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

12357…61

Comments

  • ahightowerahightower Member Posts: 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 Member 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.
  • firstdaddyfirstdaddy Member Posts: 19
    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 Member Posts: 539
    Sebring,

    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.
  • mjansen1mjansen1 Member Posts: 46
    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 Member 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.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    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 Member 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.
  • mikey432mikey432 Member Posts: 9
    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 Member 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.
  • 06lly06lly Member Posts: 21
    I think you are whistling Dixie on this one Mikey. The styling is getting rave reviews, both inside and out. If you want ugly in a large SUV, you must go to Mitsubishi or Nissan.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    Don't even bother entertaining him. I am pretty sure his only exposure to GM products is whatever they advertise on Nickolodeon during Sponge Bob or Johnny Nuetron...
  • 4rider4rider Member Posts: 96
    Yes, styling is subjective. I would describe the previous generation as "big and handsome". However, on the 07, I can only describe it as "bulky".
  • earlrearlr Member Posts: 1
    You are entitled to your opinion.

    I've seen the 07 Yukon XL and the Suburban. I wouldn't call them ugly, but I do prefer the Suburban over the Yukon in styling of the front grill and lights. I presently own a YXL 1500 and am very happy with it except it needs a bigger motor for pulling my 33' Travel Trailer. I wished they had the engine option when I bought mine, which it looks like they will be doing for the 1500 model in 07, good move.

    If the Silverado follows the Suburban in design it will be fine with me. I like it's overall styling inside and out. I like it enough my next truck will be the Suburban 2500.

    If you want to look at a ugly "truck", look at the Honda Ridgeline, but I don't call it a truck but more a glorified grocery getter. The Tacoma isn't any better in style and Dodge made a mistake when they redesigned thier front end.

    The only two trucks with style on the market IMHO are GM and Ford.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Holy Cow, I couldn't imagine trying to pull a 33' TT with a 1/2 ton Yukon XL. My 21' boat taxes my 5.3 powered Suburban, I imagine you are definitely in the slow lane going up any type of grade. I think you definitely qualify for needing a 3/4 ton.
  • canddmeyercanddmeyer Member Posts: 410
    So it has a new body. Do the brakes still have the longest stopping distance of all full-size SUV's? Does the tranny still fail between 60K & 90K? Does the rear end still fail at 75K. These are my experiences with my last two GM's, a 1991 Z71 P/U and a 1997 S-10 Blazer.

    What is new? GM's site offers ZERO information. Where I'm at, you can't get a Tahoe without a 3rd row seat unless it's a Z71 model. I have no use for the 3rd row and don't care to pay an extra grand for the privilege of a 3rd row nor several thousand more for a Z71 Tahoe. Finally, after several years, GM is giving away the 3rd row, discounting to zero $$$ the third row upgrade just to get rid of their 2006's.

    Still, what are the improvements? The lousy brakes, wandering steering, tranny and rear end failures finally drove me back to Toyota after being a GM owner until 2003. GM offered competitive financing plus my GM Card $$$ plus $1000 owner loyalty in 2003, but my experience was my GM’s were seeing too much shop time so I went elsewhere. The only incentive I've seen was the employee pricing last summer, but I wasn't in the market at the time or I would have jumped despite my complaints, as the savings at the employee prices would have more than covered the misery of owning another GM.

    So, once again, what are the improvements other than a redesigned body? I've read 218 posts here, and haven't read about a single improvement other than the looks, which also has its detractors.
  • tyresmokertyresmoker Member Posts: 266
    Sounds to me if the price is right, it does not matter what the improvements are......
  • jay_24jay_24 Member Posts: 536
    Well some improvements other than styling inside and out that I notice over the 2003 model which is roughly equal to the 2006.

    #1 MPG - 16/21 vs 14/18 (5.3 E85 engine)
    #2 25 more HP and 5lbs more torque.
    #3 Steering is now rack & pinion vs recirculating ball
    #4 Power lift gate and tumble second row.
    #5 2 or 3 person third row seats.
    #6 Navigation system
    #7 2 rear parking systems (camera or ultrasonic)
    #8 StabiliTrak standard on all
    #9 Tire Presure monitor standard
    #10 17" or 20" wheels
    #11 head-curtain side, for all rows; with rollover sensor
    #12 Remote starter option
    #13 Heated second row seats
    #14 Steering wheel-mounted controls(cruise and audio)standard.
    #15 New frame design. GMT-900 platform(3 inches longer)
    #16 more sound proofing
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    The new steering rack and stiffer frame are probably the biggest improvements, outside of looks inside and out.

