2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

tahoefour · September 2005

Z71 will not be available until fall 06

cokeman · September 2005

I wished GM would come out with a two door Tahoe. I really miss it and don't need a four door. I know they had concepts with the last model but never did more than that that I know of.. maybe down in Mexico. If I knew how to post a picture I would post one I came up with.. oh well wishing for the return of the two door.">

navigator89 · September 2005

It's easy to post pictures.

If it's from a website, then click the "Img" button, on top of the confused emotorcon.

If you have it saved, then you might have to post it on the internet, like on photobucket.com

vrm · September 2005

I hope GM offers a 2 WD verison in the 2007 Tahoe.

I dont really care for the V6 and V8 engines. All I need is the V4 engine with 2 WD.
This combination will offer the optimum gas mileage.

People who want V6 and V8 engines should not complain about gas mileage. You had a choice and you chose the gas guzzler option.

dieselone · September 2005

A 4 cyl in a 5000lb vehicle, yikes. Even if it's a turbo diesel 4cyl, it would be painfully slow and useless for anything other than maybe mail duty.

Witht the size and weight of these vehicles a 4,6, & v8 probably will all get similar mileage.

If you want a 4cyl with some room, get a small wagon.

4rider · September 2005

" All I need is the V4 engine with 2 WD. This combination will offer the optimum gas mileage"

I think you thought this was a CR-V thread.

mayher · September 2005

WOW !!!!! A 4 cylinder engine in a 2 1/2 ton vehicle. How would you like to get stuck behind this guy going uphill ?

nedzel · September 2005

Now that would have a great towing capacity

rsholland · October 2005

http://www.chevrolet.com/tahoe/2007/

Not much here.

Bob

fish8 · October 2005

The interior is much better than previous model, but the front grill looks horrendous. It looks like a huge version of the front end of the Uplander.
We owned a 2002 Tahoe and thought the SUV was great.

blckislandguy · October 2005

OK, the exterior everyone agrees is acceptable and the interior is a big improvement from the 1978 pick up truck they took the present interiors out of, but how about the drive train? Will the General offer rack and pinion or stick with the old fashioned recirculating ball? Multivalve heads? A head high air bag canopy? IRS? ( You know, all the current things that Ford offers.) Will the big guy handle or still be imprecise on the interstate? Will there be premium Tahoe/Yukon specific tires or just the cheapest OEM tires they could source? Will there be fog lights that really help in fog/snow? Or just decorative lights, like now, to turn on when it is overcast so as to be seen by others, not to improve your forward vision. Will they match the present larger torque convertor that GM uses now on the Denali to all 6.0 engines in the Tahoe or just use the same convertor they use now with the 5.3? HID lights or maybe even Zenon (the population isn't getting any younger and people do drive these things at night)?

These changes have been a long time coming. I hope that GM doesn't try to do a head fake with just a few cosmetic mods but really executes a new, modern SUV capable of comparison with both the Sequoia as well as the Land Cruiser.

nedzel · October 2005

It will use rack and pinion steering. Rear suspension remains a solid axle -- no IRS. There will be side curtain airbags as well.

papabear5 · October 2005

I wonder if some of you complaining about the lack of 3rd row seating have sat in a fold-flat seat. They are flimsy as hell, and I for one, would not feel safe having my children sitting in them. I'll risk the backpain in taking them out if I don't need them.

In saying that, look for the Suburban in the second quarter to feature fold flat seating due to an increased wheelbase.

307web · October 2005

I wonder if that could be possible in less than 5 years?

Diesel and hybrid together give good torque and adequate acceleration around town without requiring very large engine. Turbo aids diesel mileage plus gives a little more kick for passing at highway speeds.
Sub 4-liter 6 cylinder turbo diesel plus hybrid electric motor and displacement on demand and 6 speed overdrive transmission (maybe it could maintain highway speeds on flat surfaces in 6th gear on 3 cylinders + hybrid assist).

Smallish engine should minimize fuel use all around.
Diesel minimizes fuel use all around.
Hybrid minimizes fuel use in stop and go city driving.

