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

1910121415101

Comments

  • OK Sebring, I'll acknowledge that you go off road. BUT, I don't agree that independent suspensions do not articulate as well as a rigid axle. Moreover, I don't agree that more articulation leads necessarily to a bad ride. I'd rather be in an VW bug even with its swing axles than a horse cart any day. It seems very obvious to me that independent suspensions (by definition, "independent") articulate better than rigid ones.

    I must be missing something. Please help me out.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    I'll see if I can find some links for you. I'm sure there are plenty of descriptions with pics out there. It would take too much space here and I'm sure I'd get something wrong and the anti-IRS (and anti-folding 3rd row) people would be all over me. I think we're on the same team anyway, I would have preferred the new Tahoe's have a fully indpendent suspension all the way around. It's better, period. Unless you're taking a $40,000 Tahoe rock-climbing or loading the cargo area with cinder blocks daily. Everyone claims they're glad it has a solid axle because it's stronger, yet the vehicle isn't capable of performing to the point that it would make a bit of difference.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    No kidding. I realize that most who want the most offroad ability prefer solid axles. They are much easier to lift etc. Those who want true offroad ability will not be buying a Tahoe/Suburban/Expe. The average Tahoe only goes off road when someone accidentally backs up on to the lawn.

    As for towing. Sure, I can see where a solid axle probably offers the strongest solution. Regardless, in 1/2 ton form, the full IRS Armada has the most rated towing capacity with the most torque available.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    "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. "

    Many have been waiting for Chevy to put a diesel in the 3/4 Suburban for a long time. I know I've sent quite a few comments to them on that note. Hopefully they'll start to listen to the crowd more. At least Edmunds is starting to push diesel as a good thing these days.
  • jay_24jay_24 Posts: 536
    How about the Sequia or Durango?
    Both solid rear end. Fold flat seats?

    Sequia 5290lbs, 15city and 17hwy, 128 cu ft.
    273 hp and 314 lbs torque.
    Durango 5132lbs, 14city and 18hwy, 102 cu ft.
    235hp and 300 lbs torque.

    The Durango (non-hemi) has the second highest towing rating. Its just geared to tow and haul, not get good mpg.

    It appears weight, power and mpg don't always go together. The Toyota with lower weight and least power get the worst mpg on the highway. The durango with the least weight and second lowest power has the worst city mpg.

    if you guys really need more power just spend a few more nickels for an Escalade (403hp/417lbs). However with a 6 speed tranny and awd, it has the second lowest towing.

    Our Tahoe 5.3 4x4 gets the sticker mpg to slightly better.
    I hope the 2007 will too.
  • The 07 will get 22 mpg w/the 5.3L (320 hp & 340 lbs-ft trq)on the highway. Accompanied with the 3.73, the max tow rating is 7200 lbs. Can anybody come close to that combination?? I don't think so.
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    Regardless the issues of fold flat 3rd seat or not, IRS vs solid axle, plastic bumpers etc, the more important issue is that whether at this point in time is 07 a good buy? I personally think 06 will give me more bang on the buck since I dont consider 07 is significanly better. We havent heard anything about the 07 Sequoia yet. If Toyota comes up with a 5.6 v8 in that it will put the 07 Tahoe in the least powerful among the 3(Tahoe, Armada, Sequoia). Dont care much about Expeditions or Durangos.
  • We just bought a 07 tahoe lt3 and are loving it. We put 22inch Helo rims on with goodyear 305 40R22 tires and get a rub on the front left tire when we turn the wheel all the way to the left (always when backing out of a spot, etc). The tire place told us that there is nothing we can do and that even 20's would rub because you can't trim the plastic back on the wheelwell on the front left and that even the older models did it. We just aren't ready to accept that and are looking for some answers if anyone has any. I read that the 07 Escalade's were coming from the factory with 22's (so the Tahoe should be built the same?) and I can't see them putting out a SUV that will rub like this???