    The biggest issue I see is no fold down 3rd row (not a big deal to everyone), it gained nearly 500lbs of weight and the updated 5.3 gained HP and Torque but both peak at higher rpm (not what you want in an SUV, particularly when saddled with the same POS 4 speed).

    I think the new model addresses most of the previous models issues, but it I still don't see anything revolutionary.

    As, for the improved fuel economy, I'll believe it when I see it. Every preliminary road test I've read still reports fuel mileage in the 14s. But any improvement is welcome, particularly considering the weight gain.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I'm sure the EPA mileage improvements are largely due to the DOD/VCM/MDS/fuel management/whatever each manufacturer calls it now. My '05 Honda Ody is rated 28mpg highway and while I won't say it's not possible, the EPA numbers are obvsiously skewed because of the multi-displacement engine. Like the hybrids, the DOD/MDS/VCM are most effective at EPA test speeds.

    In the past I have typically gotten EPA numbers on normal engines. My '02 Tahoe would exceed the EPA numbers on long highway trips, some legs were as high as 20mpg. Generally it averaged in the 16mpg range. The Ody does not get BAD gas mileage for the size/performance, but it doesn't get near the EPA numbers either on normal highways. It's about 400# less than the our Tahoe and has very similar real-world performance. I'm averaging about 20mpg and routinely see 24mpg on the highway trips.

    If I run 55-60mph (some 4-lane state roads here) the VCM stays on nearly constant and I've seen very high mpg on those trips. I think you'd have to run those speeds to see the EPA numbers on any of these VCM/DOD/MDS engines, particulaly the more heavy/non-aerodynamic trucks.
  • ahightowerahightower Member Posts: 539
    Regarding mileage, I will be interested to see real world results, but I think the DOD and improved aerodynamics will go a long way. I think prudent drivers' mileage will be pretty good. The people that write professional car reviews admit to driving like maniacs. As I've said before in one of these threads, Motor Trend is only getting 18.4 on their Honda Odyseey long term tester. That's the top of the line model with DOD. Around the time gas hit $3 in my area, I read an article here on Edmunds about which gas saving techniques actually work. I aired up my tires a couple extra psi and started accelerating and braking more gradually, just to see if it really mattered. My average economy immediately went from 16 to 18 mpg. That's pretty significant.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    Thanks for the nice list. Really, though there isn't anything new here that isn't on the current Expedition with maybe the exception of heated second row seats (do dogs or kids have such poor circulation that they really need heated seats??). AND the Expo has IRS, and multivalve cylinder heads. All in all, a good step forward but just to where the other guys already were.

    I hope that they will offer lots of upscale options on either Tahoe or the Denali. (As a guy who prefers Brooks Bros. to gold chains, work to leisure, and leadership to lounging around, the 'Slade image is 180 degrees out from who I am. As a result, I wouldn't even consider a 'Slade). Options such as pull down window shades (like on my Cayenne), a leather upgrade (maybe by Coach or Crouch and Fitzgerald?), some serious tires, not the cheapest OEM sneakers they can get away with, maybe a dual Optima gel cell battery option (call it a 'Security Package'), a Brembo brake package, a heated windshield (like on Jag and LR) because people do go skiing in these, a full length sky roof like on a Maybach, etc. would be nice options that would move GM upscale and improve the margins. I'd love to see a 5 or even 6 speed tranny and the 6.0 engine offerred as an option. Like Dodge in their pickups, there might even be a market for diesel in a half ton vehicle. Some people might pop for the diesel--especially if it came with an Allison--but not want to drive a 3/4 ton 2500 Series. In short, for the vehicle to be nice (and for GM to make some mone)I hope they offer a lengthy set of very upscale options.
  • kcflyerkcflyer Member Posts: 78
    I am so disappointed that the new Tahoe/Burban does not have a "magic" disappearing third row seat. Has GM had their eyes closed for the last 6 years? Did they even bother to test drive the competition? The fold flat third row is such a huge advantage. For example, cross country trip with wife, two kids and dog to visit grand ma and grand pa. Step one, fold rear seat. Step two, load everything but the kitchen sink. Step three, unload junk at grand mas, raise seat, load the folks and head out on the town.

    I've tried the above scenario with a minivan that had a removable third row seat. Ended up leaving the third row seat at home to make room for junk. Thus, upon arrival we had to take two vehicles every where we went. Add the hassle of lugging the seats in and out, finding a place to store them when out, etc. and you have a real pain in the backside. Just folding the seats over the way GM offers does not help as they still eat into cargo room and don't leave a flat floor for lugging home large items from town.

    This seemed like such a no brainer for GM. What were they thinking? :confuse:
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
    http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/08/detroit-2006-chevy-unveils-two-mode-hybri- d-tahoe/
  • sp7sp7 Member Posts: 3
    CANDDMEYER,

    Aparently you are not comparing Apples to Apples
    The 1991&1997 models you had until 2003
    Are in no way a comparison to the 2001 & up to 06
    They are great reliable trucks.
    I owned 4 of them in the last 5 years
    2 tahoes 2002 & YUKON 2003 and a 2004 yukon
    They are still within the family & running great
    and we dont want to get rid of them.
    As far as the stopping & Transmission
    Like i said before--you CANNOT COMPARE THE QUALITY
    of the previous models before 2000. FOR THE SIZE OF THE TRUCKS" THEY STOP TERRIFICLY AND THE TRANNSMISSIONS
    CAN PULL AND TOW WHAT OTHER JEEPS CANNOT WITHOUT A SLIP.
    The third seat issue--> You could have ordered one without the third seat -so i dont know where you problem was.
    The bad part is YES THEY DO USE ALOT OF GAS
    BUT IN NO WAY DO I WANT TO BE DRIVING A RICE BURNER
    WHEN I WANT A (((TRUCK))) A REAL TRUCK
    LIKE A GM TRUCK --TAHOE, YUKON , ESCALADE ETC..
    I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEW DESIGN & IMPROVEMENTS
    I HAVE A LARGE FAMILY AND RELATIVES WHO HAVE MANY LARGE SUVs EXPENSIVE AND NOT EXPENSIVE
    SOMEONE IN MY HOUSHOLD HAS A 2004 RANGE ROVER FULLY LOADED AND CANT STAND IT PLUS EITHER COULD I. EVERYONE I KNOW ALWAYS WANTS TO DRIVE THE TAHOES. ALOT OF BANG FOR YOUR BUCK AND TRUE TRUCK LOVERS TRUCKS. I forgot to mention that i tried out driving a Ford Excursion and hated it-the steering and handling LOUZY , NOTHING TO BRAG ABOUT IN THE INTERIOR EITHER. IN GENERAL ALL FORDS HAVE STEERING & HANDLING ISSUES THAT THE GM TRUCKS DONT. THE DODGE DURANGO STILL HAS ITS OWN ISSUES AS WELL.. ILL TAKE A GOOD OLD GM TRUCK ANYDAY.
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
    Lol, apparently a lot of controversy whether Tahoes/Yukons suck or not.

    Turn off your caps lock in the future, it makes your message hard to read. Anyone will tell you that.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    What was GM thinking?? Come one, GM, the biggest purchaser of Viagra in the world (seriously) has more on their plate, they think, than building stand out products. They should look at Chrysler and understand the automobile industry is all about product. Period.
  • teldocteldoc Member Posts: 49
    I drove a 2001 Tahoe for 3 years and it was an awesome vehicle. Only problem is the platform is dated so I traded for an Expedition. This new 2007 Tahoe and Suburban look great. GM did a nice job on the styling and thankfully, seem to get rid of the in-seat seat belts which were horrible.
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    Checked out an new Tahoe today at my local Chev dealership. Wasn't prepped at all so couldn't drive it but did get to climb in it and look it over a little. It was a Silver 4 wheel drive LT with moonroof and no 3rd row seat. It had the remote start on the remote, pretty cool but not needed in San Diego. You switch from 2 wheel to 4 wheel high or low by turning a knob on the left hand side of the dash. Interior was nice but this one was black and while a soft ebony color, wouldn't be my 1st choice I don't think.
  • navigator89navigator89 Member Posts: 1,080
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=108789#2

    Sounds pretty good. Finally, a GM car recieves praise for it's interior and material quality. Even the stereo got a good review.
  • acefieldacefield Member Posts: 7
    I think the new Yukon and Tahoe are a flop. They no longer look like a truck with some proud heritage, but like undignified plastic minivans. The interior also looks more like a badly proportioned Buick then a classic truck / SUV. I have owned three GMC's, and I certainly won't be buying a forth. At least we can still count on Ford and Toyota to build real trucks.
  • acefieldacefield Member Posts: 7
    Your absolutly right on the fuel economy increase being achieved by dumbing down the drivetrain. My previous 2001 Yukon with a 4:10 was a significantly better performer then my 2005 with the new 3:42 ratio. There is a HUGE difference. I am very disappointed in the 3:42 of my 2005 Yukon and would not have bought this truck if I had known. I do get an extra 1 mpg, but overall it definitly isn't worth it. A 4:10 is the only way to go.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Member Posts: 619
    I took a look at the new Tahoe today. I am rather surprised that even though the Tahoe is 9.5 inches longer than an LX470, it appears to have no more 3rd row legroom, and no more cargo space behind the third row. The third row seats are fairly easy to fold up against the backs of the 2nd row seats, but I think a short person would have a difficult time folding them back to the upright position. Headroom in the third row is adequate for 6 footers, but legroom is only adequate if you have your knees up close to your chin.
  • blckislandguyblckislandguy Member Posts: 1,150
    Nice review. BUT do I understand this correctly? If you remove the third row seat, a set of plastic protusions remain (they apparently are used to install the third seat)? Wow! This is great. You break your back pulling out the third seat to do a Home Depot supply run and then you can't lay your sacks of concrete or roofing material flat in the back?

    If I read this correctly it is nutty. Here GM is losing their shirt (yet still paying a dividend to its owners) and they can't do a flat floor load space in a big SUV???
  • ranchz71ranchz71 Member Posts: 3
    Does anybody know where to find a shot of what the 2007 Z71 tahoe is going to look like?

    I have been a die hard fan of this model since its inception and I am really dissapointed in the new model.

    I am hoping that the Z71 package is a little more like a truck. :cry:
  • cohibacohiba Member Posts: 2
    I saw the '07 Tahoe for the first time tonight. It was a LTZ 4x4 fully loaded. It was ok... The GM rep on site told me the Z71 will be out the 4th quarter, so I'll wait to buy until then. I have been looking for photos as well, but can't find any. Good luck
  • plsmrvllplsmrvll Member Posts: 3
    I was just curious about this because their touting the increase in mileage, but the 2006 says its 15city/20hwy and the 2007 is 16/22 for the 5300. Maybe I was expecting more?? Of course, anything is better than our 1996 Suburban. Anyone out there tell me what they are REALLY getting in a 2006 Tahoe 2wd??

    And count me in as disappointed they don't have a fold flat third row seat. Yes, it is a convenience thing, but one that should have been included as basically all their competitors have them. Just my 2 cents worth...

    Pat
  • ranchz71ranchz71 Member Posts: 3
    I don't know about the 06' but my 00' Yukon 4X does good to get 10 MPG in the city
  • chevy4mechevy4me Member Posts: 203
    The dealer had just prepped this 2wd fully loaded LT 3. In comparing to my 05 Lt,I tend to focus on performance over looks and what stood out were much better braking, better steering response with the rack and pinion,softer quieter ride,some feel of better acceleration. I took it on the freeway and found passing acceleration to be better.Never felt anything of the dual displacement at any cruising speed.And going to pass felt no lag in fact it pulls hard the moment you stab it. On the way back had to make a u-turn and it has a noticeably tighter turning circle. This one had the navi touch screen stereo and dvd Nice!!. I liked the guages and they got it right with both right and left temp readings showing at the same time. Overall I was impressed but it was only an 8 mile ride. I'm not sure about the exterior look,The plastic bumpers stand out ,I guess I would get used to it . The u shaped rear bumper looks to me too much like the trailblazer. The window sticker was blank and I was told pricing was coming soon. One thing I didn't like was the side rear door curved edges are at the wheel well,without the 1 inch or so body in that area? I am curious about colors and pricing ..........
  • dardson1dardson1 Member Posts: 696
    Happy to answer. I bought an 06 2wd Z71 (yes, they now make the Z71 w/2wd) in mid October. (My disclaimer. . .I drive conservatively and could easily do much worse if I drove like I did at 20yrs old.) I've filled up 10 times and have averaged 15.4 mpg. That's all city combining stop and go and 15-20% freeway. I don't think anyone can touch a Tahoe for the combination of power and respectable MPG. My wife's Lexus RX330 requires premium fuel (10% more), weighs 20% less, has 30% less space, and gets about 20% (18+) better MPG around town. Pound for pound my Tahoe is more efficient than her mighty green RX330. love my Tahoe(s)
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    Been checking out the new Tahoes too. Very nice.

    Still can't believe Chevy hasn't figured out how to give you Nav plus a 6 disc CD changer though.
  • plsmrvllplsmrvll Member Posts: 3
    Thanks for the feedback! I'm leaning towards an 06 right now due to the incentives and I'm just not sure the "enhancements" to the 2007s make it worth it.
  • chevy4mechevy4me Member Posts: 203
    I read that the stereo plays mp3 discs,which is nice to have like 100 songs in good quality on one disc. and I think has an input for ipod. My 05 Tahoe Bose did impress me but the 07 sounded better to me. I drove at night so the screen was very visible and am wondering about daylight casting on the screen cutting visibility.
  • jonpnjjonpnj Member Posts: 52
    I've read a few tests and everyone seems to really like the new 2007 Tahoe. It is nice that they kept the similar and familiar styling. I also read that C &D got 12mpg overall. To me that translated to 15-16 which is not bad considering the size of the truck. Hats off to GM for what looks to be a winner. They need one!
  • sdronsdron Member Posts: 29
    Nice it can play the mp3s, still a shame you can't get the Nav with a 6 disc changer though.
  • 06lly06lly Member Posts: 21
    What holds the third row seat is metal, not plastic. The protrusions are a few tenths if that. Bottom line is that your sacks of concrete and roofing material will do fine back there. :)
  • mjansen1mjansen1 Member Posts: 46
    I found this from edmunds.com to be interesting. We are deciding between a Pilot and Tahoe. We will not be towing anything.

    Form, function and towing
    The eight-seat 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe doesn't have a big, practical advantage over crossovers like the eight-passenger Honda Pilot. Except, of course, for towing. Rated to haul 7,700 pounds behind it, the Tahoe can lug more than twice what the Pilot can and that's a bedrock virtue in red states where boats, campers and car carriers are part of the American dream.
  • revhighrevhigh Member Posts: 3
    As a past Suburban, Explorer and current Sequoia owner, I will say the improvements in the 07 are very good. :) I would say my wifes Sequoia is still better overall but the Tahoe is very close for less $$$$. The interior is top-notch in looks and quality of switchgear. Some of the plastic in the rear area and under the seats can be better. The auto fold forward 2nd row seats and liftgate seem useless to me. Wish they had made the 3rd row hide in the floor. Exterior paint was very good, gaps are minimal and a huge improvement over 05/06 models. The dealer had an 07 next to an 06 and the differences in quality of build are very evident. Ride was a little soft for me, I still prefer the stiffness of a trucks ride. Feels like they have tuned the suspension for soccer moms. I drove LT3 (2wd) with 17" wheels, maybe the 20" wheel option will have a stiffer ride ???? Very quiet ride, I was amazed at how well Chevrolet eliminated road noise. A/C was quiet at full speed, stereo was excellent, and the sitting position was very comfortable. The center consol and storage is huge and the armrest is high enough that you don't have to lean over to rest your elbow. Power adjustable pedals were a nice feature. All in all, the best Tahoe Chevrolet has put out, I will probably order one in a few weeks. Price for the LT3 with 20" wheels, 3rd row seat, 2WD, 3.42 axle, XM, 2nd row buckets, was $41.5K.

    Mike
  • chevy4mechevy4me Member Posts: 203
    I'm wondering if the aftermarket 6 lug 20 inch wheels that I have on my 05 would fit on the 07 (same bolt pattern)? Also what changes were made to the brakes,I can't find any specs?
  • tenzotenzo Member Posts: 24
    Well, First of all, I expect too much, I think. It is the best ever Tahoe for sure, but still lots of works to do. I am not a huge fan of Japanese trucks; however I think that I am sure this truck is still way behind japanese and european trucks. The plastic for dashboard and doors is so~~~ chip. The power folding 2nd row did not work(passenger side)when salesman tried it. The riding wasn't that great, but pretty quite, and powerful motor for sure. Overall it is a lot better than before, but still behind Japanese or European trucks.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles