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

189111314101

Comments

  • I have read all about the new Tahoe and hoped that the new one would be worth buying-I own an 04' Z71- and love it. It's distictive and tough and haven't had any problems with it. But I have to be honest I am not impressed at all with the exterior styling. Does any one else feel this way? To me it looks like a revamped Ford explorer, except for the fron end. Above the belt line, and especially from the rear-Ford! The slight rise at the rear quarters gave a forward leaning aggressive stance that the new one doesn't have. I think Chevy went way to conservative. I think I might be looking elsewhere.
  • I agree. I wanted to like it but I'm not sure I can. Maybe I will get over the exterior and focus on all the improvements to the interior and engine.
  • Well, after seeing the '07 in person, both Yukon and Tahoe, we jumped on an '06 Denali loaded with all the goodies (20" wheels, DVD, Nav) and love it. We think it is one of the best looking SUV's on the road. Although we haven't seen the '07 Denali yet, the base model of the Yukon is not as appealing as the Tahoe is. Very "slab sided" and gov't vehicle looking. Also, although larger in width and I think length, the center console is wider resulting in what feels like a tighter seating space in the front. Second row seating seems to be closer/tighter to front row. Third row has maybe a bit more head/shoulder room, but negligible at best. Price difference is large and styling not as attractive. Would have loved front coil over shocks and rack and pinion and 6 speed tranny, but not worth trading the styling and price differential. 1000 miles on the new 06 at this point, and love it. Ordered up a wood steering wheel and chrome ring gauge trim fascia to spruce it up a bit and look forward to having it for a long time.

    Gotta hand it to GM on the new dash, but the total package misses the mark for us. Hope they achieve the success they are looking for. I think this time, they will sell FAR more tahoes as I and others really think the new 07' looks better than it's base Yukon counterpart.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    I thought that new center console looked awfully wide in the photos. I've been wondering if it would make the seat narrow and intrude on leg room. I am tall and my right knee tends to bump up against stuff in most cars. Although they do say there is an extra inch of seat travel on the new ones versus the old ones, I guess if you can get far enough back and move the adjustable pedals forward and put your legs out straight, it would be okay. But I wish they would just make a front bench an option with leather and all the other gadgets. I don't want a base model with cheesy fabric and untinted windows in order to get an optional bench seat.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    I've always been extremely impressed by the resale value of my Chevy trucks. The first one I owned was a '92 Tex/Ok special (aka cheap truck). Paid $14,000 flat for it. Traded it in 22 months later for... $13,900. If it were not for the trade in values of my Chevy's I'd never be able to buy new, as expensive as they are getting. With the extra kick-back I usually cut the price down by at lease 30% if not much more.

    Really ticks off a friend of mine who is a Toyota loyalist. He usually gets burned on new purchases on his trade in. But, he continues to buy. I guess he'll never learn.

    Anyway, I hope to cull about $10K off my '07 Tahoe when I purchase this Spring. Should make the monthly outlay exactly the same as my old Silverado. Can't wait. Test drove one last week and fell in love. The drive difference from old to new was an eye opener. The '07 Tahoe drives like a dream. Powerfull, precise and very agile for the size vehicle it is. I loved the light responsive stearing. Plus, I've been increasingly impressed by GM radios over the years. With Bose as the driver for that sound, WOW! I'm most likely going to sink about $45 sticker into an LT3 4x4 with some extras. First truck I will have owned with leather. Not a big fan of leather, as I use a truck for work, not posh. But, I think I might try it for a change. Something tells me I'll be looking to recover, or at least over-cover them in a couple years after their worn out. Leather just doesn't make my toosh happy. But the interior in general is increadable. I was afraid Chevy would overdo it with an "upgraded" interior. Toyota and Lexus interiors all seem to fragile to be worth anything after a couple years of use. The Tahoe interior is very well done and extremely nice. Not over-done and very simple and appealing. Only odd thing I noticed was the shift lever seemed oddly positioned. Almost like it was set wrong, while in drive it blocked the center console more than I expected. I guess that's nothing big though, it really wasn't in the way, just looked like it was.

