2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

tcrumbly · January 2006

I have read all about the new Tahoe and hoped that the new one would be worth buying-I own an 04' Z71- and love it. It's distictive and tough and haven't had any problems with it. But I have to be honest I am not impressed at all with the exterior styling. Does any one else feel this way? To me it looks like a revamped Ford explorer, except for the fron end. Above the belt line, and especially from the rear-Ford! The slight rise at the rear quarters gave a forward leaning aggressive stance that the new one doesn't have. I think Chevy went way to conservative. I think I might be looking elsewhere.

mjansen1 · January 2006

I agree. I wanted to like it but I'm not sure I can. Maybe I will get over the exterior and focus on all the improvements to the interior and engine.

brjohnson · January 2006

Well, after seeing the '07 in person, both Yukon and Tahoe, we jumped on an '06 Denali loaded with all the goodies (20" wheels, DVD, Nav) and love it. We think it is one of the best looking SUV's on the road. Although we haven't seen the '07 Denali yet, the base model of the Yukon is not as appealing as the Tahoe is. Very "slab sided" and gov't vehicle looking. Also, although larger in width and I think length, the center console is wider resulting in what feels like a tighter seating space in the front. Second row seating seems to be closer/tighter to front row. Third row has maybe a bit more head/shoulder room, but negligible at best. Price difference is large and styling not as attractive. Would have loved front coil over shocks and rack and pinion and 6 speed tranny, but not worth trading the styling and price differential. 1000 miles on the new 06 at this point, and love it. Ordered up a wood steering wheel and chrome ring gauge trim fascia to spruce it up a bit and look forward to having it for a long time.

Gotta hand it to GM on the new dash, but the total package misses the mark for us. Hope they achieve the success they are looking for. I think this time, they will sell FAR more tahoes as I and others really think the new 07' looks better than it's base Yukon counterpart.

ahightower · January 2006

I thought that new center console looked awfully wide in the photos. I've been wondering if it would make the seat narrow and intrude on leg room. I am tall and my right knee tends to bump up against stuff in most cars. Although they do say there is an extra inch of seat travel on the new ones versus the old ones, I guess if you can get far enough back and move the adjustable pedals forward and put your legs out straight, it would be okay. But I wish they would just make a front bench an option with leather and all the other gadgets. I don't want a base model with cheesy fabric and untinted windows in order to get an optional bench seat.

narg · January 2006

I've always been extremely impressed by the resale value of my Chevy trucks. The first one I owned was a '92 Tex/Ok special (aka cheap truck). Paid $14,000 flat for it. Traded it in 22 months later for... $13,900. If it were not for the trade in values of my Chevy's I'd never be able to buy new, as expensive as they are getting. With the extra kick-back I usually cut the price down by at lease 30% if not much more.

Really ticks off a friend of mine who is a Toyota loyalist. He usually gets burned on new purchases on his trade in. But, he continues to buy. I guess he'll never learn.

Anyway, I hope to cull about $10K off my '07 Tahoe when I purchase this Spring. Should make the monthly outlay exactly the same as my old Silverado. Can't wait. Test drove one last week and fell in love. The drive difference from old to new was an eye opener. The '07 Tahoe drives like a dream. Powerfull, precise and very agile for the size vehicle it is. I loved the light responsive stearing. Plus, I've been increasingly impressed by GM radios over the years. With Bose as the driver for that sound, WOW! I'm most likely going to sink about $45 sticker into an LT3 4x4 with some extras. First truck I will have owned with leather. Not a big fan of leather, as I use a truck for work, not posh. But, I think I might try it for a change. Something tells me I'll be looking to recover, or at least over-cover them in a couple years after their worn out. Leather just doesn't make my toosh happy. But the interior in general is increadable. I was afraid Chevy would overdo it with an "upgraded" interior. Toyota and Lexus interiors all seem to fragile to be worth anything after a couple years of use. The Tahoe interior is very well done and extremely nice. Not over-done and very simple and appealing. Only odd thing I noticed was the shift lever seemed oddly positioned. Almost like it was set wrong, while in drive it blocked the center console more than I expected. I guess that's nothing big though, it really wasn't in the way, just looked like it was.

