Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon



  • jyoz1jyoz1 Posts: 6
    I would like to also add, why does GM refuse to design the 3rd row seat to fold into the floor and out of the way? I am not nitpicking here, I see all the improvements. I REALLY hate having to constantly take the 3rd row seats in/out for various tasks. My wife can't do it by herself, and when out, i always run the risk of it getting dirty,ruined in the garage. I love the new design but WILL NOT buy one because of this. Such an easy thing to do,yet they refuse to do it. GM DESIGNERS/RICK WAGONER....Hello
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    fold flat seat is defintely a good feature. However there is a minor down side of this is that the material of the seat back is no longer the leather or the mathing vinyl. Instead, most often the seat back uses carpeting material. It is not a big deal but it does look cheap for a pricy suv.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,727
    I don't think there is room for a fold flat 3rd row seat with a solid rear axle. Every SUV I can think of that has the flat fold seat (Armada, Explorer, Expedition etc) has an independent rear suspension to allow room for the fold down seat. I think the Dodge Durango has a fold flat rear seat along with a solid rear axle. I wonder how flat it folds and how they made room for a fold down seat?

    I'm mixed on the fold flat seat. I think it's more critical in a tahoe, than a Suburban. Honestly, I've never taken the rear seat out of my Suburban and the main reason we bought a Suburban over most SUVs, was due to the extra room behind the 3rd row.

    One thing to consider, is GM did rush these new trucks to market. I remember reading that a rear IRS was in the works but was scraped to save development time (thus money).

    Ford will have a redesigned Expedition in '07, that will also have an extended model to compete with the Suburban. I really like the Expeditions packaging and I only bought the Suburban for two reasons. A little extra room behind the rear seat and I was able to find a Suburban I wanted for a lot less money.
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    Ditto on all points, Dieselone. I am looking forward to the extended Expedition. It will be a couple years 'til I am in the market again though.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,727
    I'm looking forward for the redesigned and extended Expedition as well.

    My Suburban only has about 58k miles on it and if I can keep it from nickle and dimming me to death, I'd like to keep it two more years to see what shakes out in the market.
  • jay_24jay_24 Posts: 536
    I'm sure IRS is great for on road handling and ride. But have you ever noticed the effects on ground clearance? the Ford explorer and Expedition appear to have about 5 inches of clearance on the outside near the wheels.

    Wouldn't this be a huge problem in deep sand/snow and on even a mild wheel rutted farm road?

    Not all manufacturer's have that same IRS issue. Subarus have basically the same clearance all the way to the wheels, Hondas (Pilot and Ridgeline) have slight clearance issues near the wheels.

    Just a thought from watching them down the road.

  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    I agree with dieselone. A fold-flat rear seat is not compatible with an independent suspension. I think that decision was a mistake on GM's part.
  • nedzelnedzel Posts: 787
    The current Ranger Rovers have independent suspension all around and have excellent ground clearance. So I think manufacturers can design an independent suspension that works well offroad. Whether or not GM and Ford (Ford the brand, not the company -- I realize Land Rover is now owned by Ford) will do so is another matter...
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    "But have you ever noticed the effects on ground clearance? the Ford explorer and Expedition appear to have about 5 inches of clearance on the outside near the wheels. "

    Absolutely outragous in my book. A true SUV must have the ruggness which includes a decent grand clearance. It is rediculous to know that my sienna van has similar, if not more, ground clearance compared with Explores, Expeditions, Pilots/MDXes.
  • jay_24jay_24 Posts: 536
    With a price starting over $56k MSRP for the sport model I hope they did it right. Hummer (GM owned) also did it right. Look at the H1. But then again the price tag is high.

    So can IRS be done right (with good ground clearance) and be cost effective?

  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,727
    A Corvette probably spends as much time off road as the avg. Suburban (maybe more if the owner is under 30 LOL).

    Since these vehicles are primarily used for on road use, I don't have a problem with Ford/Nissan using independant suspensions to improve on road ride and handling while sacrificing ground clearance.

    A serious SUV is a Land Rover, Hummer, Wrangler etc. All the rest are just beefed up wagons.

    Most people who do serious off roading, wouldn't be caught dead in an Expedition, unless it was used to tow their Wrangler to the sand dunes.
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    I agree that majority of Suburban traffic is not offroad however, most Vetts, 911s are not been driven at 150 mph either. So why do people brag about the top speed on their sports car? How it will be used is not the issue here. The issue is what is the capability of it and what is it good for. I do hit the trail from time to time, so the ground clearance is absolutely important to me.

    I used to consier Expediton side by side with a Tahoe/Surbran. But Expedition has long gone out of my list ever since there lowered GC IRS came out.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,727
    Well that's why there are choices. If you want more off road capability, an Explorer or Expedition wouldn't be a good choice.

    I don't fault Ford for improving the Explorer and Expedition's on road performance. Yes, they may lose a customer her or there, but, for the most part, they have improved it to fit the needs of the average customer.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    an SUV MUST be rugged as 4rider said...there are obviously good choices among SUVs, which I see as a body style as opposed to truly a function designation...I consider the Xterra and Navigator to be SUVs, but I would assume that I would see an Xterra in the off-road mud sooner than the Navigator... ;) :shades: ;)
  • tdohtdoh Posts: 298
    The discussion about 3rd rows and headrests makes me feel even that much better about getting the longbus version instead of the shortbus; I have three small kids of my own--if I never had to lug around cargo, the shortbus would be more than suitable...but since I do lug stuff around (e.g., on trips), taking out the third row would solve the cargo space issue but then one of my kids (assuming that he/she grows out of needing a child/booster seat) would be forced to sit in a seat that doesn't have a headrest. With the longbus, all five of us (and one additional passenger, as well) are ensured a seat with a headrest...AND I'll still have plenty of room to stow our stuff in back.
  • 4rider4rider Posts: 96
    "The discussion about 3rd rows and headrests .."

    This is a very good point. I can't understand why headrests never get the same kind of attention as other safty devices do, such as seat belts and air bags. A good supportive headrest is a cheap and yet extremely effective safty device to have. You dont need a medical degree to know what will happen if you have a neck injury.

    The missing middle seat headrest, or having a small, non supportive headrest is beyond my imagination and I dont understand why this is not regualted by the government. Perhaps most people just dont have that kind of awareness.
  • sdronsdron Posts: 29
    Hi everybody. Just checked out the new Yukon at the San Diego Auto Show and it is sweet. Black SLT with 20" wheels and gray leather. Had it spinning on a platform and man is it pretty. Was looking at the 06 Denali's, but not sure I need that after seeing the 07.
    One of the GM? reps said you can order without the 3rd row seats which will be a plus for me if true. Don't need the extra seating and don't want to store if I take them out.
  • OK, after almost purchasing a LT Tahoe a few years ago, I'm back doing research with the debut of the 2007. Simply put, I want to carry 8 passengers and do not want a minivan. So far our Outback has done a great job but with a new child, it is getting a little small. I like getting decent gas mileage and will never tow anything. Therefore, I have narrowed it down to the Honda Pilot and now the 2007 Tahoe. Any comments?
  • Night and day..the Tahoe is a MUCH bigger vehicle (obviously)and will be considerably more expensive to buy (for the time being) own and operate than the Pilot.

    I looked at an '07 Tahoe over the Holidays. It is pretty impressive.
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    I owned an Expedition. (99 and and I know that was a while ago) Never felt it was underpowered as so many complain. I liked it except the milage was so dismal, I traded it for a Toyota minivan. I could never do better than 12 around town and 15 hwy in the Ford. My Toyota was suppose to get 19/24. Never did better than 16/20 in the 18 months I endured it. Finally traded into a Tahoe 5.3 2wd. That old push rod technology with all the beef the reviewers brag about consistently delivered 15ish around town and 19+ on the road if I drove the speed limit (or near 18 going 85). I don't know from beans about push rod vs anything else. Seat of the pants, if it works, why change it. Best I can tell, the tough Chevy engine seems to be what everyone else tries to equal. It's a little rough but it is ready to go. Now have an 06 2WD Z71 that is averaging mid 15's city. For the record, I drive conservatively. Probably could lower my MPG 20 percent if I drove it like a kid. love my Tahoe(s)
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539
    I agree, Pilot and Tahoe are very different classes of vehicle. Pilot is much smaller in all three rows, although much less expensive.

    If you're actually going to carry 8 on a daily basis, I would get a Suburban rather than a Tahoe. The third row is a bit roomier, and there is way more cargo space. I have a Yukon XL. We looked at Yukon and Tahoe first, for smaller size and slightly lower price, but I cannot imagine fitting a stroller in the back with the third row of seats up, not to mention a load of groceries, or luggage for a family vacation. Maybe the 2007 will be a little better. But for me, it was definitely worth the money to get the XL over the regular Yukon. Going camping we are able to fit a very large ice chest and two huge rubbermaid tubs full of food and gear in back with the third row up.

    My gas mileage has been about 18 mpg overall (we have done about 75% highway driving). That is not far off of most minivans. And the 2007 models should be even better with improved aerodynamics and DOD.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,241
    Last year we switched from an '02 Tahoe (9-passenger, front bench) to an '05 Honda Odyessy with 8 seats. The Ody is so much more comfortable and useful in every way except 4x4 and towing. I have two trucks so it's not a huge compromise to lose 4x4 and towing, however it would be ideal to have the best of all worlds.

    I was watching for the redesign and if they don't have a folding 3rd row, I won't even consider it. I really expected them to offer IRS and that wouldn't have bothered me one bit. The usefulness to 95% of the buying public is more than worth the slight off-road losses. A Tahoe is not the ideal off-road vehicle regardless and even with IRS could make it just fine through routine off-roading conditions.
  • The reason why we have all this unused capability in the U.S. automobiles is that Americans will pay a premium for "performance" regardless they use it/need it or not. This was summed up nicely on one of the Scientific Frontiers shows hosted by Alan Alda on PBS.

    Rgs, JLH
  • ahightowerahightower TXPosts: 539

    It's good that you have other vehicles to use for towing and off roading. We had a 2004 Nissan Quest prior to our Yukon XL. I would agree that the 2nd and 3rd rows are much roomier in the van. However, the Yukon is much more comfortable for me at 6'3" (my right knee was always resting against the center console in every other vehicle I've driven). And our children are very young so there is still plenty of room back there. Since the YXL is our only vehicle (aside from my small company car), and we do a lot of camping, and plan to get a boat, we decided the big SUV was the best choice for all around family transportation, even though the van had more passenger space and a little better fuel economy.

    I'm curious to see the new extended Ford Expedition. Will it have IRS and flat folding third row also? If so that might be the best compromise of SUV ability and minivan practicality. The Nissan Armada has pretty good space in the 2nd and third rows, which do fold flat, but the only thing with a decent amount of cargo space with all three rows in place is the Suburban/YXL.
  • Yes, the lack of a folding third seat is a BIG negative. When I told my wife about that, she couldn't believe you would have to take the entire seat out. What if unexpectedly you're at Home Depot one day and you want to put something in your Tahoe-- but realize the third seat is is so you are out of luck?
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    I think the third seat design of the new Tahoe is a real disaster. It will cost them a lot of sales that they would otherwise get.
  • Just fold the third seat down. Look, if you really need the third seat that badly while you are at Home Depot, perhaps the Tahoe is not for you.
    I took someone with three kids out of an Odyssey recently and put them into an LX470. Does it have less room? Yes. Are the rearmost seats just in the way at all times? Yes. Did the buyers see this as a compromise they were willing to accept? Yes.
    Look, if a van better fits your lifestyle, stop trying to make an SUV work for you. They are not for everyone.
  • jay_24jay_24 Posts: 536
    I don't agree that its a disaster. First what percentage of Tahoes sold have the third row? It might be a minor percentage. Fold flat seats, while they look nice and appear to fold nice and flat leaving lots of room, will still take up more room than ones that remove. Either gound clearance or floor height has to change. The seat has to fold somewhere and take up space.

    Most people that use a third row on a common basis have a Suburban so you can have a third row and storage.

    I have three kids, and use the third row often to take kids to school in our Tahoe. The removable seats are not a big issue.
  • This vehicle is ugly. If they want to copy Ford they need to sell the company to William. I hope the new Silverado does not follow this design. Styling points 0. I am launching a campaign to fire the CEO. I like GM. Grew up around GM. I hate the look of this vehicle. Lets be truthful this thing is ugly and the best foot was not put forward. :lemon:
  • navigator89navigator89 Posts: 1,080
    Sorry, but you seem to be forgetting THAT STYLING IS SUBJECTIVE I like the looks of this vehicle and I'm sure there are others who like it too.
This discussion has been closed.