    And, what's all the fuss about hiding 3rd row seats? Don't you all realize this is a full box frame truck, not a car convert? There's no place to hide the seats as everything underneath the floor board of the Tahoe is strictly business. Without that, then the Tahoe would not be what it is. If you want hiding seats, go buy a minivan or crossover truck wanna be. Tahoe is a real truck, not a convert. If they made room for seats you'd loose suspension room for trailering and ride control and comfort. If you don't like the 3rd row seats, don't order them.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    ahightower,

    I was also concerned about what looked to be a very wide center console. After my test drive, it's no problem. The Tahoe driver seat room is unbeatable. The seats are the best I've sat in compared to any truck available today. It looks wide, but it's anything but in the way. Lots of leg room.

    I'm about 230lbs, 5'10" and enjoy a large seat for my... large seat :) The accomadations are worthy of vehicles priced much higher than the Tahoe.
  • I think we can all agree that Tahoe resale is down for a lot of reasons including rebates, gas prices, etc. The Suburban is even worse. But here is the good news: buy an '07 Tahoe and you will get an extra half year out of it on the model year calender. When you trade in say three years you'll only have a two model year old SUV. Or don't trade and enjoy driving the current model that much longer into the model cycle.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    Good luck with $10k off and good luck with resale value. I used to buy the Chevys for resale as well. Burned on my '02.

    The competition doesn't have any problem with towing capacity and hiding the 3rd row. If I want an off-road vehicle, I'll buy something designed for that, clearly the Tahoe is not (look at the front approach angle, stuck!). A full-size SUV is designed to haul people/stuff and tow. A fold-flat 3rd row makes the vehicle more user friendly which for this type of coin should be expected.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "Good luck with $10k off and good luck with resale value. I used to buy the Chevys for resale as well. Burned on my '02."

    Already valued at the dealer, that's what I'm getting. Timing is very important on trade ins too. Over the past year, all full size truck/suv's are super low in trade value due to gas prices. Since the gas price is getting better, and the public is getting more accepting of the price the trade it value should hold or go higher on some models. It went up on my truck last month.

    I've done some research on SUV's with folding seats, none have the ability the Tahoe has. Can you find one and post it here? Besides, it's just not needed, sorry, but the weight for that option and the added parts, not worth it. I'd rather get 22mpg out of a full size SUV and not be so lazy about removing very light seats. Yes, a little extra work pays off, both in the wallet and the abs. :) Of course, I'm the type that parks at the far end of the parking lot too.

    Also, if you need approach angle, you need a Hummer, not a Tahoe.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    The Expedition and Armada have no problems folding the 3rd row, towing more, higher payload. The basics are there, GM just chose to not offer the folding 3rd row. It's obviously a desirable feature and what's an extra 100# out of 6,000#?? Obviously weight isn't a huge factor on getting a decent EPA sticker because the Tahoe is heavier than ever. Of course, if that EPA sticker turns into real-life I'll be surprised. I've got multi-displacement on my minivan and it makes a heckuvalot more difference to the EPA sticker than the real world. Granted my old Tahoe would turn 20mpg on very long highway only trips, but I'd be flabergasted if the new ones do a bit better, even with DOD or whatever they're calling it this week.

    The simple fact is, I moved from my Tahoe to a minivan and would have switched back if they had included a folding 3rd row. It's not the fact that I have to pull them out, it's the lack of flexibility. Or I can buy an Armada (no Ford for me). I was waiting on the '07 Tahoe but that was obviously a waste of time.

    You either off-road or you don't. If approach angle and front/rear overhangs of the '07 are good enough, you're not a hard-core off-roader and anything with 4x4 should get you around. The slightly more flex the conventional tahoe suspension may afford will make diddly difference over the IRS that might be required to fold the 3rd row (and probably ride/handle a lot better).
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    I've done some research on SUV's with folding seats, none have the ability the Tahoe has. Can you find one and post it here? Besides, it's just not needed, sorry, but the weight for that option and the added parts, not worth it. I'd rather get 22mpg out of a full size SUV and not be so lazy about removing very light seats.

