Howdy, Stranger!

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

Chevy Tahoe



  • I am considering buying a Tahoe next year with the 5.3L V8 engine. I hear that the engine will be capable of burning E85 fuel (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).

    Has anyone actually used that fuel? I hear that there is a 5 to 10% boost in power, but with worse mileage. Does anyone have any experience with that fuel?

  • Hello all,
    I'm a new comer so my apologies if am rehashing a prior subject.
    I am trying to get some opinions on the Yukon autoride system.
    I tried a search but could not find much.
    I am looking at purchasing 2002 SLT and cant decide if I want it or not. Also, I have not been able to find an SLT with it equipped in Northern New Jersey dealer inventory, so I drove the Denali and felt the ride was noticeably different then the standard suspension. I would buy the Denali but I dont like the AWD trans set up with no low gears.
    Anyone have it and feel good and or bad about it?
    All input is greatly appreciated.


  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Welcome aboard, sac! I am sure Yukon owners will be happy to help you out.

  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    The autoride will improve the ride on small bumps and potholes but won't help any (in my opinion) on the big bumps and potholes. I would drive both with and without models and compare - try a Tahoe with autoride and the ride will be identical to a Yukon with autoride.
    However, if you buy a 4WD the difference may be more noticeable ( I have no need to drive off road so I don't need a 4WD.)
    My next SUV won't have autoride. I'll invest the $1K better elsewhere.
    mark - regarding the ethanol engine - I have one but will never use it because there is no corn fuel in the desert. The only thing is notice is a whistle clean exhaust pipe when running on regular unleaded. It's free, so why not take it? You can get either with or without ethanol engine for the same price. As far as I can see, it has different fuel lines and different fuel injectors. I think other websites list the loss in gas mileage more like 40% - but if ethanol is a lot cheaper it might be OK. I'm squeezing 17+ on regular gas in careful city driving. I think there is a detailed explanation on the GM brand website, but I can't remember exactly where. Powertrain?
  • Helm Inc will sell your dealer several dozen of copies of 2001 Manuals.

    There are at least two versions of the owners manual:

    1 st.= Owners Manual PORTFOLIO = Helm # 15072125

           Price = $35.00 + Ship & Hand & Maybe Tax

    2 nd.= Owners Manual = Helm # C-2116B Price = $25

           + Ship & Hand & Maybe Tax

    These are for the 2001 Tahoe and Suburban in one manual.

    The large Multi volume Service Manual is still available under Helm # GMT01CK8 for the later body design = $120 + S + H + Maybe Tax.

    Helm Details can be had at: or

    (800)- 782 - 4356 or

    FAX to (313)- 865 - 5927.

    There is a lot of good info in this manual such as part numbers for air filters, capacities for fluid exchanges, operational tips, etc. etc. etc.

    Suspect that the dealer just doesn`t want to spend the $35.00 for the Portfolio.

    Irv. for Don.

  • Did Not intend to space as per the above.Sorry! Irv..
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    We should refrain from posting phone numbers as we have no means of verifying them and being deluged by erroneous phone calls at 3:00 a.m. is NOT pleasant!


  • SAC4411,

    I have a '01 YXL K1500 w/ Autoride (optional) & Premium Smooth suspension (standard, I think). I'm running P265/70 tires. I purchased it off the lot..... probably wouldn't have selected Autoride if I were ordering.

    My son-in-law has a '00 Tahoe K1500, no Autoride, also w/ P265 tires.

    Other than the obvious longer wheelbase effects on ride quality, I can't tell much difference in smooth road performance.

    I do notice a firmer ride and handling when I use the 'tow/haul' mode w/ my 4000# boat/trailer... and autoride stiffens the shocks.

    Good luck in your decision.

    Barry B
  • Fortop,
    Thanks for the opinion. I am going for a 4WD set up so I'm thinking there might be a difference.
    I did drive a Denali right after driving a 4WD Yukon (non autoride) and felt the Denali ride was smoother.
    Thanks for the input as well.
    Are both the vehicles you referred to 4WD?

    I guess I have some concerns about the systems reliability and longevity.

    Again all responses are appreciated.

