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



  • 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 TXPosts: 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 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 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 Posts: 3,238
    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 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 Posts: 3,238
    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.
  • "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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • I asked a dealer and they were not sure. Best guess release for the Yukon's were June.
  • 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
  • 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 Posts: 70
    Moritz Chevy Fort Worth Tx. has them on the lot .
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    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 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 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 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)
  • 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 Posts: 5,721
    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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 Posts: 3,238
    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 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 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 Posts: 3,238
    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 Posts: 536
    2003 Tahoe LS, 4wd, bose, rear audio, third row, towing pkg, power seat, side step, rear liftgate and wiper.

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

    dealer: $24k
    private sale: $21k
    trade-in: $19,600
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    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.
  • 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.