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
navigator89
Member Posts: 1,080
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
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/th...ls.php?album=34
http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/
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.
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.
From 290-400HP. NICE!
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
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.
M
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.
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.
It's a shame because this is the best looking GM truck ever.
Bob
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
And you know the 2005's are bullet proof since they ahve been around for so long.
I don't really know why the fold flat is so important since the truck is huge anywhay, but GM should see this and do something about it sooner or later. Hopefully for GM and America, they do it sooner.
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 "
I agree too. Diesel is a much better and readily available solution then the hybrid without having additional space and weight of the electric motor.
"It's the look you've been asking for--20 inch wheels and tires on the 2007 Tahoe.
These GM-segment exclusive factory-installed polished aluminum wheels and all-season tires are standard on the Tahoe LTZ and available on the LT models."
If you look at the Tahoe page there's a link to the preview information about the 2007.
You know GM that i have heard of treats its customers better than that. You should report eh GM guy and dealer to a higher up CS manager. That is horrible, especially on an important truck sale.
However you must realise that if GM really made bad products, it would have dies a long time ago. I issue is union/labor that is driving it down and they are doing alot to improve product. They have largely succeded.
A firend of mine had a problem with a Cobalt he JUS BOUGHT. The dealer was not willing to help, but GM offered to UPGRADE his car to a MALIBU for free. GM wants to keep its customers. I understand that after an expirience like yours you don't like GM, but it does not mean that this cannot happen anyware else.
Just check these trucks out, you not gonna have to deal with much by test driving one.
I need a Suburban/Yukon XL (4 kids, hockey players, camping with a travel trailer etc) so I buy the 2500 model. I replaced my 2003 Yukon XL (8.1 Liter) with a discounted 2005 Chevrolet LT model (6.0 Liter) in June. The new model even has the GPS, which I like, but I miss the 6 cd player.
I purchased the new model for $7,000 less than the 2003 model, and it has the Sun/Sound package (moon roof and DVD player) and the GPS system, which the 2003 did not have.
After 3 months, (and 10,000 hard miles, 3000 towing) I have had no problems. They have worked out the bugs in the electrical system, and the kids love the DVD player in the back.
If you need fold flat third seats, you may want to look elsewhere, but I remove my 3rd seat all the time. Difficult? Yes. But I think the storage I would lose (interior and reduced gas tank size) would not be worth it.
I am 50 years old and have been removing 3rd seats from Suburbans for over 10 years. If my wife needs it moved, she asks the kids to help. To me, it is not a deal breaker. The towing packages, storage, heavy duty transmissions, and reliability (yes, I have had great luck with GM products) outweight the inconvenience.
I regularly run my GM products to 150,000 miles or more. I have never had one not start. That's more than I can say for my Ford, Chrysler and Volvo products I have owned over the same time.
But I certainly agree that driving at 75 mph you will not see the highway rating.
This truck needs some AG Simpson chrome. Although this truck looks nice, a bar is a must on GM SUV's/Trucks. For the Silverado's/Sierra's they better have a chrome bumper and they MUST still suit Bob Seger's - Like a Rock.