mpg hwy??? I had one, the EPA sticker stated 14mpg city and 18mpg hwy. How does your real-world numbers compare to the real world numbers on the new ones?? I guess we'll wait and see. I too got about 16mpg avg. and topped 20mpg on the hwy but that didn't change what that sticker said. We both were exceeding the EPA stickers, but I'd doubtful anyone will be doing that on these new models. The HP and weight are both up. ON other vehicles, the variable displacement engines seem to perform very well on the EPA sticker, but not quite as good in real life. Makes sense because the DOD is most active at the speeds the EPA tests are performed. But nobody drives like that so the difference is wider in real world.

    As for the engine, you obviously don't understand how it works.
  • gwmaggwmag Member Posts: 2
    I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the engine design of the DOD. Simple physics tells me that if the engine runs on the same four cylinders in low demand then these four cylinders will wear out quicker. This leaves four cylinders that do not run under the fueled condition with higher compression then the four that run most of the time. Just plain simple physics. This will cause an imbalance in compression and a rough running engine, just simple mechanical physics.

    Just more gadgets to break and wear out when you disable four cylinders.
    Just more gadgets from the auto industry rather than producing true fuel economical engines.
    If there really concerned, they will push to the E85 fuel which is a higher octane, cleaner burning and more efficient renewable fuel which will cut our ties to foreign oil and be able to remove some of the restrictive controls that cause today,s engines to be less efficient.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    The 4cyl's that are operating during DOD would be operating regardless if it was a normal V8. If anything, the 4cyl's not being used will last LONGER than they would otherwise. The 4cyl's being operated during DOD are not being operated under extra stress, because at the point they don't put out enough power the other bank comes back online.

    I tried E85 in my previous Tahoe, it was underpowered, got less mpg, and had cold starting issues. I'm all for flexible fuels, as I run biodiesel in my VW TDI and diesel pickups. I don't notice much difference in the trucks and it's more expensive so I stick to #2. My TDI runs quite nicely on B20, quieter, less smoke, etc.

    I don't think buying these fuels will do squat for our dependence on foreign oil. It's a bit more complicated than just buying a different fuel. The only time domestic fuel is viable is when demand is up since foreign oil is substantially cheaper. Until we stop buying 15mpg vehicles we don't have much room to talk.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    "expensive maintenence programs" ..Sounds like you are the one being brainwashed by someone. SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE I have logged several hundred thousand miles on Hondas, Mazdas and Toyotas. My maintence program included fuel filters @ 40k, oil @ 5k and timing belts and plugs at the mfrs recomendation (usually 60-105k miles). That is it. AGAIN FROM EXPERIENCE, this is the same maintenence program that I follow with my Fords...
    As far as DOD, you just do not understand the technology, or in your words "simple physics"?..Whatever. DOD only cuts spark and fuel to four cylinders when demand is minimal from the powerplant. As soon as demand is called for, the EMS signals fuel and spark back to the deactivated cylinders. This is done within milliseconds and unnoticable to the operator. Frankly, it has very little to do with physics and more with simple common sense.
  • johnny16johnny16 Member Posts: 2
    does anyone know what date the yukons are going to be available? or do i just have to walk in to a dealer and ask about it thanks.
  • pocitellipocitelli Member Posts: 13
    I'm in the market right now for the new '07 LTZ Tahoe and a couple of dealers say they are selling them pretty close to MSRP - so basically just shy of $50K. Come on! They are about to lose a lot of biz if they think we're going to pay close to $50K for the new Tahoe. Especially in comparison to what they are selling last years model for. Sure, it's a better model, but not $15K better.

    The new lower MSRP sticker prices are a joke marketing campaign too. Who pays MSRP? So they are lowering the price on a number that is meaningless anyway. Oh, what a great idea. It's so simple, they just don't get it. You have a nice SUV now that people will pay a reasonable price for. Just simply price it at what you're willing to sell it at. People will buy them in droves and I'll be the first to write my check.

    So, has anyone out there purchased one of these yet, and if so, how much are they really going for?
  • pocitellipocitelli Member Posts: 13
    I asked a dealer and they were not sure. Best guess release for the Yukon's were June.
  • piercemanpierceman Member Posts: 47
    I dropped in on a NJ dealer this weekend and asked the same question,Salesman indicated they may have the new Yukon in 2-3 weeks
  • johnny16johnny16 Member Posts: 2
    I called the dealer in Jersey where I got my yukon and they told me the summer and a dealer in brooklyn told me to call back in a month, you cant get a straight answer.
  • tommy42tommy42 Member Posts: 70
    Moritz Chevy Fort Worth Tx. has them on the lot .
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Agree. In the last 10 years I've owned one Ford, three Chevys, two Dodge, one Jeep, one VW, one Audi, one Lexus, and three Toyotas. I see very little difference in service requirements. The current Honda has a similar maintenance program as my Chevy pickups...it monitors driving conditions and lets you know when it needs an oil change and/or schedule B service. Nothing really requires maintenance until 100k miles.
  • nedzelnedzel Member Posts: 787
    "Why would I want to buy the 2007 that is advertised to get 15 in town and 21 on the highway with its have baked v8 four cylinder engine.
    If I want a 4 cylinder I will buy one of those little foreign tin cans."

    I assume you meant "half-baked". Actually, if you drive one I suspect that you'll find it quite fully-baked. Even on the highway, you'll never notice that it has a disabled half of the cylinders. Press the gas to pass and all 8 cylinders will be in operation.

    If you compare the EPA rating of similarly equipped trucks, the new ones get better mileage. In real world driving, I suspect that the a similarly equipped 2007 would get marginally better mileage than the 2006.

    As for 4 cylinder cars, GM, Ford, and Chrysler all make cars with 4 cylinder engines. And many of those "foreign tin cans" are actually built here in the US (and built quite well).
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    Disagree on cost of service. I own a Subaru and a Tahoe. Coolant is recommended at 30k for the subie and 100k on the Tahoe. Same for tranny/diffy fluids. How about the timing belt? Oh thats not required on a Tahoe.
    Coolant flushes are about $100, tranny and differentials are about $150. Timing belt $600 (@ 100k). Spark plugs at $30k too for the Subie. Basically every 30K costs me about $400 for general servicing.

    So when both have reached 100k miles I'll have over $1200 more in general service on my Subie.

    Both have had small issues. But I've sat in the service department much longer for the subie just waiting for general service items.

    Honda Pilot is similar. I don't own one, but following the Pilot board people have mentioned something like ever 15k or 30k the awd needs servicing (lube/oil change).

    Funning how Edmunds "Ture cost of owner ship" show maintenance higher on the Tahoe, but yet the recomended maintenance charts show it much lower.

    Pilot Tahoe
    15K $164 $82
    30K $246 $153
    45k $165 $82
    60k $246 $174
    75k $164 $82
    90k $246 $174
    105k $304 $342 (100k for the Tahoe)
  • millpark26millpark26 Member Posts: 14
    I totally agree with you! As much as I want one, I'll be passing on the need to be the first one on my block to own one. I'll wait until some of the newness is off and the rebates and incentives kick in. At these prices, I anticipate it will be late Summer.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    With my '00 Suburban, it's the non-routine maintenance that's the killer. I currently have 62,000 miles on it and in the last year I've had the trans rebuilt ($1800), pitman arm replaced ($300), fuel pump replaced ($600). Plus I've got a few electrical issues as well along with an annoying rear diff whine that I'm just dealing with in order not to dump more cash into this POS.

    The new Tahoes and the upcomming Suburban look much nicer, but I don't think I'll shell out $50k for one. I'll wait until I can find one used.
  • gmfan3gmfan3 Member Posts: 1
    There are going to be some nice deals on the 06 denali if anyone thinks the yukon/tahoes are over priced. I am definently considering.
  • pocitellipocitelli Member Posts: 13
    That's probably a good idea. I'll be waiting too. Also, by that time we should have a good idea of what the new Expedition will be so we can better compare. With both Ford and GM scrambling right now to put their house in order, you'd think they would ditch the MSRP dance, which every buyer hates and start pricing fairly to move inventory. I remember reading that the SUV segment is one of the most profitable lines of biz for these manufacturers because of the huge markups and I don't think they understand just how much competition is out there for my dollar. From the myriad of other new SUV's to cross-over SUV's, to minivans. At the end of the day, I just wish they would price fairly and without ambiguity and stick to the price so the consumer can have confidence that the next guy coming in isn't getting it for $1,000 bucks cheaper than you. Sounds simple, but it looks to me like a huge opportunity for Ford and GM to grab back some market share.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    Thanks for the data. In the overall scheme of things though these differences are not significant. Resale value is.

    Edmunds TCO includes depreciation, the biggest cost in a newish vehicle. The Tahoe's TCO is higher because its depreciation is higher than a Pilots.
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    The Tahoe appears to depreciate because of the wide margin between MSRP and Invoice for the Tahoe (about $6k). Edmunds assumes you bought at MSRP. So in one year when you can sell your Tahoe for ~$3000 less than invoice (real price paid) depreciation really isn't that bad. For a Honda the MSRP and invoice prices are much closer together.

    Edmunds shows a $12k depreciation the first year. and $3k after that. If thats so there should be 2006 used Tahoes for about $21k. And now 2005 models for about $18k. Thats a real bargin! good luck finding those prices.

    When we shopped for ours here is what we saw...
    New 2004 LS Tahoe about $31k with all the rebates
    2003 Tahoe $28k (10k miles)
    2002 Yukon $26k (40k miles)
    2001 Tahoe $22k (?? miles)
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Actually, if you read the details on Edmunds TCO, they use True Market Value less rebates and private party resale value. I would say their numbers are close. I traded my 2002 Tahoe last April. Paid $500 over invoice for it when new and took a $1500 rebate. This was right before GM started giving them away so I took a beating for the most part. I lost $15,000 over 30 months/40k miles. And I actually got a little more than book value for it on the trade. I looked at historical resale before I bought the Tahoe, and at that time the they were amoung the best domestic vehicles for resale value. Now they're just average for the most part.
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    They key there is you traded. The actual value of your Tahoe was higher. The dealer needs to make a profit.
    If you sold it private party I'll guess you would have only lost about $12,000.

    I just looked up used Pilots in the area (minnesota).
    2003 EX Pilot 60k miles for $19,000 (list price) If purchase price was $29k (guess) They loose $10k.

    Same web site had 2003 Tahoe LS with 58k miles for $22,000
    If they bought near $32k (invoice-rebates) they loose $10k

    Not a big difference. No difference???

    Not nearly the difference Edmunds lists.
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    one more example.
    We bought our 2003 Tahoe for $28k its now at 38,000 miles
    used car web site has a nearly identical 03 Tahoe (37k miles) for $22,000. So in 3 years of owernship we have lost only $6k.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    The private party value was about $2,000 more than I got for the trade. With the tax savings, I would have only made $500 on a private sale, so trading was a no-brainer.

    Edmunds seems to think the Pilot will have much better resale than the Tahoe. No idea if that's true. I used Edmunds number to estimate the resale on my '02 Tahoe before I bought it. They ended up being way off, the Tahoe was worth a lot less than what they had estimated. But I bought right before GM started the much larger rebates which killed resale value.

    What's the private party value on your Tahoe today? Ads are just ads.
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    2003 Tahoe LS, 4wd, bose, rear audio, third row, towing pkg, power seat, side step, rear liftgate and wiper.

    KBB
    dealer: $29k (sign me up! a bit optimistic I think)
    Private sale: $22k to $25k
    trade-in: $18k to $22k

    Edmunds:
    dealer: $24k
    private sale: $21k
    trade-in: $19,600
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Sounds somewhat realistic if you stick to Edmunds numbers. Your '03 is similar to the '02 I traded back in April. I got $19,000 on trade. I paid a lot more for mine though, not sure how you worked that deal. I was $1,000 under invoice with the rebate (sounds crazy by todays standards... where they go for $5,000+ under invoice...) but todays invoice/msrp are much higher as well. Either way, these things don't hold their value the way they did several years back. I'm sure gas has a lot to do with that though, directly or indirectly.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    Here are recent actual sale results on an '03 LS 4.8 litre:

    01/13/06 $17,400 32,541 Avg PEWTER

    01/11/06 $16,400 42,809 Avg DK BLUE

    01/09/06 $17,800 45,729 Avg GRAY

    01/12/06 $18,900 48,461 Avg GRAY

    01/12/06 $17,100 58,366 Avg WHITE
This discussion has been closed.