And, what's all the fuss about hiding 3rd row seats? Don't you all realize this is a full box frame truck, not a car convert? There's no place to hide the seats as everything underneath the floor board of the Tahoe is strictly business. Without that, then the Tahoe would not be what it is. If you want hiding seats, go buy a minivan or crossover truck wanna be. Tahoe is a real truck, not a convert. If they made room for seats you'd loose suspension room for trailering and ride control and comfort. If you don't like the 3rd row seats, don't order them.

narg · January 2006

ahightower,

I was also concerned about what looked to be a very wide center console. After my test drive, it's no problem. The Tahoe driver seat room is unbeatable. The seats are the best I've sat in compared to any truck available today. It looks wide, but it's anything but in the way. Lots of leg room.

I'm about 230lbs, 5'10" and enjoy a large seat for my... large seat

The accomadations are worthy of vehicles priced much higher than the Tahoe.

blckislandguy · January 2006

I think we can all agree that Tahoe resale is down for a lot of reasons including rebates, gas prices, etc. The Suburban is even worse. But here is the good news: buy an '07 Tahoe and you will get an extra half year out of it on the model year calender. When you trade in say three years you'll only have a two model year old SUV. Or don't trade and enjoy driving the current model that much longer into the model cycle.

sebring95 · January 2006

Good luck with $10k off and good luck with resale value. I used to buy the Chevys for resale as well. Burned on my '02.

The competition doesn't have any problem with towing capacity and hiding the 3rd row. If I want an off-road vehicle, I'll buy something designed for that, clearly the Tahoe is not (look at the front approach angle, stuck!). A full-size SUV is designed to haul people/stuff and tow. A fold-flat 3rd row makes the vehicle more user friendly which for this type of coin should be expected.

narg · January 2006

"Good luck with $10k off and good luck with resale value. I used to buy the Chevys for resale as well. Burned on my '02."

Already valued at the dealer, that's what I'm getting. Timing is very important on trade ins too. Over the past year, all full size truck/suv's are super low in trade value due to gas prices. Since the gas price is getting better, and the public is getting more accepting of the price the trade it value should hold or go higher on some models. It went up on my truck last month.

I've done some research on SUV's with folding seats, none have the ability the Tahoe has. Can you find one and post it here? Besides, it's just not needed, sorry, but the weight for that option and the added parts, not worth it. I'd rather get 22mpg out of a full size SUV and not be so lazy about removing very light seats. Yes, a little extra work pays off, both in the wallet and the abs.

Of course, I'm the type that parks at the far end of the parking lot too.

Also, if you need approach angle, you need a Hummer, not a Tahoe.

sebring95 · January 2006

The Expedition and Armada have no problems folding the 3rd row, towing more, higher payload. The basics are there, GM just chose to not offer the folding 3rd row. It's obviously a desirable feature and what's an extra 100# out of 6,000#?? Obviously weight isn't a huge factor on getting a decent EPA sticker because the Tahoe is heavier than ever. Of course, if that EPA sticker turns into real-life I'll be surprised. I've got multi-displacement on my minivan and it makes a heckuvalot more difference to the EPA sticker than the real world. Granted my old Tahoe would turn 20mpg on very long highway only trips, but I'd be flabergasted if the new ones do a bit better, even with DOD or whatever they're calling it this week.

The simple fact is, I moved from my Tahoe to a minivan and would have switched back if they had included a folding 3rd row. It's not the fact that I have to pull them out, it's the lack of flexibility. Or I can buy an Armada (no Ford for me). I was waiting on the '07 Tahoe but that was obviously a waste of time.

You either off-road or you don't. If approach angle and front/rear overhangs of the '07 are good enough, you're not a hard-core off-roader and anything with 4x4 should get you around. The slightly more flex the conventional tahoe suspension may afford will make diddly difference over the IRS that might be required to fold the 3rd row (and probably ride/handle a lot better).

dieselone · January 2006

I've done some research on SUV's with folding seats, none have the ability the Tahoe has. Can you find one and post it here? Besides, it's just not needed, sorry, but the weight for that option and the added parts, not worth it. I'd rather get 22mpg out of a full size SUV and not be so lazy about removing very light seats.

What pipe are you smoking from? 22mpg is a pipe dream for a Tahoe that has any capability. A 4.8L powered 2wd going 55mph is the only way possible for a Tahoe to get 22mpg, hardly the way most will be equipt and driven.

As mentioned both the Expedition and Armada have a lot more towing capacity with fold flat seats and an IRS. I'm not saying these two SUVs are better than the Tahoe, but they certainly are just a capable at hauling stuff and more capable for towing.

Unless GM drastically reduced the weight of the removable seats you'd have to be a "gym rat" to call them light. I don't know how much the 3rd row weighs in my Suburban, but I know it's enough to where I don't enjoy removing it and no way could my wife take it out. But, with a Suburban I rarely have to remove it.

ahightower · January 2006

There is finally some info out on the new Expedition and Expedition EL (long wheelbase, Suburban/Yukon XL competitor). It looks goood. Roughly equal size, power, and towing capacity, IRS with flat folding third row (seems to be the main gripe about the 2007 GMs), probably still has a really nice interior. Can't wait to see some test drives and comparison tests!

allison5 · January 2006

We have a 04 GMC Yukon, have had tons of issues with it but there is a lot I like about it as well. Have 3 kids under age of 11 and a 85 lb labrador dog. We don't tow but go to the Lake Tahoe mountains here in Calif in the winter and summer a lot. ANyway I just had the chance to sit in a 07 Tahoe and I really liked it, did not have the time to drive it but will go back. However my concern is the first year that a new design is out on a car and whether I want to chance it. What do other people think of this? If I got it I probably would not purchase until at least summer.

I have had many people tell me I should go back to a minivan like Honda or Toyota because of all the issues I have had with Yukon, plus expensive gas prices etc. We are paying around $2.45 + again, it will be interesting to see if gas goes way up again as it gets closer to summer. I just am not sure at all about going back to minivan because of reasons that we have SUV. I admit that I do wonder about gasoline prices but....

jay_24 · January 2006

I've gotten 23mpg on three consecutive tanks of gas with our 5.3 4x4. So it was driving 45mph, but it also was in the mountains with a full load (Yellowstone NP).

On the third row not folding flat, maybe they are saving the space for the batteries once the hybred system comes???
Just a guess.

Fold flat would have been nice, but what percentage of Tahoes sold even have/want the third row?

blckislandguy · January 2006

Sebring95, you lost me at the very last curve. Are you saying that a rigid rear axle Tahoe has more flex than an IRS SUV?? Whoa. That makes no sense to me. Or, were you implying that the Tahoe frame is more flexible? Please enlighten me.

You know, I'm happy that my original post started a long thread. But I'm puzzled. No one seemed to speak to the economic benefit of buying an '07 model during the '06 model year. To me it seems like a free lunch. You get to postpone the dreaded first year's depreciation for a year.

dieselone · January 2006

To me it seems like a free lunch. You get to postpone the dreaded first year's depreciation for a year.

Maybe if you don't drive it. You still take a hit on mileage. Sure you get to drive an 07 for an extra 9 months. But regardless you'll take a nice hit on depreciation if you trade in within a few years.

sebring95 · January 2006

Sebring95, you lost me at the very last curve. Are you saying that a rigid rear axle Tahoe has more flex than an IRS SUV?? Whoa. That makes no sense to me. Or, were you implying that the Tahoe frame is more flexible? Please enlighten me.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Believe it or not, this old man used to do a lot of off-roading. Even up until just a couple years ago, I still had a dedicated off-road vehicle just for messing around. The IS systems used on todays SUV's do not articulate very well. If they did, they'd ride so bad nobody would buy them. Particularly since nobody offroads with them (when I say nobody, I mean 93% of the buying public...). And very few of that 7% does any amount of hard-core off-roading that would require a sophisticated suspension like what is on the Hummers. The big downside to IS is that it's not as strong as a live axle, however they are certainly upto the task of a full-size 1/2 ton SUV. The big advantage to IS is space and on-road/high speed comfort. Off-road they require a ton of extra strengh (i.e hummer) and they will still break more often than a solid axle.

In a nutshell, if you remove the stabalizer bar off the back of a solid axle tahoe, you'll have tremendously more flex than any of the IRS vehicles. Of course you still have IFS so it's no off-road machine regardless. The only advantage I see that Tahoe having with a solid rear axle is it's strong. However, for all the more payload a Tahoe can handle an IRS would have no problems.

narg · January 2006

"What pipe are you smoking from? 22mpg is a pipe dream for a Tahoe that has any capability. A 4.8L powered 2wd going 55mph is the only way possible for a Tahoe to get 22mpg, hardly the way most will be equipt and driven."

Thanks for your support and thoughtfullness. I drive a Silverado with the 5.3 and get over 20 MPG without DOD. 22 MPG is what the 2x4 Tahoe with DOD is rated for, and if the 5.3 is still as nice you will see many getting better than rated. GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.

sebring95 · January 2006

GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.

I agree with that and have done the same in the past (although my current Silvy is a 14mpg hog....). However, I don't believe these DOD engines are going to get what the EPA sticker is stating. The simple reason is that the speeds at which the EPA test is performed is where the DOD is most active. The speeds you and I drive on the highway is going to have far less 4cly operation. I still think you could get around 20mpg on long highway trips, but unless you slow down to 55-60mph I don't anticipate a huge change. I have the variable cylinder engine in my minivan and it's very active at 55-60mph. The only time I've hit the 28mpg EPA hwy was a long trip at typical EPA test speeds speeds (2-lane back roads). However, out on the highway at normal speeds it barely beats the non-variable cylinder vans and we're talking about a much more aerodynamic vehicle than a Tahoe/Truck. I think DOD has the most potential in cars which really don't require much power to move them anyway. A truck requires quite a bit of power just because of the wind it's pushing.

narg · January 2006

"The Expedition and Armada have no problems folding the 3rd row, towing more, higher payload. The basics are there, GM just chose to not offer the folding 3rd row. It's obviously a desirable feature and what's an extra 100# out of 6,000#?? Obviously weight isn't a huge factor on getting a decent EPA sticker because the Tahoe is heavier than ever. Of course, if that EPA sticker turns into real-life I'll be surprised."

OK, you made me research:

Tahoe, Expedition, Armada
Max. Cargo : 109 cu. ft., 111 cu. ft., 97 cu. ft.
Length 202 in., 205.8 in., 206.9 in.
Weight 5527 lbs., 5607 lbs., 5623 lbs.
City 15mpg. 14 mpg. 13 mpg.
Highway 22mpg. 18 mpg. 18 mpg.

Chevy has more cargo than the Armada, and is lighter than both. But the other 2 are longer which creates more room with or without the lost floor space (they have to raise the floor a bit to allow for room on the seat storage.) And, the Tahoe is lighter than both. So your research needs to be a little more exaustive next time.

The last 4 Chevy's I've owned all got better than EPA on milage. Why would I expect the Tahoe to be any less? Also, I'm willing to bet that a rear crash on all 3 would mean a much higher cost on the folding seat versions. Besides, if you want more storage, you'd get a Suburban, not a Tahoe. The others do tow more, but at a loss for milage and drivability. The 2007 Tahoe went for ride comfort over towing, a good move in my book. If I were to need to tow over 5000 lbs anyway, I'd get a desiel powered truck. Just common sense there. There's a reason you don't see a large number of SUV's towing large items. They're not the right vehicle for the job.

One thing that can be agreed on is there is no such thing as a perfect vehicle. Either the Tahoe has 99% of what you need (or think you need) or it doesn't. If people want a folding 3rd row, there will be trade offs.

narg · January 2006

"A truck requires quite a bit of power just because of the wind it's pushing."

I can't wait to see real world results too. It will be interesting. One thing of note, I noticed in the Tahoe brochure they were really pushing the drag rating on the Tahoe. Actually comparing to the Corvette (yeah, I snickered too.) With the wieght it definately takes some torque to get a Tahoe going, but once it's in motion, of course that's when the 4 cyl shut off occurs.

Anyway, can't wait to get mine (hopefully sometime this spring.) and see what the real results are.

narg · January 2006

Allison,

Nice thing about the new Tahoe is that it is a GM, and GM "re-uses" a lot of parts and pieces between vehicles, so a large portion of the 2007 Tahoe is already road tested on other cars and trucks. So the 1st year concerns should be a bit less.

Also, you might wait and check out the electric/gas hybrid Tahoe due in the Fall.

Your luck with trouble in a vehicle today will not change depending on the make or model. Time has shown that, minus a few rare cases, all cars and trucks report about the same amount of problems for all makers. My experience has shown me that GM owners tend to be a bit more vocal about issues. I guess most Toyota/Honda/etc. owners don't want to be embarrased by their problems, so they don't speak up about them. Just my experience, if you will...

Be prepared to test drive one.

You'll have problems leaving the dealership without one if you do. The drive difference I found was an eye opening change. It's sweet.

narg · January 2006

"On the third row not folding flat, maybe they are saving the space for the batteries once the hybred system comes???
Just a guess. "

OOoooh, hadn't thought of that. Good guess.

But, then again, if they have room for batteries, they can make room for the seat on non-hybrids? :confuse:

sebring95 · January 2006

My research is right on the money. I stated 100# difference and that's basically what it is. A few inches here and there isn't going to make one significantly more useful than the other. Particularly when one requires you to drag the seats out (which my wife CANNOT do, been there done that) and the other does not.

The rest is just picking nits. The previous Tahoe EPA was right on the money with the others. It has yet to be seen if the new DOD EPA is realistic in the real world. Most other vehicles with this feature aren't getting the numbers expected. The Armada also has significantly more grunt than the Tahoe. The Ford, well it's a Ford that's all I've got to say about that. :P

If I wanted a suburban I'd buy one. I don't. I prefer the size/maneuverability of the Tahoe. It has more than enough room for my needs, but just is not flexible enough for me.

GM hasn't revolutionized a single thing with this new vehicle. The interior is now on-par with the competition, the steering is more the way it should be, and it may ride a bit better but other than that, I think they just played catch-up. There's no way they can ride this generation out for six more years like they did the last. It'll be out-of-date this time next year.

dieselone · January 2006

Thanks for your support and thoughtfullness. I drive a Silverado with the 5.3 and get over 20 MPG without DOD. 22 MPG is what the 2x4 Tahoe with DOD is rated for, and if the 5.3 is still as nice you will see many getting better than rated. GM engines have had an ability to do better than the EPA rating if not driven like a Nascar fan.

I'm not talking about a Silverado, I'm referring to a Tahoe/Suburban. I have a 5.3 powered Suburban that we take on lots of trips of 100% highway driving. The best highway mileage I've ever achieved is 16.4mpg with the cruise set at the speed limit of 70mph. I generally avg. about 14mpg overall. So based on my experience, 20+ mpg is simply not realistic w/o driving well under posted speed limits.

dieselone · January 2006

There's a reason you don't see a large number of SUV's towing large items. They're not the right vehicle for the job.

I guess you haven't been to a boat ramp lately. They are full of SUVs. Pickups aren't nearly as family friendly as a fullsize SUV and boaters generally have family and friends with them. Thus, why I have a Suburban over a pickup.

My boat is just under 5000lbs and I'd agree that 5000lbs is probably the point where the 5.3 doesn't have enough guts for serious towing. It's fine for flat terrain, but towing up hills is torture. It's depressing to see a guy with an Armada towing a larger boat blow by me up the hills while my foot is to the floor. A six speed trans would do wonders for towing performance. So maybe the new 6.2L SUVs with the 6speed probably will be great for towing, and great for sucking up gas as well.

I'll be curious where GM goes with 3/4ton Suburbans, cause they are quite common with the large boater/horse crowd. I wish GM would offer a diesel Suburban, but I just don't see that happening any time soon.

ahightower · January 2006

Stopped by a dealer today to have a closer look at an '07 Tahoe. I didn't drive it because I don't want to lead the salesman on, as I won't be buying a new vehicle for at least a couple years, and at that time it will be a Suburban or Yukon XL for the extra space. But I wanted to see the new GM interior first hand.

I thought the seats were good. The leather has a different kind of texture to it, not as smooth as the leather in my 2005 Yukon XL. I don't know if that will make it harder to clean, but I did think it was very comfortable, like a broken in leather chair.

I did not like the big center console. My right knee is forced to rest up against it. I will just have to get a bench seat on my next vehicle. That is disappointing. No leather with the bench option. I did like how the arm rest is upholstered and padded though, versus the hard plastic on my vehicle.

The dash was very nice, the wood trim was attractive and everything looked very modern and upscale, finally up to par with the Fords.

I didn't get to see the power folding second row seats in action, evidently the battery was disconnected on the floor model, but it seems like a neat trick. Not sure if it's necessary though, my kids simply walk through the center aisle on their way back to the third row. The third row itself is nice, I like how it is two pieces rather than one. More versatile, and easier to handle. I believe it will be offered that way on the Suburban as well rather than the current one-piece bench only. Not sure anybody would need to choose the two-person over the three-person though. There are already cup holders built in to the sides back there, why not go for the 3-person in case you ever need to squeeze in an extra person?

The exterior styling is handsome. The 20" wheels and tires are fat, or is that "phat". Still think metal/chrome bumpers are a better idea for something that may tow or go camping, though. But the "integrated" design is good. At least people won't be able to replace them with those stupid diamond-plate monstrosities.

mikesright · January 2006

I hear a lot about the need for fold-in-the-floor seats. Why? Fold the seatbacks back, and for 99.99% of people, that will be fine! Personally, I think it was a good move to eliminate IRS and third row, because it would have made the SUV's cost more money, and the IRS is not as durable, and it serves the purpose of off-roaders, too!

If you want a SUV that can tow more, wait for the HD versions to come out! If you do not like the bumper cover, then go to your dealer and ask for a GM or aftermarket part to cover that! :surprise:

For people who absolutely need a fold-in-the-floor rear seat, get an Expedition. The Expedition has really set the SUV market on fire, losing more market share than anybody! :P

dieselone · January 2006

You make some valid points regarding the fold flat seats. It will be an issue for some and it won't for others.

As for the IRS, I don't agree that it's less durable. Last I checked the Hummer H1 uses an IRS all around and it's one of the most capable durable offroaders available. Regardless I don't have a problem with a solid axle. How everything works is far more important.

We'll just have to see if the Tahoe will sell w/o incentives. GM was able to prop up the Tahoe/suburban sales all year with huge incentives.

sebring95 · January 2006

The H1 independent is tremendously more stout than anything used on todays SUV's. But it's still not as as strong as many solid axle vehicles offroad. The H1 really wasn't designed for hard-core off-roading, rock climbing, etc. It was really more designed to be a fast mover acrossed sand/rough surfaces and also have piles of ground clearance. Go to some hard-core offroading events and you'll see some messed up H1's.

That being said, IRS will work perfectly fine in a light-duty vehicle such as a Tahoe/Expedition/Armada. These don't have much payload capacity and towing is within reason. I don't see much advantage to having IRS up front and solid axle in the back. Worst of all worlds if you ask me because if the front can't flex, who cares about the rear? IRS adds some weight, and probably most importantly in GM's case...money!

Based on a previous poster claiming $10,000 off MSRP on an '07, I'd say they're planning to give these away as well. Of course there's been a lot of claims in above posts. If I could get one for $10,000 under MSRP and a guaranteed 22mpg...I might put up with the lacking features as well!

blckislandguy · January 2006

OK Sebring, I'll acknowledge that you go off road. BUT, I don't agree that independent suspensions do not articulate as well as a rigid axle. Moreover, I don't agree that more articulation leads necessarily to a bad ride. I'd rather be in an VW bug even with its swing axles than a horse cart any day. It seems very obvious to me that independent suspensions (by definition, "independent") articulate better than rigid ones.

I must be missing something. Please help me out.

sebring95 · January 2006

I'll see if I can find some links for you. I'm sure there are plenty of descriptions with pics out there. It would take too much space here and I'm sure I'd get something wrong and the anti-IRS (and anti-folding 3rd row) people would be all over me. I think we're on the same team anyway, I would have preferred the new Tahoe's have a fully indpendent suspension all the way around. It's better, period. Unless you're taking a $40,000 Tahoe rock-climbing or loading the cargo area with cinder blocks daily. Everyone claims they're glad it has a solid axle because it's stronger, yet the vehicle isn't capable of performing to the point that it would make a bit of difference.

navigator89 · January 2006

Pricing

dieselone · February 2006

No kidding. I realize that most who want the most offroad ability prefer solid axles. They are much easier to lift etc. Those who want true offroad ability will not be buying a Tahoe/Suburban/Expe. The average Tahoe only goes off road when someone accidentally backs up on to the lawn.

As for towing. Sure, I can see where a solid axle probably offers the strongest solution. Regardless, in 1/2 ton form, the full IRS Armada has the most rated towing capacity with the most torque available.

narg · February 2006

"I'll be curious where GM goes with 3/4ton Suburbans, cause they are quite common with the large boater/horse crowd. I wish GM would offer a diesel Suburban, but I just don't see that happening any time soon. "

Many have been waiting for Chevy to put a diesel in the 3/4 Suburban for a long time. I know I've sent quite a few comments to them on that note. Hopefully they'll start to listen to the crowd more. At least Edmunds is starting to push diesel as a good thing these days.

jay_24 · February 2006

How about the Sequia or Durango?
Both solid rear end. Fold flat seats?

Sequia 5290lbs, 15city and 17hwy, 128 cu ft.
273 hp and 314 lbs torque.
Durango 5132lbs, 14city and 18hwy, 102 cu ft.
235hp and 300 lbs torque.

The Durango (non-hemi) has the second highest towing rating. Its just geared to tow and haul, not get good mpg.

It appears weight, power and mpg don't always go together. The Toyota with lower weight and least power get the worst mpg on the highway. The durango with the least weight and second lowest power has the worst city mpg.

if you guys really need more power just spend a few more nickels for an Escalade (403hp/417lbs). However with a 6 speed tranny and awd, it has the second lowest towing.

Our Tahoe 5.3 4x4 gets the sticker mpg to slightly better.
I hope the 2007 will too.

papabear5 · February 2006

The 07 will get 22 mpg w/the 5.3L (320 hp & 340 lbs-ft trq)on the highway. Accompanied with the 3.73, the max tow rating is 7200 lbs. Can anybody come close to that combination?? I don't think so.

4rider · February 2006

Regardless the issues of fold flat 3rd seat or not, IRS vs solid axle, plastic bumpers etc, the more important issue is that whether at this point in time is 07 a good buy? I personally think 06 will give me more bang on the buck since I dont consider 07 is significanly better. We havent heard anything about the 07 Sequoia yet. If Toyota comes up with a 5.6 v8 in that it will put the 07 Tahoe in the least powerful among the 3(Tahoe, Armada, Sequoia). Dont care much about Expeditions or Durangos.

slightbo · February 2006

We just bought a 07 tahoe lt3 and are loving it. We put 22inch Helo rims on with goodyear 305 40R22 tires and get a rub on the front left tire when we turn the wheel all the way to the left (always when backing out of a spot, etc). The tire place told us that there is nothing we can do and that even 20's would rub because you can't trim the plastic back on the wheelwell on the front left and that even the older models did it. We just aren't ready to accept that and are looking for some answers if anyone has any. I read that the 07 Escalade's were coming from the factory with 22's (so the Tahoe should be built the same?) and I can't see them putting out a SUV that will rub like this???

By the way, love the car, Chevy did an excellent job, the inside is gorgeous and we are getting a lot of looks and comments.

jnt · February 2006

The 07 will get 22 mpg w/the 5.3L (320 hp & 340 lbs-ft trq)on the highway. Accompanied with the 3.73, the max tow rating is 7200 lbs. Can anybody come close to that combination?? I don't think so.

If it makes the would-be Tahoe owners happier on MPG number:

Typical minivan (~4300 lb) in real life returns 15 MPG around town and ~23 MPG on highway. If you can get 22 MPG on HWY on a Tahoe which is 1000 lb heavier, that is a big engineering achievement. The 15/23 numbers also applies to mid size car based SUV like Santa Fe, Pilot, Highlander, Trailblazer,...

jt

sebring95 · February 2006

Typical minivan (~4300 lb) in real life returns 15 MPG around town and ~23 MPG on highway. If you can get 22 MPG on HWY on a Tahoe which is 1000 lb heavier, that is a big engineering achievement.

Yes true. My Odyssey (which has variable cylinder management like the new Tahoes) is rated 19mpg city and 28mpg hwy. I average about 20-21mpg and can get 24mpg on the highway. Just about the same as the NON VCM engine Odysseys. If I slow down to 55mph for a long trip, I can exceed the hwy mpg. My previous Tahoe was rated 14/18 and I usually averaged 16-17mpg and could get 19-20mpg on all highway trips (70mph).

That's why I don't believe this new 22mpg number can be easily achieved and exceeded like the prior Tahoe (which was only 18-19mpg hwy EPA). The VCM/DOD engines manipulate the EPA tests more than a normal vehicle. Just like the hybrids. Those systems are VERY efficient at the speeds EPA performs the tests. IMHO, the real-world numbers will be very similar to the previous non-DOD engine unless someone specifically drives at the speeds where DOD is most beneficial.

ahightower · February 2006

Good point about small and midsize V6 SUVs. A lot of them do much worse than you would expect. If a Santa Fe or Xterra gets the same mileage as my Yukon XL, why should I feel guilty? Either GM did well, or the others did poorly. I think the reason a lot of these things don't do well is that they are underpowered for their size. Sometimes more power is more efficient AND more fun!

Then compare to Ford. The biggest complaint I've seen about the 5.4 liter Ford V8 is sluggish off-the-line response combined with mediocre fuel economy. Then they always praise the abrupt acceleration and commendable fuel economy of GM's 5.3.

dieselone · February 2006

I had a 01 Nissan Pathfinder before my Suburban. It's true that hwy fuel economy wasn't all that much different. The PF was rated at 16/19 and I would generally get between 17-19 on the hwy. My Suburban is between 16-17 on the highway. The big difference is around town where the weight becomes more of an issue. The burb gets 12-14 around town where my Pathfinder would routinely get 16mpg around town. The Pathfinder had much lower gearing than the Suburban that made it much quicker, but it did hurt fuel economy. Even though both vehicles had similar hp & torque to vehicle weight ratios, the PF was much quicker at all speeds.

I wouldn't call an Xterra with 265hp underpowered, they easily run 0-60 under 8 seconds.

As for Ford Trucks and SUVS, they are a lot heavier than a comparable Chevy. Thus, they are slower and thirstier.

BTW, the 07 4wd Tahoe is rated 15/21, the 2wd model is rated at 16/22. Anxious to see what actual real world mileage will be.

tyresmoker · February 2006

Sounds to me like the offset on the wheel might be wrong...meaning check with the mfr to confirm that your new wheels were made for an '07 model, not the '06.

If in fact they are the wrong wheel, the rubbing will be the least of your problems as time goes on...

ahightower · February 2006

You're right about that, I would not call the new Xterras underpowered.

At any rate, you are talking about 2 mpg difference overall for full size GMs versus midsize SUVs and minivans. I've done the math, and for me that adds up to a whopping $10-15 per month.

narg · February 2006

I thought the LTZ model was supposed to come with 20" wheels from the factory? So unless the depth/width of the wheel is too much, then 20's shouldn't rub.

slightbo · February 2006

We checked the LTZ's, and since they come from the factory, the tires are not as wide, and therefore don't look as good, same with the ones coming on the cadillac. The rubbing only occurs on a full lock on the drivers side front only. Some dealerships are getting the tires custom made so that they don't rub, but those who get aftermarket 22's are all having the same problems. We've been told to wait three months to see what they come out with. A one inch lift on the front will help (but are not being manufactured yet), as will trimming the plastic on the wheel well, but we don't want to be the guinea pig on this!

I guess we shall see. But I know we are not the only ones, even aftermarket 20's are rubbing. One of the joys of being a first owner of a new design!

tdoh · February 2006

Well my Denali XL can't get anywhere near 22 mpg on the highway, but I have gotten around 17 on a good day--this considering that my vehicle has a gas-guzzling 6-liter engine, weighs over 6000 lbs. (w/ just myself in the vehicle and a half-tank of gas--verified w/ truck scale), and is rolling on heavier 22" wheels/tires (almost 20 lbs. more than the stock 17" at each corner--you can't tell me this additional unsprung mass doesn't adversely affect fuel economy somehow)...and BTW--I got that 17 mpg averaging 70 mph for the most part, over the course of 400 miles.

How many large/heavy SUVs similar to my setup (non-diesel engines, of course) do you know that can get that kind of mileage? Sheesh, the Armadas and Sequoias of the world--both of which weigh less and have smaller-capacity engines than my DXL--should (in theory...and probably in practice, as well) be able to do better (get better hwy fuel economy than my 17 mpg), but typically don't/can't.

belias · February 2006

All I can say is that it is about time GM built a good interior! Even though I've liked the form factor of the seating and the vehicle itself, I've never liked the horrible interiors. I think that they finally succeeded in doing something much nicer inside and I hope that it is put together well and won't creak in a few months. My only real disappointment has been with the transmission shifter... I can't believe that they STILL put this thing on the steering column. They do that even on the new Escalade! I know it saves space on the floor but it isn't like these vehicles lack space.
Note to GM: Put the shifter on the floor!! Does anybody outside the "Big 3" do this anymore?
Otherwise, I'm eager to see the new Yukon. It looks like a good, solid vehicle with a very nice interior. I hope it is as good in person as it is in the pics!

jnt · February 2006

Note to GM: Put the shifter on the floor!! Does anybody outside the "Big 3" do this anymore?

Believe it or not, the new M-Class Mercedes SUV has column shifter with slightly different way of gear activation

JT

2007 and newer Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles