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



  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Hi, everyone. As you've probably noticed, we have been trying to refine the discussions into more narrowly focussed topics. Our objective is twofold. We want to make it easier for people seeking specific information about their vehicles to find it easily and without having to wade through hundreds or thousands of postings.

    To those ends, we will be shutting down the general make/model discussions and work exclusively with specific issues. This requires us to populate the make/model subsections with relevant, interesting and timely topics. Rather than having the hosts simply create boilerplate topics for each make/model, we feel that you, the owner, the make/model enthusiast and the prospective buyer can best judge what those topics should be.

    You can help by adding a discussion (it's easy!) or suggesting one here.

    To add a discussion, click on the last link in the "You are here" line at the top of this page. That will take you to the topic page for this make/model. Review the list of topics and click on the "Add discussion" link when you've decided what topic you'd like to add. Follow the directions and you're done! Feel free to add more than one. Just avoid duplicating existing topics and try not to make it TOO specific!

    Your help and continued participation in the Forums is greatly appreciated! Thanks.
  • Sorry to here of the change, I enjoy following all issues related to a specific vehicle, I have enjoyed your site in the past, however if you feel you need to break-up the forum into separate topics, I do not believe this site is going to be very beneficial, thanks George
  • I agree with George.

    I don't want to read messages about Tahoes. I want to ONLY focus on 2007 Tahoe issues - ALL of them. :confuse:

  • Unlike the previous posters I welcome this change. It's far more familiar to those of us that visit other forums on the net, and far easier to find information about topics that interest you. Especially when a single wide ranging topic tends to have a lot of static with things you don't care about. This has led to having to search hundreds of posts to find a single piece of information in the past.

    Good job Edmunds!
  • I agree,

    Nothing is more frustrating that to go thru dozens of posts for all years (versions) of vehicles. The Ford Truck Enthusiasts website is a good example of how to break-up into meaningful pieces, while still allowing global searches.

  • You make a valid point, and I understand and respect your position as I hope you will respect mine. I have $53k invested in a newly designed Tahoe in it’s first year of production. In my first 3.5 months of ownership, I have had it in the shop 9 times for a variety of issue, ranging from poor MPG to the Air shocks not working properly. With this investment in a vehicle that is still in it’s first year of production, I am looking for a single source of what problems others are experiencing (all Problems), real life performance issues, and modifications other users have experienced. For instance, I experienced a leak in the rear hatch when washing the Tahoe, ended up being a poorly attached grommet on the rear hatch. I know of 2 other readers who experienced the same issue, both who thanked me for posting my experience/fix. Neither of them were looking for a post related to a leaking hatch, however they both were monitoring the general 2007 GMT forum like I do. It’s just a personal preference, I understand you opinion, I just hope there is some sort (no pun intended) of compromise. Thanks George
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Maybe I'm missing something but that looks like a forum with several big "groups" (think Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe group) with page after page of threads under each group. Over 1,000 pages with ~20 threads per page. Wouldn't a sub folder by issue be a bit easier to browse?

    If you track the Chevrolet Suburban & Tahoe group here, then you can follow all the discussions, or decide just to track the ones about, say, transmission issues or tires. Seems like that would let you organize your browsing easier if you don't want to track every post about the Sub/Tahoe.

    The Advanced Search on the left sidebar is our global search; it doesn't seem that most people want to search that way though. But it'll continue to be available.
  • Maybe it’s just me, I guess I am just different. I check this site several times a day, and have signed up for the e-mail notification just because I do want to read every post related to the 2007 Tahoe. I only see 102 pages, am I missing something? George
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    As often is the case with computer software, there are several different ways to do things. I like to use the tracking - I've subscribed to all the groups in SUVs (and a few others around the forum) and every time I pass by the computer, all my Tracked Items show up in the list. I can pick and choose which discussions to read there, but more often I just read the new posts using the Read New Posts link.

    The email notification will pick up every Suburban post too I guess. I don't use it but it's similar to tracking and you can turn it on for any or all of the Suburban discussions.

    Lots of people just Browse by Make/Model using the link on the left and click through from there. But tracking is more efficient imho, and it will pick up any new post in the ~47 Sub/Tahoe discussions that you subscribe too.