    Best regards,

    Steve C.
  • Is there a significant difference in fuel economy between the 3.42 and the 3.73?? I'm getting ready to purchase a 2002 Yukon with the 5.3 V8. I seem to be having a hard time finding a Yukon with 3.42 rear axle ratio with the options that I want. I don't need the extra towing capacity (7800 lbs) of the 3.73 because my boat and trailer is well below the 6800lb capacity of the 3.42. However, I am concerned about fuel economy.
  • I just purchased a 2002 Tahoe LT with 5.3 engine and 3.73 axle ratio, and now have 1400 miles on it. On a trip to Fla last week it averaged 18 mpg, driving 75-80 mph most of the time. I thought that was pretty good from what I've read previously. I haven't had a chance to test it out with much intown driving, but I should know something more definite by next week.
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    a 2WD and would probably benefit more from autoride. I would get the extended GM warranty in any case, and check to see that it covered the autoride (my dealer said it would). You can get the warranty for 6yr/72,000 miles (I think) for less than $1,000 on GMS or at a discount GM site on the web for about the same price - cheap insurance and should help resale.
    Don't get me wrong, the ride is better at low speeds and with small bumps - but at higher speeds/bigger bumps it isn't any better.
    If you pull a trailer, I think it would be a definite plus - just doesn't do much for me on day to day driving. The GM website for the Tahoe or Yukon has a little demo video to illustrate autoride - you might check that out.
    Did you find a Tahoe with autoride to test drive?
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    mileage would be more noticeable on a 2WD. If you can find a 5.3 with a 3.42 rear axle on the GM Buypower site, you might be able to get a view of the window sticker, which will show the epa mileage. I would guess a 1-2 mpg improvement on the 3.42, if you drive carefully. Pulling a trailer eats gas, so any improvement you can get might be worth it. You won't be able to pull away from a dead stop as quickly with the 3.42 rear end, but you shouldn't do that with a trailer in tow anyway. These big SUVs are heavy and slow on the takeoff anyway, so unless you like to gun it when pulling away from the stoplights, I don't think you would notice it. If you pull the trailer frequently, the 3.73 might be the better choice.
    As posted above, I'm squeezing 17+ mpg on my 2002 Yukon 2WD 5.3/3.73 but I drive as carefully as I can, so most people would probably get in the 14-16 range. I never took a long highway trip yet - about 2k on the odometer so far.
    Good Luck. Let us know what you decide.
  • SAC4411,

    Both vehicles are 4WD.

  • I've got an '01 Yukon XL, 5.3L, 3.73, 4WD that I use mainly for highway driving and on trips to NJ from GA I usually average 18-19 mpg (with the Window Sticker claiming 14 city/16 highway). Those figures are with the cruise set at either 65 or 70 mph with the auto climate control on.

    I know that's a 4WD YXL but if I can get that with an should at least get that with a 2WD Yukon.

  • chorchchorch Posts: 10
    Only checked the milage a few times but 16 to 19 on a trip is about what I get on trips from RI to PA and FL. Cruise control goes a long way getting better milage. But to regress, if gas milage is a big concern maybe a smaller car or truck may be the answer. As someone once said, "If you have to ask, you probably can't afford it!" :<)
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    traffic lights and travel a few miles non-stop. On the highway, I set the cruise at the posted speed limit and let others pass me. Otherwise, you have to keep speeding up and slowing down to pass other slower moving vehicles, and that defeats the benefit of cruise. Actually, many of the mid size or smaller SUVs don't get much better gas mileage than a carefully driven Yukon or Tahoe, according to their listed epa mileage. I tend to get a lead foot when driving a lighter vehicle because they are more responsive. I think comfort, safety, and luxury are the main reasons most of us have went with the big beasts.
  • Thank you all for your comments. I will be buying a 2WD. From what I am hearing, the 3.73 rear axle will give me as good ( or maynbe a little better) that the 3.42 that I have in the 1996 Tahoe that I am driving right now.
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    If I thought a Tahoe could get close to 16 in city driving I'd buy one tomorrow. I moved out of an Expedition to a Toyota Sienna because of the AWFUL gas milage.....mostly 10 around town and maybe 12.5 on a good tank. My Toyota gets 16-17 city but that's with premium (per the book). Doing the $ math that's dollar for dollar about 15mpg compared to burning regular. I'm kinda gun-shy about going back to a big SUV. The Ford promised 14 city 18 highway (like the Tahoe). I never came close to either. Make me happy and tell me I can have my cake and eat it
  • onebuconebuc Posts: 28
    I am close enough, usually 15 and I do very little highway driving with the 3.73 rear end. Have heard the other end of the spectrum from the lead foots and they sure can suck the gas. The gas pedal is touchy and if you drive in a hurry than you probably won't get the mileage you want. good luck onebuc
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    you drive I think you will get less than the epa mileage - maybe 12-14 mpg in a Tahoe/Yukon. Actually driving the speed limit, using cruise, etc. drives most people crazy - but that's what you need to do to get better than epa mileage. I would suggest that you rent a Tahoe/Yukon for a week and see what mileage you get in everyday driving - well worth a few hundred dollars of rental fees if you really like the big SUVs. Might be able to get a dealer to lend/rent you one for a week at a good price as a sales tool - worth talking to a dealer about. Good Luck.
  • I always get amused when someone who is about to buy one of the larger SUVs, or has one says...."I'm concerned about fuel economy"....when I tow my boat to the lake. HaHa

    If you are towing a little boat, go get a 6 cylinder SUV, maybe one of the imports.

    I have the '02 Tahoe with 3.42s and tow my 2,000 lb steel trailer and 3,700lb muscle car for an all in tow weight of 5,700 lbs (whew, had to take my shoes off to count that high). I have no problem with acceleration, so you are right, the 3.42s will take care of business.

    Sorry, did not mean to pound you on the gas comment, but really....
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    4.8 2WD 15/20
    4.8 4WD 14/17
    5.3 2WD 14/18
    5.3 4WD 14/17

    With no mention of rear axle ratio, so maybe a 3.42 would get better mileage.
    At least it's all regular gas (or ethanol on the E85 5.3 with less gas mileage.)

    Seems like 15-16 in town is doable for anyone with a light foot and a light load.

    If you can improve gas mileage by 3 mpg on an otherwise 30 mpg vehicle - that's a 10 percent improvement in fuel economy. If you can improve gas mileage by 3 mpg on an otherwise 10 mpg vehicle, that's a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy. So, a few mile per gallon increase on the big beasts is much more significant, especially if you drive a lot of miles.
  • cwaynecwayne Posts: 81
    I HAVE HAD MY 2001 YUKON 5.3, 3.42, 2 WD
    CRUSE SET UNDER 70, 21 MPG, 70-75, 20 MPG,
  • dardson1dardson1 Posts: 696
    what's wrong with wanting a great big SUV that gets repectable (if not great) gas milage?
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    No problem with wishing......

    Don't think the words SUV and great fuel economy goes together though.

    I own a '00 Silverado and a '00 Denali. There is no comparison between the two in terms of gas mileage with the Denali averaging 12-13 and the rado 16-18. Maybe you should consider a full sized truck?
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    the 2000 Silverado which has the newer 5.3L V8. Also, I think the Denali weighs more than the Silverado, which will lower gas mileage.
    The EPA city mileage for the 2000 Denali is 12 mpg, so 12-13 mpg is about what anyone should expect, unless you want to take advantage of gas saving methods of driving, which is not worth the hassle for a couple mpg gain for most people.
    We are only talking about "relative" not "absolute" gas mileage. ;o)
  • fortopfortop Posts: 239
    The 3.42 will make the most significant difference on the highway using cruise. In town, the low speeds tend to lessen the benefits of the lower axle ratio. IMHO
  • I have a 2001 Yukon SLT and I was wondering has anyone purchased an aftermarket subwoofer to replace the stock one? I would like better bass if possible without changing the location, etc.
  • obyoneobyone Posts: 8,054
    You are correct. The Denali has the 5.7 vs the 5.3 in the rado. The point however was not which was more fuel efficient. If you simply swap the motors, I assure you the Denali would still get the worse of the two in terms of gas mileage simply due to the weight difference.

    With the new Denali and AWD with the 6.0....what kind of real world mileage would you expect?

    My point being....with a full sized SUV weighing close to 3 tons, the only thing that would get you better gas mileage in them would be a diesel. A full sized SUV will not get good gas mileage....well maybe the Tahoe 2WD with the 4.8 and 3.42.....but I wouldn't expect much of an increase.........
Sign In or Register to comment.