Howdy, Stranger!

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

Chevy Tahoe



  • Sebring95, with regard to sway bars, don't all Tahoes already have them? If so, wouldn't the issue be how much larger in diameter from OEM are the aftermarket units? So, ride quality wouldn't change because they are already attached?

    With regard to Autoride, your belief is that it is just hype and better to save the bucks, and then put on some Bilsteins and better tires for a firmer, more controlled ride? This makes sense to me.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    The ride quality wouldn't change if you used a similar sized/spec'd sway bar. The stiffer/better the sway bar, the less forgiving it will be in ride department.

    I don't know if I would outright call autoride hype. I think between the questionable reliability and long-term ride/handling it's not a good option for me. I can just imagine what it would cost to replace OEM parts, and personally have no idea what would be involved with trashing the entire system and starting over.

    I drove both models over very rough roads, as well as normal driving. IMHO, the imperfections of the base system can be improved upon easy enough to not warrant buying the autoride. For someone that doesn't want to think about it then the autoride is probably ok. They probably won't even notice when it turns to mush anyway. The type of roads I drive will destroy factory shocks quite quickly, so I'd rather start out with something simple. I'd put money that the changes I'm making will make the Tahoe handle better than one equipped with autoride. Not sure about ride yet, but the wallowing doesn't do anything for the ride in my book anyway.

    I'll post some results when I get around to installing everything.
  • what's the going price for Yukons? Is it safe to assume that a fair price is Invoice less the $3,000 rebate and less the $500 factory to dealer incentive? thus, invoice - $3,500. what do you guys think? or should it be less???
  • ichabod2ichabod2 Posts: 3
    For those of us that were maybe anticipating a style change in 2004, forget it. My dealer said his rep told him that Tahoe's will not change until 2005. Will probably resemble a Avalanche?
  • txyank1txyank1 Posts: 1,010
    assumption. Champion Chevy here in Austin is advertising up to $10,000 off MSRP, but I haven't checked on the details to see how it's arrived at.
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    Autoride should be able to be easily disabled by disconnecting the compressor and replacing the shocks with standard shocks if you have a desire to do so.

    Aside from ride quality, autoride has a superior load leveling system to the standard shocks. This is very easily noticed if you tow. Autoride levels the vehicle immediately. The standard suspension is supposed to level over a couple of miles.
  • 03tahoe03tahoe Posts: 83
    at $300 plus shipping.

    The paper 5 or 6 volume set is still NOT released by G.M., so Helm can`t ship. Price $120.00 plus shipping.

    Maybe by Xmas.
  • ezraponezrapon Posts: 348
    Took delivery of a new 03 Yukon slt 2 weeks ago. I immediately drove it down to Florida for a 2 week vacation. I stayed at an upscale condo in Destin and noticed that about 80% of the cars in the parking lot were full size suvs, most of them big GM's. I had 6 people and a large roof mounted cargo carrier with me, never got over 14 mpg. I attribute this to the weight and the carrier (and maybe the new engine. I have to wonder why so many people are driving these things. They are comfortable and handle reasonablely well, but there is not a lot of cargo room (wife nixed the XL). In the south they don't get much snow and I doubt if any of the 1000's of these things I saw have ever been off the road. I noticed 2 things mine 5.3 with 3:73 constantly down shifted on even moderate hills. The other thing I noticed, at least half of the GM's I passed had only one running light lit. I hope for better mileage (and a way to remove 8,000,000 bugs) then I'll be 100% sold. The nice thing is, the car performed perfectly and doesn't seem to need to go back to the shop. The blower motor seemed to speed up from time to time, but it could have been my imagination. It was not on auto and the led read the lowest speed.
  • Aside from exterior trim and cladding, a fully loaded SLT is almost the same as a Denali. EXCEPT that the Denali has a 6.0L V8 and a full-time AWD system. I wonder if the performance from the larger engine is really that noticable? I'm wondering if the AWD system robs some of the power as it gets to the wheels. On the SLT, the driver has the option of selecting 2WD only - maybe that's more efficient?

    After test driving the Yukon, I was dissapointed by the look and feel of the switch gear, radio buttons, and panels. This is an expensive vehicle, and I'm surprised by some of the cheap looking plastic. There are a lot of impressive features, like the outside rearview mirrors that automatically fold, like the climate control, like the 3rd row split seats, etc. It's too bad that the cockpit isn't more sophisticated looking. Maybe I should be looking at that full-size Toyota?
  • ezraponezrapon Posts: 348
    I could have had a Denali for 4 grand less than my SLT (it was an advertised special to lure people in). The full time 4 wheel drive and 2 MPG penalty soured the deal. I drove it and could not tell a seat of the pants difference in the power between the 5.3 and the 6.0. Probably would have liked it on the way to Florida on those long hills where my 5.3 choked like a 6 banger. My wife didn't like the Denali grill and I didn't like the bench seat in back... the SLT with the moon roof, black paint,DVD and XM radio was too much for the white Denali to stand up against.
  • but ezrapon, do you think your 5.3L struggled with the drag from your roof container? also, how did you get both the DVD and the moonroof?
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    The SLT with the 4.10 axle ratio will probably equal the Denali in acceleration. The Denali has a heavier duty transmission and trans temp guage. The full time 4 wd will be more sure footed, but not necessary and will hurt mileage.
  • ezraponezrapon Posts: 348
    I had the dealer install an after-market unit behind the moon roof. It has a bigger screen than GM, it also came with 2 wireless headphones, a 120 volt supply, and does play through the Bose via a fm signal. It kept the kids quiet for the 12 hour ride to Florida... cost about 1500 installed. The cargo carrier and 6 people probably reduced the mileage and might have caused the engine to labor a bit. The 5.3 seems to be geared funny, when it shifts into 2nd under hard acceleration, the power curve drops off dramatically. This might be the 3:73 or an attempt to wring another MPG out of it. My other car is a bonneville ssei supercharged v-6 and it does the same thing in 3rd gear with a 2:90 ratio, but it gets about 27 MPG.
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    That is the 3.73. The 4.10 would solve that problem.
  • tom213tom213 Posts: 49
    I thought I'd share some facts about my recent road trip for those that are checking this board for pre-purchase info, etc. I have had my 2002 Tahoe LT with 4WD since last August. My road trip started from home in Oklahoma City, OK and went to Akron, OH (Approx 1048 miles). After 4 days there, it was on to Chicago, IL (Approx. 370 miles). During the 5 days there we took a day trip to Kenosha, WI (Approx. 120 R/T). Then it was back to Oklahoma City, OK (Approx. 800 miles). All total with around-town driving, the trip added up to 2456 miles. I kept good records just to see how bad (or good) this SUV would perform and cost. First, it performed flawlessly (no break-downs or problems of any kind). Here's a cost/MPG breakdown: Total cost of fuel:$207.00. Best MPG check showed 18.53 MPG; worst 16.14. The 18.53 MPG was all highway (with only a few construction slow downs). The 16.14 MPG reading was a mix of city (Chicago) and highway. Climate control was on "Auto" and temp set at 74 the entire trip (AC light on the whole time). No towing involved, just my wife and I and 2 suitcases. Since I've owned the Tahoe it's been in for 2 Oil Changes, turn-signal lever became loose and was replaced, and one tire rotation. Bottom line: It handles well and is great for road trips. No complaints.
  • sebring95sebring95 Posts: 3,238
    Most of your power and mpg problems were the roof-top carrier. It's more drag than you can ever imagine.

    I've also got the 5.3L with 3.73 and on trips from OH to TN with five passengers and gear in the winter (no A/C) we'll get around 20mpg running 70-75mph. It does need to downshift on the bigger mountain passes, but it doesn't struggle at all. With the rooftop carrier, a couple extra passengers, and A/C running, mileage drops to around 16-17mpg and you definetely notice a power difference. I have a aerodynamic Thule box. A normal old square roof-top box is even worse. You're also running a brand-new engine and it will improve as it breaks-in.

    The 5.3L likes to rev so don't be afraid to put your foot down. That Bonneville is quite a bit lighter, more powerful, and probably half as much drag as a Tahoe/Yukon so obviously it won't feel as quick or get anywhere near the gas mileage. Of course 6 passengers plus gear isn't comfortable, nor is towing a trailer, etc in a Bonneville. I agree though, I have no clue why anyone buys these to haul around two passengers and a chihuahua.
  • I'm not turned on by the available colors that the Tahoe/Yukon currently come in. The Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example, seems to have a much better selection. I do see though that in 2004 that a light silver will be available which (for me) is good news. Now if I could find a real maroon or burgundy to consider I'd be all set.

    In looking at a Yukon catalog I see a Garnet Red Metallic and a Carbon Metallic. Are these the same as the Redfire Metallic and the Dark Gray Metallic in the Tahoe catalog? I have long assumed so for GM cost reasons (if these are made on the same production lines with the divisional badging stuck on at the end, I didn't think GM was going to have unique paint colors) but maybe not. The Yukon colors seem richer and darker than the comparable Tahoe colors. Can someone advise? Thanks
  • gmfan007gmfan007 Posts: 77
    I believe all GM gas engines recommend regular fuel (except supercharged). Years ago, I was told that using premium fuel is better when working the engine hard such as towing up steep grades. Is there any truth to this even though the 5.3L is rated for regular fuel or is it just a "feel good" option? I can't say I have noticed any difference.
  • ezraponezrapon Posts: 348
    One reason I could live with my wife's Yukon is ease of entry. I'm 6'3" and getting in and out of my SSEi is always a pain. The Yukon fits me perfectly, I open the door and slide in. It's a natural fit, but does not justify the MPG penalty. I wonder how many 2 wheel drives are sold. I live in St. Louis where we get just enough snow to make it worth while... but what is the attraction below the frost line???
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    Thanks for your post. I just took my every-three-months 800 mile trip in my 02 2WD Tahoe. Averaged a bit over 18mpg driving 80ish. Not bad in a 2 ton vehicle. For some reason GM is good at making big, powerful, engines that get respectable milage. My x-Toyota minivan that promised 24mpg highway got 20+mpg on the same trip and required premium fuel. My x-Expedition did the trip getting a bit under or over 16mpg. I love my Tahoe. Just for the record, I'm getting 15mpg around town.
  • lobsenzalobsenza Posts: 619
    I live in TX and definitely wanted 4 WD on my SUV. The primary reason is for boat launching. Boat ramps tend to be slick and in some cases dirt. 4 WD eliminates any concern or worry pulling the boat out. Definitely worth it for me.
  • ezraponezrapon Posts: 348
    Launching a boat, lots of snow, operating off road or otherwise rough terrain are all perfectly good reasons for 4wd, however, most of the people I know spend more time at red lights than in 4wd. It snowed almost every weeks here last winter, but as a teacher, they called school off when it got real nasty, so I would have had fun in the snow either way. It seems most people use them as modern day status symbols... a little there guilty myself.
  • Agreed, we all spend more time at red lights than in four wheel drive. But if you live north of the George Washington Bridge or anywhere near I90 and want to go to work early, stay late, and go away on any given weekend in the winter four wheel/AWD sure helps.

    Of course, realistically, a set of fresh Blizzaks on a FWD car with traction control probably would do the same job!
  • fkozilfkozil Posts: 65
    Has anyone tried the Sylvania Silverstar headlights? I'm curious to know if they are worth the extra money or are they just another gimick. If anyone has them or knows someone that does, please post!
  • I've got em in both high and low beams. Driving across Kansas at night, I like the high beams best. I'd buy them again if one burns out. Cost was I believe, $45/pair, plus a 10 dollar rebate per pair. I'm curious if anybody has upgraded the fog lamps as they're pretty lame.
  • gaf3gaf3 Posts: 4
    I installed them (low beams only) on my 2-month old Yukon. Definitely worth the investment. I really notice the increased brightness (however does not affect coverage, range, etc). Did not install highbeams though, as I hardly use them.

    Futher to richphillips above, I would be interested if they can be installed at all for the foglights (I believe they have a different bracket than the low and high beams).

    There is a discussion board on Edmunds (read only) under Lighting called Aftermarket headlights/bulbs (halogen, xenon, etc.) that includes many discussions about SilverStars, among others.
  • fkozilfkozil Posts: 65
    I appreciate your input about the headlamps. I just ordered a set for my Tahoe and my other car as well. Hope they are worth the investment.
    Thanks again.
  • andy1961andy1961 Posts: 32
    Any comments on owners with experience running E85 fuel, performance, mileage, etc.

Sign In or Register to comment.