Do you think the could squeeze out something like 20+ city, 30+ highway with this setup?

They can also offer a bigger V8 diesel for people who need to do major towing.

vfr750 · October 2005

The theory of a small engine getting better gas mileage only works in small cars.
A larger engine does not work as hard in a truck this size and will actually use less fuel than a small engine. Order the V8 with the DOD and you will have a V4 when the truck can get away with not needing all the power. :surprise:

navigator89 · October 2005

I was on the future Cadillac Escalade discussion, and someone posted a picture of the next GMC Yukon, which I am posting here.

All I can say is WOW!

mbrochujr · October 2005

I would like to see GM catch up with some of the features and build materials of the other companys', built reliability has gone up very well. I bought a ordered a new 2001 Yukon XL, my wife drover it for 4 years and replaced a fuel pump at 65k, I traded it in for a 2005 Armada LE in December. The features and price of the Armada are better than the Denali at much less (power liftgate, Nav 7", 2nd row captians, ect) loaded was $49k and the motor smokes the 5.3 from GM, I towed my race car every weekend. The bad part of the Armada was that I picked it up on Dec 18, with a broken fuel gage, and in the last 9 1/2 months have racked up over 100 days in the shop, Nissan is buying it back on Monday. I looked at the Toyota Sequoia and they do not have the room or the ability to tow with the GM (my neighbor who tows the same exact trailer as me has issues). Look at Consumer Reports the 04 and 05 GM reliability history, they received the highest rating in every area. The large SUV reliability rankings compared to average, Lincoln Navigator -181%, Nissan Armada -111%, Ford Expedition -85%, Toyota was number 1 but GM was nuber 3 WELL above the others. I wish I never traded my Yukon XL in for my Lemon, and Nissan has been horible to deal with. So remember it is more than just features and IRS. :lemon:

rockylee · October 2005

Here's the link for any of you that are interested. I watch it Daily.....EXTRA EXTRA read all about it 2007 GMT-900 Yukon and Yukon Denali is unvield on GMtv
http://gmtv.feedroom.com/iframeset.jsp?ord=477742 SWEEEEEET !!!!!!!!!

nedzel · October 2005

is the cost. The hybrid systems are so expensive that Toyota is losing several thousand dollars on each one they sell. Diesel engines are also several thousand more than a comparable gas engine. Put the two together and you've got a premium of more than $5,000 per vehicle.

I suspect that a modern, high-pressure turbo diesel would be more than efficient enough on its own.

307web · October 2005

I heard that Toyota is not losing money on the current Prius. I doubt it would add $5000 additional to the cost and on a $40,000+ loaded SUV, there will be room to absorb some of the cost and buyers of a loaded SUV are less price sensitive than Prius buyers anyway. Look at all the people who would spring for rear seat entertainment systems, navigation etc..
Imagine a Tahoe or Denali with better mileage than a V6 Malibu.

rockylee · October 2005

I know that my father's company Delphi makes a Direc Injection system for the Chevy Colbalt, and Hyundai cars. I would think the new SUV's will get this treatment to save gas milage. I do know the SUV's recieved DOD, a 6 speed, and a hybrid battery pack is in the works for them. probably I would guess for 2008.
hoped you guys liked the GMtv link from above. Isn't the Denali awesome ???? :confuse:

caddys4life · October 2005

what are you talking about. Toyota is losing about 10-15 thousand dollars on the prius but they don't mind because it gets their name out in the public. Anyways the new SUVs are awesome especially the denali and the new escalade.

caddys4life · October 2005

go to autoweek.com to see pictures of the yukon and tahoe!!!

rockylee · October 2005

I was amazed Motor Trend still gives the Land Cruiser 4 stars.....as much as I like MT, many people think they have a biased torwards imports. I would tend to agree with those people. Yes the Cruiser is a legend off roader, but my gosh it hasn't seen a updated in like 12 yrs. or so. Toyota still asks $58+ K for a copy. Only Toyota would able to pull this off, and still have buyers of a underpowered SUV.
If I was a Cruiser buyer, and was going to spend that kind of dough, I'd spend it on the Lexus version. However since I think both are way overpriced, I will be looking at the GMT-900's probably the Yukon Denali or Caddy Escalade. I can keep the extra money for the $3 gas. not to mention get double the horsepower and better gas mileage. The Escalade and Denali are suppose to get between 380-400 horsepower. heated steering wheels, AC seats, top shelf audio equipment. The Escalde will get a different guage cluster and a few more gadgets according to GM. Happy posting-->rockylee :shades:

307web · October 2005

Toyota is not losing $10,000 or $15,000 per car on the current Prius and only selling them to "get their name out" as you say.

blckislandguy · October 2005

Yes, I hope that GM can pull off a world class interior without making it into a bordello. The imports have had heated wheels, zenons, good audio, heated windshields, nice leather in addition to leather seating, real gauges, for years. GM has a mental hurdle to cross if they are going to start offerring tasteful (the current ' slade is a bit garrish unless you are a homeboy) and luxurious interiors in their big SUVs. Heck, they are a little late even to the rack and pinion party.

Kirstie_H · October 2005

Let's get off the subject of hybrid vehicles - we have a whole message board dedicated to talking about them, so if you need directions to an appropriate topic, let me know.

1487 · October 2005

I really like the new Yukon a lot. I like the interior and exterior and I think it's only possible weakness is the lack of a fold flat rear seat. That said, most full size SUVs dont have IRS or fold down seats.

caddys4life · October 2005

Like you said they dont have the fold flat seats in the 3rd row, but they did put a button in the 2nd row to fold those seats so it's easier to get in the back.

cubs25 · October 2005

Ya why dont they come out with a two door tahoe? its better on gas and in my oppion looks better than a 4 door. are they not making them because noone wants them or is it in the future plans? Thanks

307web · October 2005

If the old 2 door Tahoes were selling well, they would have kept them. They are proven poor-sellers.

cubs25 · October 2005

ya thats wat i thought but i think eventually they will come out with one.

callmedrfill · October 2005

OBVIOUSLY saved a penny or two on the exterior. It's exactly the same, except the rear-end is more minivan!

The new Tahoe is not as cheesy as the current one, but it's too little, too late. This is a dying breed, save the Suburban.

In 5 years, none of these beasts will sell 100k, unless Employee Pricing become the next 0%.

Watch out for Hybrid minivans from Honda and 'Yota! They will chew at the class as well as bigger crew-cab pick-ups.

Why does GM have to be dragged kicking-and-screaming into building something DECENT (Tahoe), much less superior? Is this what we've been waiting over 15 years for (some wait longer than I do)? The same truck with a contemporary interior? :confuse:

Good luck, GM. Looks like you will need it.

DrFill

cubs25 · October 2005

good point

blckislandguy · October 2005

Amen. The only thing I can add to this excellent post is that supposedly bringing big Bob Lutz , the car guy extradinaire, in was going to revitalize the product line. Bob has had more jobs with more manufacturers in the industry than anyone. The ex-Marine who commutes to work in his helicopter was going to infuse GM with his product knowledge. Haven't seen it yet and the jury is still very much out on the new Yukon. The specs are not much different from a 1965 Ford Country Squire, except the Country Squire had a two way tail gate (as I recall, it could swing open to one side or be opened and pulled down) which GM hasn't matched.

tdoh · October 2005

Re: your Armada vs. Denali comparo--Denali offers 2nd-row captains chairs, so I dunno how the fact that the Armada offers them too makes it a "better" feature on the Armada. Yes, I'm nitpicking--if not quibbling--a bit here but at the same time, I could also add that I can't see how a 7" non-touchscreen nav available on the Armada could be considered "better" than the 6.5" touchscreen one available on the Denali--I dunno about you but I'm willing to bet that most people would take a 6.5" touchscreen over a 7" non-touchscreen any day of the week. And although the Armada may indeed have "better" features than the Denali at "much less" (I assume you were referring to price), the Armada does not come w/ a 6-liter engine like that found in the Denali, so your power comment regarding the 5.3L GM engine is a little out of place--IOW, it would be a bit unfair to favorably compare the Armada to two different trim lines of Yukons (different in that Denalis only come with the 6-liter engine). At the same time, one could have argued that--until recently--an Armada could not be had for "much less" than a Denali, given the just-expired GM Employee Discount promotion.

tdoh · October 2005

I think the front end could have been styled a bit more differently; I mean, it sure looks a lot like an Envoy front end...just bigger.

cubs25 · October 2005

ya it does damn and i think the tahoes went down hill after the year 2000 and on becasue of how they make things so damn cheap now and everything

blckislandguy · October 2005

It goes without saying that the reason why an Armada can now be had for less money than a Denali is the horrible QC problems Nissan has had and the resulting slow sales. Want more info? Cruise over to the Armada board and learn all about flexing roofs, wind noise, etc. Nissan dealers in New England still can't sell their '05s.

founder · October 2005

Amen!! The Nissan products , which is the armada and the QX56 are problem vehicles. It's best to pass on them for the moment. As for the new GMC Denali, well all I can say is that I'm disappointed at the weak fuel economy. The Denali is still getting the same as the past models.13 miles in the city isn't that good, especially with rising gas prices. I like the redesigned, althougth the front is a bit to envoyish for me, but it looks nice. I hpe the quality is up to par.

blckislandguy · October 2005

I looked at a Denali last winter and the exterior styling was fine. But the General was up to his old tricks on the inside. There was nothing fifty grand about the interior. As I remember the seats were just the usual GM seats in leather although the center console had a flap of leather across the top unlike the Yukon. No zenons, no real fog lights, no Coach leather, no Ricaro seats or even SAAB or Volvo seats with power lumbar and cooling, no super trick roof rack (boats can have pop up cleats; why couldn't an SUV have a pop up roof rack?), etc. All in all it was nothing special. In fact, with the exception of the 6.0 engine it was little more than what you could get in a more modestly priced Yukon. (Although the lower priced Yukon would have a two speed transfer case in the event you ever went off road, wanted to plow your driveway on Thanksgiving morning in Maine or haul a boat up a slippery ramp). I bought a Cayenne instead but would have bought the Denali if for 50K it had something, anything, unique about the interior. In this entry level luxury price bracket you want something a little bespoke.

I hope that the Tahoe/Denalli revision will be more upscale.

dieselone · October 2005

Your 100% correct on the current Denali interior, it is really bad for a vehicle that expensive.

I like the Denali better than a Suburban, but the fake carbon fiber look was just horrible, IMO. I ended up with a Suburban instead. Wish I could have gotten the 6.0L though. The 5.3 comes up short on towing power.

jaxengine · October 2005

I'd really like to get some more information on the 2007 Sequoia new skin and engine.... what do you know and where can I go to learn more?
Thanks
Jaxengine

tourguide · October 2005

Toyota is very tight lipped about their upcoming vehicles, so I wasn't able to turn up much of anything. Motortrend is reporting a reskinning of the outside and a new 5.4 v8.

Don't look for it to be more fuel effecient than the 5.3L 07 tahoe though. The bigger motor will likely be ~ equal, or less effecient than the current motor. The hoe (or any vehicle in this class) may be a better choice as a short term lease.

ahightower · October 2005

I'm not crazy about the new Tahoe/Yukon exterior. It looks too "modern" I guess, plastic bumpers are not as "trucky" as the chrome on the current versions. Plus plastic gets all scratched up. At least it's not covered in Rubbermaid like the Avalanche. Someone who posted earlier read my mind. It looks like a big TrailBlazer, or worse... an Uplander... The GMC is not much better. The Escalator might be better, but that's a bit out of my price range.