    By the way, love the car, Chevy did an excellent job, the inside is gorgeous and we are getting a lot of looks and comments.
  • jntjnt Posts: 316
    The 07 will get 22 mpg w/the 5.3L (320 hp & 340 lbs-ft trq)on the highway. Accompanied with the 3.73, the max tow rating is 7200 lbs. Can anybody come close to that combination?? I don't think so.

    If it makes the would-be Tahoe owners happier on MPG number:

    Typical minivan (~4300 lb) in real life returns 15 MPG around town and ~23 MPG on highway. If you can get 22 MPG on HWY on a Tahoe which is 1000 lb heavier, that is a big engineering achievement. The 15/23 numbers also applies to mid size car based SUV like Santa Fe, Pilot, Highlander, Trailblazer,...

    jt
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    Typical minivan (~4300 lb) in real life returns 15 MPG around town and ~23 MPG on highway. If you can get 22 MPG on HWY on a Tahoe which is 1000 lb heavier, that is a big engineering achievement.

    Yes true. My Odyssey (which has variable cylinder management like the new Tahoes) is rated 19mpg city and 28mpg hwy. I average about 20-21mpg and can get 24mpg on the highway. Just about the same as the NON VCM engine Odysseys. If I slow down to 55mph for a long trip, I can exceed the hwy mpg. My previous Tahoe was rated 14/18 and I usually averaged 16-17mpg and could get 19-20mpg on all highway trips (70mph).

    That's why I don't believe this new 22mpg number can be easily achieved and exceeded like the prior Tahoe (which was only 18-19mpg hwy EPA). The VCM/DOD engines manipulate the EPA tests more than a normal vehicle. Just like the hybrids. Those systems are VERY efficient at the speeds EPA performs the tests. IMHO, the real-world numbers will be very similar to the previous non-DOD engine unless someone specifically drives at the speeds where DOD is most beneficial.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    Good point about small and midsize V6 SUVs. A lot of them do much worse than you would expect. If a Santa Fe or Xterra gets the same mileage as my Yukon XL, why should I feel guilty? Either GM did well, or the others did poorly. I think the reason a lot of these things don't do well is that they are underpowered for their size. Sometimes more power is more efficient AND more fun!

    Then compare to Ford. The biggest complaint I've seen about the 5.4 liter Ford V8 is sluggish off-the-line response combined with mediocre fuel economy. Then they always praise the abrupt acceleration and commendable fuel economy of GM's 5.3.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    I had a 01 Nissan Pathfinder before my Suburban. It's true that hwy fuel economy wasn't all that much different. The PF was rated at 16/19 and I would generally get between 17-19 on the hwy. My Suburban is between 16-17 on the highway. The big difference is around town where the weight becomes more of an issue. The burb gets 12-14 around town where my Pathfinder would routinely get 16mpg around town. The Pathfinder had much lower gearing than the Suburban that made it much quicker, but it did hurt fuel economy. Even though both vehicles had similar hp & torque to vehicle weight ratios, the PF was much quicker at all speeds.

    I wouldn't call an Xterra with 265hp underpowered, they easily run 0-60 under 8 seconds.

    As for Ford Trucks and SUVS, they are a lot heavier than a comparable Chevy. Thus, they are slower and thirstier.

    BTW, the 07 4wd Tahoe is rated 15/21, the 2wd model is rated at 16/22. Anxious to see what actual real world mileage will be.
  • Sounds to me like the offset on the wheel might be wrong...meaning check with the mfr to confirm that your new wheels were made for an '07 model, not the '06.

    If in fact they are the wrong wheel, the rubbing will be the least of your problems as time goes on...
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    You're right about that, I would not call the new Xterras underpowered.

    At any rate, you are talking about 2 mpg difference overall for full size GMs versus midsize SUVs and minivans. I've done the math, and for me that adds up to a whopping $10-15 per month.
  • nargnarg Posts: 113
    I thought the LTZ model was supposed to come with 20" wheels from the factory? So unless the depth/width of the wheel is too much, then 20's shouldn't rub.
  • We checked the LTZ's, and since they come from the factory, the tires are not as wide, and therefore don't look as good, same with the ones coming on the cadillac. The rubbing only occurs on a full lock on the drivers side front only. Some dealerships are getting the tires custom made so that they don't rub, but those who get aftermarket 22's are all having the same problems. We've been told to wait three months to see what they come out with. A one inch lift on the front will help (but are not being manufactured yet), as will trimming the plastic on the wheel well, but we don't want to be the guinea pig on this!

    I guess we shall see. But I know we are not the only ones, even aftermarket 20's are rubbing. One of the joys of being a first owner of a new design!
  • tdohtdoh Posts: 298
    Well my Denali XL can't get anywhere near 22 mpg on the highway, but I have gotten around 17 on a good day--this considering that my vehicle has a gas-guzzling 6-liter engine, weighs over 6000 lbs. (w/ just myself in the vehicle and a half-tank of gas--verified w/ truck scale), and is rolling on heavier 22" wheels/tires (almost 20 lbs. more than the stock 17" at each corner--you can't tell me this additional unsprung mass doesn't adversely affect fuel economy somehow)...and BTW--I got that 17 mpg averaging 70 mph for the most part, over the course of 400 miles.

    How many large/heavy SUVs similar to my setup (non-diesel engines, of course) do you know that can get that kind of mileage? Sheesh, the Armadas and Sequoias of the world--both of which weigh less and have smaller-capacity engines than my DXL--should (in theory...and probably in practice, as well) be able to do better (get better hwy fuel economy than my 17 mpg), but typically don't/can't.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    All I can say is that it is about time GM built a good interior! Even though I've liked the form factor of the seating and the vehicle itself, I've never liked the horrible interiors. I think that they finally succeeded in doing something much nicer inside and I hope that it is put together well and won't creak in a few months. My only real disappointment has been with the transmission shifter... I can't believe that they STILL put this thing on the steering column. They do that even on the new Escalade! I know it saves space on the floor but it isn't like these vehicles lack space.
    Note to GM: Put the shifter on the floor!! Does anybody outside the "Big 3" do this anymore?
    Otherwise, I'm eager to see the new Yukon. It looks like a good, solid vehicle with a very nice interior. I hope it is as good in person as it is in the pics!
  • jntjnt Posts: 316
    Note to GM: Put the shifter on the floor!! Does anybody outside the "Big 3" do this anymore?

    Believe it or not, the new M-Class Mercedes SUV has column shifter with slightly different way of gear activation

    JT
  • navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
    The Toyota Sequoia also has a column shifter. However, that might change when the 2007 model comes out. I'm pretty sure the Honda Pilot is also like that.

    Still, the new Tahoe's interior is way better than the Armada, Durango, Sequoia. I rate it just as good, if not better than that of the Expedition.

    Column shifter's do look cheap and trucklike, but they also save a lot of space.
  • beliasbelias Posts: 316
    Yeah, I guess I was just a little shocked to see that there. The last time I was in a vehicle that had it was my dad's 1975 Chevy Nova! Still, I guess it must appeal to some people because it looks like it is in a good number of trucks/suvs. I've never liked them because they never move to exactly where you want them... particularly if you're parked on a hill... it is like you're almost pulling the lever so hard that it "grinds" through the set of choices before you push it back up to "D" or "R". Other than that though, it looks like a great interior!
  • Hey guys, when you're playing catch up late in the fourth quarter (no one really believes that the big SUV/cheap money/home equity loan boom is going to last, do they?) "just as good" ain't good enough.

    The General needs to spring ahead with class LEADING features. Maybe even an interior by Coach Leathers. Not just as good as a Ford Expo.
  • I've taken two test drives in the last week, one in which the salesperson took me through some hills in Palos Verdes. To me, the 2007 LTZ felt real sluggish and non-responsive. The salesman and I jumped from from a very peppy 2006 right into the 2007, both had 3.73 gears. The 2007 had larger wheels so I was going to try a 2007 with the standard wheels but I noticed the diameter was only about .5" difference so I passed. Went again to a different dealer today and I got the same results. I test drove a Sequoia during the week and it even felt more responsive. Anybody else notice a lack of responsiveness especially when trying to get it to kick into passing gear? This is confusing to me considering the additional horsepower for 07.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    I've had several of these Chevy trucks and the tranmissions are a bit lazy. You've gotta put your foot to the floor on the highway to get them to move. The '07's have the same tranny so I'm sure they're equally lazy. I test drove a crew-cab Tundra last week and the 4.7L with 5-speed auto felt much stronger than my current Silverado ext. cab. The Toyota tranny was always in the gear I wanted, my truck lugs unless I'm pegging the pedal. Our Tahoe was the same, it would upshift when climbing a steep on-ramp and that would make me so mad. The only way to merge at a decent speed was to peg the pedal to the floor so it wouldn't upshift.
  • Fallacy of the Independent Rear Suspension. IRS helps road holding over bumps but Expedition and Explorer ride considerably harder than the Tahoe ('06) and the Trailblazer. Armada rides stiff as well.
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    I drove both an Escalate and Sequois 2 month ago at GM's auto show in motion. I had never given any respect for the Sequoia since it was "not a real V8". After driving both, I was rellay amazed that tiny 4.7 could feel as powerful as the Caddy's 6.0 "Always in the gear I wanted" is a true statement of Toyota's tranny. I can't believe how much more powerful it will be when they review the new Tundra next week. GM still has a good engines but the 4 speed tranny and the 3.73 gear in a 07 is just not stacking up to the competitions.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,721
    I haven't driven an 07 Tahoe yet, but I do have a 2000 Suburban with the 5.3.

    All of the comments about the GM trucks/suvs feeling a bit lazy is exactly what I hate regarding just about every GM vehicle I've ever driven.

    Seems GM programs the transmissions to wait until you've just about floored the gas pedal to get a kick down. I've gotten used to it in my Suburban, but it's still annoying.

    Looking at the 07 Tahoe, 2 things stand out. It gained about 500lbs and the torque peak of the 5.3 while higher, is at a slightly higher 4200rpm. While I'm sure it will provide good all out performance, during normal driving it probably feels about as sluggish as my Suburban.

    Hopefully, GM will hurry up an make the 6speed auto standard on all their fullsize SUVs.

    Regarding the IRS, I don't know that has to do with how stiff the vehicle rides, that comes down to tuning. If Ford and Nissan wanted a softer ride, they would have designed it that way.
  • Actually the IRS suspension geometry makes it hard to have a compliant suspension and combined with the low load floor (which restricts wheel travel) the IRS SUVs would have a difficult time tuning for a plusher ride without crashing into the jounce stops too quickly.
  • We've spent the last 2 weeks going to all the chevy dealerships in our area test driving and comparing the 06 and the 07. I've always liked the exterior of the tahoe, and I'm a little disappointed in the redesign of the outside. Now it looks like everyother big SUV... primarily the Explorer, which I hate. BUT, the interior outshines any complaints I have about the new outside. I absolutely love the new interior!!! The old one was sooo truck like. The leather is super nice, but even the cloth seats are of higher quality than any of the cloth of seen in any other manufactuer. We like the improved gas mileage. Our dealer told us that the V8 runs on only 4 cylinders when you're not accelerating. Although I want one now, hubby has convinced me to wait for any bugs new models come with to be worked out. We asked the dealer if Tahoe plans on coming out with a hybrid model. Either inept, or wanting us to buy now, the dealer said not that he knew of. I knew a hybrid silverado just went into production... so I started doing my own research. Low and behold, 2008 will have a hybrid model. Said to average 23 miles per gallon. A 25% increase over the non-hybrid model. Not too bad... I know what we're waiting for!!! :shades:
This discussion has been closed.