Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
For years I have towed a trailer, up to 4,500 lbs. and never felt short on power with the '96 model.
The first two towing trips with the '06 model, and only 2,000 lbs produced disappointing gas mileage (the vehicle shifts down to 2nd gear for just a moderate incline or moderate head wind) but made me feel there is no towing muscle under the hood.
We put a converter back performance exhaust ($265 installed) in the vehicle and are planning to add the performance chip ($365) when it becomes available.
I realize I have gone from a 5.7 liter to a 5.3 liter engine but did not expect that much loss in towing performance.
Will the power chip even come close to providing a remedy?
Am I on the wrong track trying to spruce up the '06 Tahoe to make it have similar power than the '96 model?
Using the vehicle also for family, I am trying to avoid purchasing a truck. Is there any way around, or do I simply have to get a truck, maybe a duramax diesel?
Thank you for your insight and suggestions.
Thanks for clarifying.
L
The 5.7 had less hp, but it did have more torque. My boat weighs between 4500-5000lbs depending on fuel and gear. When hitting the hills I have go 80mph down so I can maintain any speed going back up. What is really sad is my previous tow vehicle was an 01 Nissan Pathfinder (3.5 v6) and it would tow my boat up hills better than my v8 powered Suburban. Even though both vehicles have similar power to weight ratios, the Pathfinder had more aggressive gearing along with an engine that developed its torque at a lower rpm.
Note that when they dropped the standard gear from 3.73 to 3.42, they also added about 10 hp and lb/ft, so that may help offset it.
Have they published this info for the next generation yet? I wonder how much of that fuel economy improvement is attributable to aerodynamics and engine efficiency versus even lower gearing and playing with the numbers to get a good-looking average for the press materials.
If i buy another Suburban, I'll avoid the 5.3. If I have to go with a Denali to get the 6 or new 6.2L so be it. We tow our boat on lots of long trips. By the time we've added a weeks worth of luggage and gear anything more than a modest hill results in having my foot to the floor to maintain speed.
I'm currently contemplating trading my 01 for an 06 YXL so I can get captain's chairs in the second row thinking that ingress and egress to the 3rd row will be easier on the kids (and the seats) but it will be tough to put three kids in the third row, where two are in boosters and one is tall enough to need a head rest. The '06 model 3rd seat middle has only a lap belt and no head rest.
I have been scouring the pics of the '07 version to see what the 3rd row will look like...one pick of the tahoe shows a 50-50 split with 3 sets of shoulder harness seat belts but only two head rests. What are the genius' thinking? Unless families have quintuplets, the kids are usually different sizes and will need a variety of seating options, taking into account boosters/car seats/etc.
Many of the posts besmirch mini vans, but I have to say, my wife's 05 sienna has three headrests and three shoulder harnesses in the 3rd row. Great for haulin' the kids around town. Problem is, can't take a trip in it 'cause no room for luggage. Hence the Suburban. And I really don't like Ford.
Anybody have any info on the elusive 3rd row seat? Or do I have to submit to driving an airport limo?
I also have often wondered why GM has not placed a personal lamp in the headliner for each passenger, similar to an airplane. What a great improvement this would be, as each passenger could chose lighting or not; as it is now, either the entire cabin is lighted in my suburban or it is dark.
Hope some of you GM people read these message boards....some great ideas.
putting a child seat in the third row will be a pain, since an adult probably needs to reach back there and buckle the kid in.
3 boosters/child seats do fit in the second row. I can see that the third row would be really tight if they fit at all.
for 3+ kids there aren't many good choices out there. How about a full sized van? We liked our mini-van but had to use the third row bench (98 plymouth grand voyager) and that kills storage. Most mini-vans only have 2 seats in the second row. Toyota is the exception. Get the 8 passanger and use 60% of the rear seat and fold the other 40%?? still doesn't leave much room.
--jay (three kids and a Tahoe)
We have three in car seats (ages 3, 4, and 5 - small for their age). We put two in the very back, one in the middle. We got the 2nd row buckets so they could walk through to the back without having to flip and fold seats around. The oldest can buckle himself all up. The middle child is learning. We do have to step up onto the running board and reach back to help them buckle and unbuckle, but it is no more trouble than it was in the minivan we owned previously.
By the way, without going too far off topic, our last vehicle was a 2004 Nissan Quest. There was a LOT more room in the 2nd and 3rd row, and there was really plenty of storage space (for our needs). Not as long as the Suburban, but very deep and tall, due to the big well that the third row folds flat into. Ended up trading because we got a great deal on our 2005 Yukon XL, and have always wanted one. Also, while there is less room for passengers, there is much more room up front for me. I have always had to put up with my right knee leaning up against a center console, until now. It would be even better with the front bench, but that is not available with leather and the 2nd row buckets.
I'm really not ready to succum to purchasing a van for my self just yet. Gotta try to figure a way to get all the seating in.
I may go with a bench version of the second row and try to fit as you suggest, with two seat and an open seat for our oldest and largest child. Besides, he can help fetch bottles and snacks.
OK< sorry, Its late and I've been drinking
Rich
We are MUCH too cool for sliding doors here!
Outside of their own long term survival...Mileage(fuel efficiency/cost)is probably thetoughest problem GM has ever faced. It's a tough nut to crack - but it can be done.
Having been in several GM plants and support facilities(engineering, assembly, manufacturing, management...) my expectations are high. It's a big org., it moves SLOW...but it can accomplish good things. The resources are there...$6.5 R&D budget last statement I saw. No reason why they can't git' er' done.
Other grumblings:
Can someone please explain the reasoning behind displacement on demand? I know how it's supposed to work, but a 2006 4WD Yukon without DOD has EPA ratings of 15/19, but a presumably lighter 2006 4WD Envoy XL *with* DOD has EPA ratings of 15/20. I would expect a larger difference. Am I wrong about the 2006 Yukon not having DOD?
* No standard side airbags. So much for GM's much-lauded "safety for everyone."
* Looks like they're still using that unpainted wart-looking thing as the OnStar/XM antenna.
I haven't been able to find a complete feature and option list, so I can only speculate that features like four auto up/down windows and laser-cut keys are not included.
"I haven't been able to find a complete feature and option list, so I can only speculate that features like four auto up/down windows and laser-cut keys are not included"
link title
Select shop by model, then select chev-tahoe-go, then select 2007
As you can see the seats go in and out on a regular basis. They are heavy, it is very difficult for my wife to remove them when I am not around. So, I was really disappointed to see the 3rd row in the 07 does not fold into the floor. I am so dissapointed I will not buy the new body style. If there are no real safety or convienance upgrades to the vehicle why pay 35k for a new one.
My 5.7 tows with plenty of power. Rides even smoother while towing. Freeway gas mileage is 14 mpg while towing and 19 mpg with no load. Both satifactory numbers for the size.
My 2001 Z-71 got only 11 mpg while towing.
Considering, I've never gotten over 17mpg hwy in my '00 Suburban with the 5.3. I'll fall off my chair in shock if real world mileage is anywhere near that. My fear is they probably are using some God awful final drive ratio of 3.42 or less to acheive those results.
As for the Expedition, it weighs about 400lbs more than a Tahoe and we'll have to see if the upgraded 5.3 can match Fords 5.4's 365 ft-lbs of torque at 3750 rpm.
I don't see what's so great about push rods. The 5.3 in my suburban lacks power at low rpm and sounds like I'm killing it at high rpm. No thanks.
What is good about the pushrod engine is that you can get more power and torque out of it for a given engine size. I am not talking about displacement, but rather the physical size of the engine. For example, the 5.3 liter GM engine is way smaller than the 5.4 DOHC Ford engine but performs similarly. Pushrods is how they get the Corvette to outperform all of its DOHC competition. 500 HP in a DOHC would not fit in the engine compartment.
Now on top of that, these new GM engines have Active Fuel Management (was DOD) which is very difficult to do in an OHC engine.
The results of all this development is 21 MPG. And since the EPA highway cycle is a mixture of stop and go and highway driving, I would expect true steady state 65 MPH driving to get you 23 MPG. Not bad for a large SUV.
I love this advancing technology.
I've driven lots of different vehicles, and I've yet to like a pushrod engine over a comparable OHC design (vette excluded). In v8's the difference is less drastic. Still if you look at Nissan's 5.6L v8 it has a ton more torque at a lower rpm than GMs 5.3L and 6.0L v8s along with Dodge's Hemi. Since I tow with my SUV I don't care about HP and torque at high rpm. My current 5.3 has decent off idle torque, but it's lacking between 2000-3000rpm. When I tow up any grade I need to run 4000 plus rpm or go real slow(part of the problem is poor gearing) which gets real old.
Bottom line, I'm very interested in seeing the new SUVs. My Suburban has been giving me nothing but trouble and in only has 58k miles on it and I'm tired of the rattles and overall cheapness the General is known for. Maybe this has all changed with the incoming models.
As far as the fuel economy claims, I'm still extremely suspect. Particularly since I've read a few tests on an Impala SS with the 5.3 w/DOD and in each review none were able to get anywhere near EPA estimates.
I have noticed 23.5 mpg if you stay in the 65-70mph range. A recent 300 mile round trip on two lane state highways yielded that mpg. Factor in a few WOT passes of slower cars and you could possible get near 25mpg.
All that said, I dont see a Tahoe getting 21mpg, with all the weight it has to push. Maybe with the 6 speed transmission, but DOD and a 5.3L is not going to get you 21mpg, unless maybe you never exceed 60 mph.
Those thinking of a 2007 just because of mileage, you might want to wait and see what the results are when people have had a chance to drive them.
Mike
As far as EPA estimates, I'm not picking on GM. I've only had one vehicle out of several that routinely achieved the EPA estimates with my driving style and that was a 2000 VW Jetta turbo diesel.
Mike
Now, it would be really cool if GM could come up a DOD that has a manual overwrite. i.e why not let the driver decide between power and fuel economic from time to time?
My friend in high school had a 1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse. There was a button on the console that toggled between "power" and "economy". I am guessing that it was just the overdrive on/off.
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.
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.
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.
--jay
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.
So can IRS be done right (with good ground clearance) and be cost effective?
--j
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I looked at an '07 Tahoe over the Holidays. It is pretty impressive.