    What pipe are you smoking from? 22mpg is a pipe dream for a Tahoe that has any capability. A 4.8L powered 2wd going 55mph is the only way possible for a Tahoe to get 22mpg, hardly the way most will be equipt and driven.

    As mentioned both the Expedition and Armada have a lot more towing capacity with fold flat seats and an IRS. I'm not saying these two SUVs are better than the Tahoe, but they certainly are just a capable at hauling stuff and more capable for towing.

    Unless GM drastically reduced the weight of the removable seats you'd have to be a "gym rat" to call them light. I don't know how much the 3rd row weighs in my Suburban, but I know it's enough to where I don't enjoy removing it and no way could my wife take it out. But, with a Suburban I rarely have to remove it.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    There is finally some info out on the new Expedition and Expedition EL (long wheelbase, Suburban/Yukon XL competitor). It looks goood. Roughly equal size, power, and towing capacity, IRS with flat folding third row (seems to be the main gripe about the 2007 GMs), probably still has a really nice interior. Can't wait to see some test drives and comparison tests!
  • allison5allison5 Posts: 130
    We have a 04 GMC Yukon, have had tons of issues with it but there is a lot I like about it as well. Have 3 kids under age of 11 and a 85 lb labrador dog. We don't tow but go to the Lake Tahoe mountains here in Calif in the winter and summer a lot. ANyway I just had the chance to sit in a 07 Tahoe and I really liked it, did not have the time to drive it but will go back. However my concern is the first year that a new design is out on a car and whether I want to chance it. What do other people think of this? If I got it I probably would not purchase until at least summer.

    I have had many people tell me I should go back to a minivan like Honda or Toyota because of all the issues I have had with Yukon, plus expensive gas prices etc. We are paying around $2.45 + again, it will be interesting to see if gas goes way up again as it gets closer to summer. I just am not sure at all about going back to minivan because of reasons that we have SUV. I admit that I do wonder about gasoline prices but....
  • jay_24jay_24 Posts: 536
    I've gotten 23mpg on three consecutive tanks of gas with our 5.3 4x4. So it was driving 45mph, but it also was in the mountains with a full load (Yellowstone NP).

    On the third row not folding flat, maybe they are saving the space for the batteries once the hybred system comes???
    Just a guess.

    Fold flat would have been nice, but what percentage of Tahoes sold even have/want the third row?
  • Sebring95, you lost me at the very last curve. Are you saying that a rigid rear axle Tahoe has more flex than an IRS SUV?? Whoa. That makes no sense to me. Or, were you implying that the Tahoe frame is more flexible? Please enlighten me.

    You know, I'm happy that my original post started a long thread. But I'm puzzled. No one seemed to speak to the economic benefit of buying an '07 model during the '06 model year. To me it seems like a free lunch. You get to postpone the dreaded first year's depreciation for a year.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    To me it seems like a free lunch. You get to postpone the dreaded first year's depreciation for a year.

    Maybe if you don't drive it. You still take a hit on mileage. Sure you get to drive an 07 for an extra 9 months. But regardless you'll take a nice hit on depreciation if you trade in within a few years.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    Sebring95, you lost me at the very last curve. Are you saying that a rigid rear axle Tahoe has more flex than an IRS SUV?? Whoa. That makes no sense to me. Or, were you implying that the Tahoe frame is more flexible? Please enlighten me.

    That's exactly what I'm saying. Believe it or not, this old man used to do a lot of off-roading. Even up until just a couple years ago, I still had a dedicated off-road vehicle just for messing around. The IS systems used on todays SUV's do not articulate very well. If they did, they'd ride so bad nobody would buy them. Particularly since nobody offroads with them (when I say nobody, I mean 93% of the buying public...). And very few of that 7% does any amount of hard-core off-roading that would require a sophisticated suspension like what is on the Hummers. The big downside to IS is that it's not as strong as a live axle, however they are certainly upto the task of a full-size 1/2 ton SUV. The big advantage to IS is space and on-road/high speed comfort. Off-road they require a ton of extra strengh (i.e hummer) and they will still break more often than a solid axle.

    In a nutshell, if you remove the stabalizer bar off the back of a solid axle tahoe, you'll have tremendously more flex than any of the IRS vehicles. Of course you still have IFS so it's no off-road machine regardless. The only advantage I see that Tahoe having with a solid rear axle is it's strong. However, for all the more payload a Tahoe can handle an IRS would have no problems.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "What pipe are you smoking from? 22mpg is a pipe dream for a Tahoe that has any capability. A 4.8L powered 2wd going 55mph is the only way possible for a Tahoe to get 22mpg, hardly the way most will be equipt and driven."

    Thanks for your support and thoughtfullness. I drive a Silverado with the 5.3 and get over 20 MPG without DOD. 22 MPG is what the 2x4 Tahoe with DOD is rated for, and if the 5.3 is still as nice you will see many getting better than rated. GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.

    I agree with that and have done the same in the past (although my current Silvy is a 14mpg hog....). However, I don't believe these DOD engines are going to get what the EPA sticker is stating. The simple reason is that the speeds at which the EPA test is performed is where the DOD is most active. The speeds you and I drive on the highway is going to have far less 4cly operation. I still think you could get around 20mpg on long highway trips, but unless you slow down to 55-60mph I don't anticipate a huge change. I have the variable cylinder engine in my minivan and it's very active at 55-60mph. The only time I've hit the 28mpg EPA hwy was a long trip at typical EPA test speeds speeds (2-lane back roads). However, out on the highway at normal speeds it barely beats the non-variable cylinder vans and we're talking about a much more aerodynamic vehicle than a Tahoe/Truck. I think DOD has the most potential in cars which really don't require much power to move them anyway. A truck requires quite a bit of power just because of the wind it's pushing.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "The Expedition and Armada have no problems folding the 3rd row, towing more, higher payload. The basics are there, GM just chose to not offer the folding 3rd row. It's obviously a desirable feature and what's an extra 100# out of 6,000#?? Obviously weight isn't a huge factor on getting a decent EPA sticker because the Tahoe is heavier than ever. Of course, if that EPA sticker turns into real-life I'll be surprised."

    OK, you made me research:

    Tahoe, Expedition, Armada
    Max. Cargo : 109 cu. ft., 111 cu. ft., 97 cu. ft.
    Length 202 in., 205.8 in., 206.9 in.
    Weight 5527 lbs., 5607 lbs., 5623 lbs.
    City 15mpg. 14 mpg. 13 mpg.
    Highway 22mpg. 18 mpg. 18 mpg.

    Chevy has more cargo than the Armada, and is lighter than both. But the other 2 are longer which creates more room with or without the lost floor space (they have to raise the floor a bit to allow for room on the seat storage.) And, the Tahoe is lighter than both. So your research needs to be a little more exaustive next time.

    The last 4 Chevy's I've owned all got better than EPA on milage. Why would I expect the Tahoe to be any less? Also, I'm willing to bet that a rear crash on all 3 would mean a much higher cost on the folding seat versions. Besides, if you want more storage, you'd get a Suburban, not a Tahoe. The others do tow more, but at a loss for milage and drivability. The 2007 Tahoe went for ride comfort over towing, a good move in my book. If I were to need to tow over 5000 lbs anyway, I'd get a desiel powered truck. Just common sense there. There's a reason you don't see a large number of SUV's towing large items. They're not the right vehicle for the job.

    One thing that can be agreed on is there is no such thing as a perfect vehicle. Either the Tahoe has 99% of what you need (or think you need) or it doesn't. If people want a folding 3rd row, there will be trade offs.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "A truck requires quite a bit of power just because of the wind it's pushing."

    I can't wait to see real world results too. It will be interesting. One thing of note, I noticed in the Tahoe brochure they were really pushing the drag rating on the Tahoe. Actually comparing to the Corvette (yeah, I snickered too.) With the wieght it definately takes some torque to get a Tahoe going, but once it's in motion, of course that's when the 4 cyl shut off occurs.

    Anyway, can't wait to get mine (hopefully sometime this spring.) and see what the real results are.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    Allison,

    Nice thing about the new Tahoe is that it is a GM, and GM "re-uses" a lot of parts and pieces between vehicles, so a large portion of the 2007 Tahoe is already road tested on other cars and trucks. So the 1st year concerns should be a bit less.

    Also, you might wait and check out the electric/gas hybrid Tahoe due in the Fall.

    Your luck with trouble in a vehicle today will not change depending on the make or model. Time has shown that, minus a few rare cases, all cars and trucks report about the same amount of problems for all makers. My experience has shown me that GM owners tend to be a bit more vocal about issues. I guess most Toyota/Honda/etc. owners don't want to be embarrased by their problems, so they don't speak up about them. Just my experience, if you will...

    Be prepared to test drive one. :) You'll have problems leaving the dealership without one if you do. The drive difference I found was an eye opening change. It's sweet.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "On the third row not folding flat, maybe they are saving the space for the batteries once the hybred system comes???
    Just a guess. "

    OOoooh, hadn't thought of that. Good guess.

    But, then again, if they have room for batteries, they can make room for the seat on non-hybrids? :confuse:
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    My research is right on the money. I stated 100# difference and that's basically what it is. A few inches here and there isn't going to make one significantly more useful than the other. Particularly when one requires you to drag the seats out (which my wife CANNOT do, been there done that) and the other does not.

    The rest is just picking nits. The previous Tahoe EPA was right on the money with the others. It has yet to be seen if the new DOD EPA is realistic in the real world. Most other vehicles with this feature aren't getting the numbers expected. The Armada also has significantly more grunt than the Tahoe. The Ford, well it's a Ford that's all I've got to say about that. :P

    If I wanted a suburban I'd buy one. I don't. I prefer the size/maneuverability of the Tahoe. It has more than enough room for my needs, but just is not flexible enough for me.

    GM hasn't revolutionized a single thing with this new vehicle. The interior is now on-par with the competition, the steering is more the way it should be, and it may ride a bit better but other than that, I think they just played catch-up. There's no way they can ride this generation out for six more years like they did the last. It'll be out-of-date this time next year.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    Thanks for your support and thoughtfullness. I drive a Silverado with the 5.3 and get over 20 MPG without DOD. 22 MPG is what the 2x4 Tahoe with DOD is rated for, and if the 5.3 is still as nice you will see many getting better than rated. GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.

    I'm not talking about a Silverado, I'm referring to a Tahoe/Suburban. I have a 5.3 powered Suburban that we take on lots of trips of 100% highway driving. The best highway mileage I've ever achieved is 16.4mpg with the cruise set at the speed limit of 70mph. I generally avg. about 14mpg overall. So based on my experience, 20+ mpg is simply not realistic w/o driving well under posted speed limits.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    There's a reason you don't see a large number of SUV's towing large items. They're not the right vehicle for the job.

    I guess you haven't been to a boat ramp lately. They are full of SUVs. Pickups aren't nearly as family friendly as a fullsize SUV and boaters generally have family and friends with them. Thus, why I have a Suburban over a pickup.

    My boat is just under 5000lbs and I'd agree that 5000lbs is probably the point where the 5.3 doesn't have enough guts for serious towing. It's fine for flat terrain, but towing up hills is torture. It's depressing to see a guy with an Armada towing a larger boat blow by me up the hills while my foot is to the floor. A six speed trans would do wonders for towing performance. So maybe the new 6.2L SUVs with the 6speed probably will be great for towing, and great for sucking up gas as well.

    I'll be curious where GM goes with 3/4ton Suburbans, cause they are quite common with the large boater/horse crowd. I wish GM would offer a diesel Suburban, but I just don't see that happening any time soon.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    Stopped by a dealer today to have a closer look at an '07 Tahoe. I didn't drive it because I don't want to lead the salesman on, as I won't be buying a new vehicle for at least a couple years, and at that time it will be a Suburban or Yukon XL for the extra space. But I wanted to see the new GM interior first hand.

    I thought the seats were good. The leather has a different kind of texture to it, not as smooth as the leather in my 2005 Yukon XL. I don't know if that will make it harder to clean, but I did think it was very comfortable, like a broken in leather chair.

    I did not like the big center console. My right knee is forced to rest up against it. I will just have to get a bench seat on my next vehicle. That is disappointing. No leather with the bench option. I did like how the arm rest is upholstered and padded though, versus the hard plastic on my vehicle.

    The dash was very nice, the wood trim was attractive and everything looked very modern and upscale, finally up to par with the Fords.

    I didn't get to see the power folding second row seats in action, evidently the battery was disconnected on the floor model, but it seems like a neat trick. Not sure if it's necessary though, my kids simply walk through the center aisle on their way back to the third row. The third row itself is nice, I like how it is two pieces rather than one. More versatile, and easier to handle. I believe it will be offered that way on the Suburban as well rather than the current one-piece bench only. Not sure anybody would need to choose the two-person over the three-person though. There are already cup holders built in to the sides back there, why not go for the 3-person in case you ever need to squeeze in an extra person?

    The exterior styling is handsome. The 20" wheels and tires are fat, or is that "phat". Still think metal/chrome bumpers are a better idea for something that may tow or go camping, though. But the "integrated" design is good. At least people won't be able to replace them with those stupid diamond-plate monstrosities.
  • I hear a lot about the need for fold-in-the-floor seats. Why? Fold the seatbacks back, and for 99.99% of people, that will be fine! Personally, I think it was a good move to eliminate IRS and third row, because it would have made the SUV's cost more money, and the IRS is not as durable, and it serves the purpose of off-roaders, too! :)

    If you want a SUV that can tow more, wait for the HD versions to come out! If you do not like the bumper cover, then go to your dealer and ask for a GM or aftermarket part to cover that! :surprise:

    For people who absolutely need a fold-in-the-floor rear seat, get an Expedition. The Expedition has really set the SUV market on fire, losing more market share than anybody! :P
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    You make some valid points regarding the fold flat seats. It will be an issue for some and it won't for others.

    As for the IRS, I don't agree that it's less durable. Last I checked the Hummer H1 uses an IRS all around and it's one of the most capable durable offroaders available. Regardless I don't have a problem with a solid axle. How everything works is far more important.

    We'll just have to see if the Tahoe will sell w/o incentives. GM was able to prop up the Tahoe/suburban sales all year with huge incentives.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    The H1 independent is tremendously more stout than anything used on todays SUV's. But it's still not as as strong as many solid axle vehicles offroad. The H1 really wasn't designed for hard-core off-roading, rock climbing, etc. It was really more designed to be a fast mover acrossed sand/rough surfaces and also have piles of ground clearance. Go to some hard-core offroading events and you'll see some messed up H1's.

    That being said, IRS will work perfectly fine in a light-duty vehicle such as a Tahoe/Expedition/Armada. These don't have much payload capacity and towing is within reason. I don't see much advantage to having IRS up front and solid axle in the back. Worst of all worlds if you ask me because if the front can't flex, who cares about the rear? IRS adds some weight, and probably most importantly in GM's case...money!

    Based on a previous poster claiming $10,000 off MSRP on an '07, I'd say they're planning to give these away as well. Of course there's been a lot of claims in above posts. If I could get one for $10,000 under MSRP and a guaranteed 22mpg...I might put up with the lacking features as well!
This discussion has been closed.