    By just subscribing to this discussion, you're missing the 2007 Tahoe/ 20"Wheels one, so that's another reason to regularly check the top level group if you aren't tracking all the discussions in it.
  • If you want some suggestions, PLEASE change the software you use for this bulletin board. Trying to follow discussions by topic on this board is frustrating. I have tried both the outline and date format and neither is friendly. The outline format on this board doesn't work as seamlessly as many other bb software applications widely used by high volume sites. Take a look at the various freeware apps out there that many high volume sites use and try one for yourself to see what I mean. For Example MegaBBS, phbBB, Simple Machines Forum, etc.
  • I don't understand why so many people are shocked at the mileage these trucks are getting. Did you really believe they somehow figured out how to get significantly better mileage while simulatenously increaseing HP and torgue with the same engine and drivetrain? If they could do that we wouldn't have seen $3.00/gal. If you don't need to tow something then why didn't you buy a mini van?
  • Gary is you nav. touch screen? Also were they fast on the shipping of the unit?
  • Failure of a manufacturer to meet documented product performance claims is not normally considered to be a "surprise". However, it is considered to be unlawful. Class action lawsuits are a possible remedy.
  • It is not a "manufacture’s" numbers it is the EPA's numbers aka the Federal Government. They are the averages of several tests, some lower, some higher. They are also done in a controlled environment. Go to the EPA's website and search around you will find the standards and how they are tested. It is no where close to how the vehicles are driven in real life.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    That's true that it's the EPA's, not the manufacturer's numbers... but GM sure does like to advertise that 21mpg highway figure.

    Having said that, I've never failed to get EPA estimates when I drive sanely and maintain my vehicles. And I'm tiring of this topic quickly.
  • Been there...done that. Only the naive are missing the reality here. Once more: the blame game will not fix the problem. Once more: EPA's numbers are misleading and a disservice to the public.

    Legislative action? Oh yes, we have that now.

    Why does it take federal legislative action to correct a product performance claim problem? Why has U.S. EPA not changed it's methods of estimating fuel ecomnomy for 21 years? Why did it take a mandate in the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 to effect change in fuel economy estimates?

    Section 774 of EPACT 2005 instructs the EPA to create new fuel economy measurements that more accurately reflect today’s speed limits, city driving conditions and the use of air conditioning and other fuel depleting features.

    Was it reasonable to use 45 miles per hour as the representative highway speed for testing for 21 years?

    Are city driving conditions in Los Angeles representative of most city driving conditions in our country?

    Do we not use A/C to survive the heat and humidity in places like the south half of the U.S.?

    Please don't take my word for it.

    From the U.S. Senate Committe on Energy and Natural Resources...

    Chairman's statement:

    “The EPA hasn’t updated fuel economy estimates since 1985. We instructed the EPA to update their fuel economy estimates after hearing from frustrated and disappointed consumers who weren’t getting the mileage from their vehicles that advertisements had led them to expect.

    “I consider this provision in the energy bill one of the most potent consumer protections in the bill. It will literally influence how American consumers spend tens of thousands of dollars. Buying a vehicle is one of the most expensive choices a family will make. With gasoline hovering at $2.50 a gallon, fuel economy estimates play a huge role in that choice. I am pleased that the EPA is moving swiftly to implement this provision in the energy bill.”
  • ahightower says, That's true that it's the EPA's, not the manufacturer's numbers... but GM sure does like to advertise that 21mpg
    highway figure.

    GM global marketing isn't stupid. They are smart guys. They got the same MBA I got. They know a good thing when they see it. Why would they contradict innaccurate EPA "estimates" when...they favor Sales of GM products?

    ahightower says, Having said that, I've never failed to get EPA estimates when I drive sanely and maintain my vehicles. And I'm tiring of this topic quickly.

    You may be tiring...but you won't be getting the 16 - 21 MPG fuel economy in a Tahoe anytime soon.

    Sanity and maintenance have nothing to do with it.

    The basic physics of a 5.3L V8 pulling a 5500+ lb load with the a/c on...the cumulative member experience documented many times over on this 13-14 mpg o/a....the independent 3rd party fuel economy testing done by Consumers Union of 9 MPG's long term Tahoe testing 12.5 MPG...the U.S. Senate Energy Committee's research...all these data sources explain why. They get it.

    I get it.
  • You know what Rspencer, you have preached and preached that none of us will get the EPA estimates for our new 2007 Tahoes. Well I would like to join the others by saying please don't tell me what I am or am not getting. I have taken my 2007 LT3, loaded w/ all the bells, 3:73 gears 3 people and gear for the three of us for a weekend travelling between 68-80 mph for approx 270 miles and gotten 17.9 mpg. I drive approx 15 mi to work with say 9 of it hwy and the rest steady traffic and I get close to 14 mpg. Now understand this my non-hwy commute is up and down hills of at least 15% grade, so while I am not climbing Mt. Kilamanjaro I am going up and down some hills that drop the mpg significantly. Please leave us alone, and let us share our experiences with each other. If you don't get the same mpg then say, "I don't get that good mpg." Do not continue to question the accuracy of our statements. I don't work for GM I was once a Jeep salesman, and now work for a law firm. By the way why are you driving with the A/C on in mid-October. I am sorry if I offend you but I have seen your posts for several months now and like many others just want you to listen instead of always criticizing others.
  • Amen twernst. As I've said before I have an Avalanche. It's not rated quite as high as the Tahoe and yet I still see figures on par with the EPA numbers on my sticker (and above if I really try hard). Further, those numbers are still above the numbers rspencer seems to think aren't possible. My latest tank, which in additional to my regular daily highway commuting includes quite a bit of cruising residential neighborhoods (stopping to check out homes for sale while allowing the Av to idle, etc). And the DIC AVG MPG is already back up to around 18mpg. As I haven't passed the 1/2 tank mark yet it IS going to go up a bit more before I fill up next time. While the DIC may or may not be a bit optimistic, it's never been off more than 1 mpg. Keep in mind that this is a 5800lb vehicle- a bit heavier than your Tahoes, and rated a bit lower for EPA numbers, with 4.10 rear end gearing.

    As far as those quoted magazine results for fuel economy, in Edmunds' blogs they've admitted that where and how they drive may effectively lower their overall averages (I criticized their Camry / Accord for only returning between 22 and 25mpg the way they drive). I agree that the EPA city test using "LA" as the standard is unrealistic. Much of the rest of the country comes nowhere close to being as congested as LA for our city driving, so we get higher city numbers. ;)
  • No offense taken. Your 14-17.9 MPG is underachieving mileage. Where's the 16-21 MPG?
  • trust the DIC...and your observation is based upon less than half a tank? Is that correct?
  • Sorry, A/C in south Texas in mid-Oct. is the norm.
  • No. I manually calculate EVERY tank when I fill up my vehicle. But I reset the DIC AVG MPG and trip mileage at the same time. How else would I be able to know that the DIC in the Av hasn't been off by more than 1 mpg? ;)

    I fully expect to be over 17 mpg at next fillup. Most likely even over 18, despite the amount of time spent burning fuel while not moving or barely moving.

    If you'd like to see my overall observations, check out the EPA's web site. I've logged my 2007 Avalanche 4x4 5.3l information there. I haven't entered the past month or so worth of info quite yet, but those are in line with what's already up there. And I assure you, these are manually calculated numbers, and they are also above what you think can be obtained.
  • One more thing- I've tried to make everyone aware of this any time this topic comes up for just about any vehicle I have experience with. I fully admit I normally seem to achieve above average mileage when compared to others with the same vehicles. But that doesn't mean the vehicles themselves are to blame. What it should tell you is that it IS possible to drive responsibly and get decent numbers (well, at least close to the EPA numbers, regardless of whether you consider those decent for these big vehicles).

    One other thing it tells you is that some people drive in more extreme conditions than others. That's why I agree that the LA driving pattern doesn't match the rest of the country. That sort of traffic is worse than even my recent round of house browsing on overall mileage. ANY vehicle allowed to sit in stop and go traffic will see it's numbers dropping, because it's essentially getting 0 mpg during the whole time it's running but not moving.
  • I hate to stick my nose in the middle of someone else's argument, but in defense of rspencer, GM has spent millions of dollars trying to convince the American SUV-buying public that they will get 17 mpg city and 21 mpg highway with the 2007 Tahoe. Like you, twernst10, the best I got in my LTZ with 3:73 on a 300 mile highway trip was 17.8. My local (combination city and highway) driving gets me no better than 13.6. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think rspencer is simply arguing that 14/17.9 is not 17/21. Frankly, I agree. I didn't buy the new Tahoe for the gas mileage, but it would be nice if I could at least average what the government and manufacturer claimed I would get in all city driving. It's pretty bad when my $48k 2007 Tahoe doesn't get any better mileage than my $22k 1997 F150.
  • Oh sure, anything is possible... Normal to what? Those "above average" MPG's are not bein' achieved by havin' yer mommy push you with with her Toyo Prius hybrid are they? With yer' ignition switch "OFF"?

    Aren't you replying to your own post? Do you own a Tahoe or an Avalanche?

    There is an Avalanche forum on this website...
  • Nice try at changing the subject. The 07 Av is the virtual twin in drivetrain with the Tahoe, and nearly so in the body (based on Suburban- stretched Tahoe, if you will). So my observations are valid. More importantly, I've included disclaimers identifying any differences. And I replied to myself to add a bit more information.

    Obviously you're not interested in real dialog. Just grumbling about YOUR experiences. Thanks. over and out.
  • Here's a few observations from the Avalanche forum:

    #23 of 534 Gas mileage heading in the wrong direction by robbins_ Aug 17, 2001 (10:43 pm)
    Bookmark | E-mail Msg
    Well I have filled this truck up 5 times now and each time the mpg keeps getting lower and lower. Started out at 13mpg and am now down to 11.5mpg. Not driving it any different, mix of city and highway. Never over 70mph, and almost never over 3000rpm. I expected low gas mileage with this truck, but this is really starting to concern me. If my next fillup shows less than the 11.5 of the last fillup I will be discussing this with service. Anyone else seeing this?

    #509 of 534 MPG by melh May 22, 2006 (9:46 am)
    Bookmark | E-mail Msg
    Just took delivery of my 2007 Avalanche. Thought for sure from the friends that I have that have these that the MPG would be better than my 2001 Silverado. WOW was I surprised to see that my first half a tank only got me 11.5 MPG. That isn't good at all. Any suggestions would be welcomed.

    Would u like to see a few more?
  • Few more Tahoe examples:

    #1995 of 2034 MPG - lemon law by junglegeorge Oct 13, 2006 (4:54 am)
    Bookmark | Reply | E-mail Msg
    Tahoe MPG

    This past Wednesday I took my 3-month-old Tahoe (with just under 6k miles) back to the dealer for the third time because of poor MPG. As I have previously stated in earlier posts, my Tahoe is equipped with the 3:73 gears and best MPG I have obtained on a trip is 17.4 with a average trip MPG of 16.2. Around town, I am averaging 12.5. Both the dealer and GM are finally taking this very seriously, they have had it for 2 days (actually working on it continuously) and just informed me they will continue working on it today, however I will have use of it for the weekend. I know that the dealer has road tested the vehicle and sent the GM engineer electronic snapshots of how the vehicle is actually performing. The dealer fully admits that on the open road test drive, he was not able to obtain the 17.4 MPG that I reported, and actually only achieved 16 MPG. GM’s first response was that I was using E-85, which is not available in upstate NY. Now they are looking at a host of things from fuel trim, sensors, and programming. This is their last chance before the vehicle is eligible for buy back under the NYS lemon law, they only get 3 attempts to fix the same issue). I am not looking for a buy back at this time, however want to at least achieve the MPG I was obtaining on both my 03 and 04 Tahoe. It took the lemon law to push the issue to the point that they are now taking the issue seriously. I will keep you posted George

    #56 of 128 Response to tidester by 73shark Aug 10, 2006 (3:11 pm)
    Reply | E-mail Msg
    Maybe I'm obtuse but I can't seem to make the connection between your analogy and the discussion on EPA estimates.

    My experience over the last few vehicles that I've owned has been with reasonable driving techniques, I could get at or better than the EPA values. Not so with my '07 LTZ. Granted I only have 2K mi, so hoping will improve but to date it's about 12/16 mpg. Not even close to the 16/21 EPA estimate.
  • Did a search but did not find this on any of the usual suspect websites...

    I have a 2007 2WD Suburban (8,500 miles) which was a very early delivery. This weekend we drove home (approx 380 miles) in a rainstorm which at times was very heavy.

    Monday AM the transmission starts to sound...very annoying.

    Ran by the dealer today to schedule a drop off for tomorrow (we will be flying out of town for several days).

    My most trusted tech told me that due to sheet metal design issues, it is possible for rain (ie water) to get into the transmission!!! They have had several incidents of this.

    In 35 years of driving I have never heard such an is almost laughable at face value. But he was serious.

    When I drop it off I will try to get some more info...exact cause and fix (if there is one) and see if there is anything official from GM on it.

    Has anyone heard or seen anything about this?
This discussion has been closed.