By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
How did we ever survive with 3 speed trannys?
Just a theory since I really don't know the answer, but maybe a 4 speed is better in the long run? I'm thinking this because excessive shifting causes heat that helps kill a tranny. Wouldn't a 5 speed shift much more than a 4 when under a heavy load?
More torque and more HP? Goosh 170hp was enough for my old 1991 S-15 Jimmy (4700lbs)
Basically when I'm towing my boat with my Suburban I only have 3 speeds to use. Can't use o/d when towing, engine doesn't have enough torque @ 2000rpm to pull a 5000lb boat @ 70mph (not to mention I've already replaced one trans, I don't want to replace another by using o/d). So I tow in 3rd @ 65mph spinning around 2500rpm or so, pulling up anything more than a minor grade requires 2nd gear and 4000+ rpm.
The trucks were lighter and so where the towed loads years ago. Also, if you look at many of the engines in the 70's and 80's, they developed torque & hp at low rpm. GMs current line of small block v8s develop peak torque @ 4000 rpm & peak HP at 5000 rpm. Additional gears help keep the engine in the powerband w/o to much of a drop in rpm between gears. That's a problem when trying to tow up hills.
The average new trailered boat is around 20' and weighs close to 5,000lbs. 20 years ago the avg was around 17'-18' and probably didn't weigh much more than 3000lbs.
I'd say the same holds true with campers as well. I guess we all have bigger houses and bigger toys.
http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/galleries/yukon/pages/01.htm
How did we ever survive with 3 speed trannys? "
I never had any power/performance problem years ago with my 3-speed cars when they had 403 or 427 cid in them. More gears provide better fuel econmy for sure but at the expsense of more complexed trans which requires more services. Most older 3-speed cars never needed to change trans fluid during normal life span whereas a lot of newer cars now require perioidic change of trans fluid.
I personally dont mind having 5 or 6 speed in a new car. I just dont want to pay for any additional maintaince costs due to having more gears.
Absoultely.
Also, I dont know what others think. But I feel the front bumper is really extending too low which not only reduces the ground clearance but also blurs the line betten a SUV and a van. To me this is a very serious product image mistake. GM is making big buck on full size suvs. The last thing they should do is to make their suvs look like a van and kill the cash cow.
Modern transmissions are made of lighter materials than they were 20+ years ago, but that isn't the biggest reason modern transmissions need frequent fluid changes.
2 reasons modern cars need frequent fluid changes, but mainly one. The trans. fluids today aren't as good as the fluids used 25+ years ago and today's engines run hotter allowing hotter trans temps as well.
Don't laugh, but up until 20-25 years ago trans fluids used whale oil, which is one of the best natural lubricant as far natural ability to not break down under heat. Once international bans/limits on whaling were implemented whale oil could no longer be used for trans fluid and other lubricants.
I'm sure many may be falling of their chairs but look it up, it's well documented.
Judging from such recent introductions as the Malibu, Impala, the Colorado, and now the Tahoe, something "truly special" maybe beyond their collective abilities.
GM is not Toyota, their public image is rock-bottom, and a decent car is not nearly good enough right now.
They need to put as much effort and money into their vehicle's designs as they do their incentives.
It's like watching a football team use a "Prevent" defense. Trying not to lose hastens your demise considerably.
GM doesn't have the luxury of producing another mediocre new model.
DrFill
The combined sales of the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra are a bit higher than the Ford F-series. Data is from a competing website, through May of 2005:
1. Ford F-Series pickup — 335,269
2. Chevy Silverado C/K pickup — 274,869
14. GMC Sierra pickup — 87,210
GM's advantage is 26,810 units. Maybe GM ought to do away with the GMC division and take over bragging rights for best seller.
Plus, you might say the Avalanche and even Escalade EXT are bought to be used as "trucks", and share pretty much the same mechanicals. GM is clearly preferred by consumers.
I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty certain the GM full-size SUVS far outsell the Fords as well. Chalk one up for old school engineering.
Ford only has the Expedition and Navigator. Excursion never sold well and has been dropped.
DrFill
On the fold flat rear seats, I continue to be surprised that GMC was not able to come up with a design that worked here. Any of us that want to load larger items needing support from underneath are still left having to remove them. I am wondering if the setup will be any different on the new XL versions.
Also, with the captains chairs in the second row, where is the option for a removable console for those? Nissan and Infinity offer this and Lincoln has one as well although I am not sure if it is removable. Why would this not make perfect sense for them? I even thought it may make sense for a platform that would accomodate an additional seat in that location interchangeable with a console. Is that impossible? That would fit in the Professional Grade Category.
Someone commented on the bumpers not looking as "trucky" without any chrome. Not only do I agree, but for many of us that will use these vehicles to tow with and for other utilitarian functions, having plastic covered and painted bumpers is really not what we would choose for durability either.
Although I am probably going to wait on our next purchase of a larger towing capable SUV until I can see and touch the new Yukons, I am dissapointed that they could not get closer to the mark than this. I am really struggling to figure out if it will be worth waiting to see.
does this sound correct?
"The Hydra-Matic 6L80 debuts in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac STS-V and Cadillac XLR-V. It will be featured in 25 different 2007 model-year vehicles, including several of GM’s new full-size sport utility vehicles."
So the new Tahoe might start with a 4 speed but be updated later? or maybe its optional?
I wish GM would make all seating options available on all models (LS, LT, Z71). I want an LS with heated cloth seats and 2nd row buckets. GM's leather looks awful after a year and I've always been disappointed they only offer tan and light gray leather in the full size SUVs (but you can get dark gray leather in pickups - what gives?).
Has anyone seen pricing on these things yet? Can ytou imagin what a loaded Tahoe with new features such as power folding seats, heated 2nd row seats and a backup camera is going to list for? The cost of these SUVs with basic features is ridiculous. This year Tahoe tip the scale of $50,000. Who pays $50,000 for a Chevy everyday driver? That’s almost as far out there as paying $60,000 for a VW!
PS: To all of you wanting 3rd row fold flat seats: BUY A MINI VAN!
Amen brother. NO plastic bumper on Tahoes or any truck please. Rugness and durability are of essence on trucks and truck based SUVs. The invention of platic bumpers is a dream for body shops and a nightmare for car owners.
"PS: To all of you wanting 3rd row fold flat seats: BUY A MINI VAN! "
Right on again. The 3rd seat on a Tahoe or my Suburban is not easy to acess and certainly not for middle aged adults. I still dont understand why a 3rd seat is needed on Tahoes while Suburbans are always more suitable for haulig more than 5 people.
A fold flat 3rd seat is basically a good idea. However, it wont be a good idea if this requires changing into Independent rear suspension, A independent suspension is by nature much more complex and much less durable. Unless it is Hummer H1 like which is great but not pratical for a regular SUV. The CV joints and the boots are much more suspectible to damages. And most of, the ride is not always better simply because of having independent suspension.
GM
Also, as has been mentioned, Edmunds has a great article on the recent "unwrapping".
Edmunds
I have been tortured between a great deal on a 2006 or wait for the 2007; definitely waiting on the '07. We have to wait until June before the extended versions are on sale though. I think people lured into the recent sales bonanza will be bummed out when the new models arrive. I'm all about safety for the four kids and this is the vehicle I want my family in.
Having never owned a GM SUV I am very leery of quality, especially considering a first year model. Any words of comfort from experienced GM SUV owners??
Because I have 3 kids and a camper. I also take 2 of their freinds to school in the morning. 3rd row is great for kids. Fold flat would be nice, but far from a deal breaker for me. A `burban is too long to fit in my garage.
Simple, dependable, good mpg, with suspension and power to take the family camping.
--jay
The people on here calling this a "catch up" vehicle are delusional. Catching up to what? The interiors are far better than anything short of the Navigator or Lexus GX. The powertrains are potent and have class leading technology. The overall feature count is impressive. I dont know what vehicles in this price range are on par with the new Yukon and Tahoe. The Armada would be the closest thind, but one look at its plasticky interior tells you Nissan cut some corners to save money. An IRS is the only thing that could've made these trucks better than they are already.
For the record I like the Denali's front end. I saw the trucks in motion on Autoline Detroit on Speedchannel and they looked good.
Well, being a first year model, there will likely be some quality issues. However, my experience with a 2003 Z71 Tahoe (which I bought new and ran up 65k on the clock in two and a half years) was, overall, very good. I had fewer problems with it than the GS400 it replaced. I had about the same number of problems as a RX300 my wife currently drives. I had MUCH FEWER problems with the Tahoe than I had with an Audi A6.
The truck was the most comfortable vehicle I've ever driven. Was it mechanically perfect during those 65k? Nope. Was it dependable? Absolutely. In my case, it was a great truck!
BTW. . . I recently bought an '06 2wd Z71. I discovered I could get something dressed up like an LT (in the Z71) without the manditory 3rd seat. love my Tahoe
My son drove his 4WD 2002 Tahoe for 265,000 miles with only replacing tires and brakes. It had the "ticking" engine but it only got so bad and then never got any worse. The engine was quiet when it was warm, even with 265,000 miles. He was religious about oil changes (3000 to 5000 miles).
He traded it for an '05 which he likes even better, again no problems.
Technically three in the back, but I would not want to be one of them... Good point though, 3+3 vs. 2+2+2. But if you carry that many people on a regular basis, you don't want to be shoulder to shoulder the whole time. Or within hair-pulling distance. And you don't want a child in the front seat, according to the so-called safety experts. We only have three kids, but all are in toddler car seats. It is pretty difficult to fit three of these modern gigantic cars seats across a single bench. Also more difficult to get the kids loaded into those seats all in a row. Much easier to have a couple walk through the "aisle" to get to the back. We have two in the back, one in the middle, and an extra middle row seat for mom to tend to the young'uns and hand out cheerios on long trips.
In my humble opinion, if you have three or four kids, the long wheelbase Suburban or Yukon XL are worth the extra money over the Tahoe/Yukon. It does fit in a (clean and organized) garage, is surprisingly easy to maneuver and park, and you have plenty of cargo space behind that third row. Also, the second row windows roll all the way down, I saw someone complain about that in their Tahoe a while back. Nearly identical fuel economy too, if you are a tree hugger.
In a perfect world, I'd have second row buckets and a front row bench. There would be buckets in the middle for every day practicality, the extra front seat for occasional use, and more front knee room without that center console thing, for the long-legged freaks among us.
Also, I would like to install a limo-style screen behind the front row so we can close off the noise from the children when they are being particularly rowdy. There's got to be something out there from one of the companies that makes Escalades into limos, right?...
Me too!
--jay
Does it need to be a fold flat? nope.
Is a suburban better? Possibly, but its also more $$ and too long for my garage.
Best part is if you don't want the third row, just remove it.
On the other hand, having a one piece bench might make it more comfortable for a person to sit in the middle of that third row, instead of riding the split. In fact, can you actually seat three across the Tahoe third row? Is there a middle seat belt? I wonder if the 2007 Suburban/YXL will have the split seat, or stay with the one piece.
First of all, to those of you who want a folding 3rd seat - get a minivan. Amen.
Regarding quality, some of the postings indicated the new extended models would be out in June, 2006. I recommend you wait for late 2007 models or the 2008 models. They will have the bugs worked out by then If you don't mind a few extra days in the shop, then go ahead with an early 2007 model.
I have purchased two models with signficant improvements over the prior year but not complete redesigns - 1996 and 2003. Both had problems with the radios. Both got two replacements. If you need a new, extended model (Suburban or Yukon XL) right away, buy a 2006. By the time the late 2007's come out or the 2008's, you will have a good trade in, and you can enjoy the new model.
I just picked up a 2005 2500 model with everything - including DVD player. Everything is working great after 10,000 miles.
I have to agree with the people who say the 5.3 is too small. It is. I have a 6.0 liter and I think it is just barely powerful enough.
Does anyone have any ideas on the new 2500 models? Will they be equipped for towing? Will they offer the big block option? The lack of a big block enging and/or substantial rear bumper could squash the large towing capacity currrently available.
By the way, the 8.1 liter, while a gas hog, was a blast to drive.
About a month ago I saw the results of a Honda Accord that rear-ended a Tahoe. The Accord for the most part looked totalled. Airbags deployed, total front end pushed back into the engine. I'm not sure but I think there was a scratch on the Tahoe's bumper. (meaning no visible damage as I passed by.)
True. It is no sweat if hit by a Accord or most passenger cars in non high speed situations. I guess this is one of the resons we drive giant SUVs.
The main reason I went with a Suburban over the Tahoe was the extra wheel base for towing stability and the extra room behind the 3rd row which comes in handy when someone needs to sit back there and I need cargo space as well.
--jay
Amen.
Also own a BMW 7 series and have really enjoyed it. The best part is the warranty and maintenance. I hand the keys to the dealer, they give me a replacement vehicle and call me when everything is done. No cost to me other than time and the best part - no headaches. Anybody hear of GM doing something similar?
Would love to know what you decide to do as I have never owned an American vehicle for fear of the quality.
DrFill