The interior does look sharp, but the Edmunds reviewer writes, "The dashboard sits lower and further forward than it does in 2006 models, creating the impression of more space and better forward visibility." If that is the impression Toyota was trying to give inside the Sequoia, I don't like it because it makes everything farther away to reach and it makes tall guys feel like their legs are too long. I'm having a hard time putting this into words, but it just feels awkward to me. I don't like the interior of my friend's Sequoia. I'll reserve judgement until I get to sit inside one myself. I like how the center console appears to be padded, instead of the hard plastic as on my Yukon XL.

If I only cared about interior, I may have bought a Ford instead. Looking forward to seeing their new long-wheelbase Expedition.

I also hope GM will recognize that some people want the front bench seat along with leather and all the other doodads. Why can't they just make it an option, like the middle row buckets?

A fold-flat third row would be nice, but the trade-offs discussed in prior posts regarding price and IRS make sense to me. Besides, if you really use the third row that frequently, get a Suburban or XL instead. In which case you have so much room behind the third row that you don't really need it to be removed in most cases. That has been my experience anyway. I removed the seat once to carry a new piece of furniture, the rest of the time it stays in place.

As for the new engines and fuel economy, every little bit helps, but we recognize the inherent nature of large utility vehicles when we buy them. The geniuses who think they have all the answers should submit a resume. Give me a break. GM has hundreds of highly educated engineers trying to strike the right balance between performance and economy, and to me the new generation looks about right. Don't you think if they could give us another 5 mpg along with huge passenger, cargo, and towing ability, that they would love to do so and absolutely crush the competition? I wouldn't mind a little more, but I am doing nearly 17mpg combined (wife does a little better, I do a little worse...) versus the 19 I was getting from my last minivan. I won't do the math again here, but it's not that big of a deal.

We bought a new 2005 Yukon XL in August, knowing that the new and improved version was coming soon. I think it was a good decision for our particular circumstances. Considering the huge discounts and employee pricing ($10,000 buys a LOT of gas, even at $3 a gallon!), and inevitable first-model-year quality issues and recalls, I'm pretty happy. We'll trade up for the new kind in 3 or 4 years.

alston28 · October 2005

Amen on the front bench seat. I'm probably going to have aftermarket leather installed on my new 05 with a front bench seat.

navigator89 · October 2005

I was looking around Autoweek about the Tokyo Auto Show, and they have some great pictures of the future GMC Yukon. We've all probably seen the Tahoe, now get a load of the Yukon!

The interior is fabulous, better than the current Cadillac Escalade. It also looks pretty different from the Chevy, at least from the front.

Too bad these SUVs come at a time of high gas prices. GM may have trouble selling them in the US and Canada, but I know people in the Middle East will buy these SUVs in droves.

http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/galleries/yukon/pages/01.htm

nicholsbre · October 2005

GM is right on with the new Yukon and Tahoe. This is what they should of been since they were introduced. Bold, More powerful than Ford, and the newcomer Nissan, and still more powerful than Toyota. The interiors are right on, aswell. By far the best interior of any GM vechicle, the rear-view camera is a nice safety touch, aswell. Thanks GM for keeping the killer BOSE sound system and the unique (like no other competitor) styling. With Ford getting more and more generic I can't see how the Yukon and Tahoe couldn't remain top sellers. FIVE STARS to the new Tahoe and Yukon!

This is how the new Tahoe and Yukon Stack up!

1. Tahoe/Yukon
2. Nissan Armada
3. Toyota Sequoia
4. Ford Expedition

ahightower · October 2005

4 stars for me. I like that they are adding the curtain airbags as well as the backup monitor. I'll admit the current generation is a little old-tech, but it's still very good at what it does - roomy, reliable, handsome, and relatively affordable. And I'm just not sold on the new exterior styling. Maybe it'll grow on me.

dieselone · October 2005

GMs new v8's may have more HP than Ford or Nissan, but torque is what counts in trucks nad SUVs. I'm curious to see where the new engines stack up. Currently Nissan's 5.6 has more torque at a lower rpm than Ford's 5.4, Dodge's 5.7 and Gm's 5.3 & 6.0L, not to mention it is very smooth as well.

I will not consider another suv/truck with only a 4 speed auto either, just doesn't cut when towing.

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles