GMC Yukon / Yukon Denali

erinsquared · January 2004

Adding additional valves to the head would improve engine breathing and raise power in the upper rpm band, but conventional wisdom states that the power available up high is not as usable for truck driving conditions as is low end torque. The 6.0L in the Denali is almost as fast off the line as the Escalade because the difference in power does not occur until later in the rpm band. Besides, GM already is getting 405 HP out of the Corvette Z06 engine which still uses a pushrod OHV design and they could easily fit this in the Denali/Escalade engine bay without a major engine redesign. I for one would rather have this as an extra cost option because I would rather pocket the difference.

GM probably will milk this design for as much as they can until the redesigned Tahoe/Yukon platform is released. My wish list includes: head/curtain airbags, folding third row (aka Expedition), rack & pinion steering, Xenon headlight option, fully reclining captains chairs (instead of partially reclining), and upgraded materials/ergonomics. Many of these they will need to do in order to stay competitive. Would be nice if they came up with a couple of good innovations.

rusilly · January 2004

To those with the Navigation system, is it XM radio capable? Does it display the artist and song titles? And does it play DVD movies (when in park)?

Thanks!

avolvofan · January 2004

Yes to XM radio capability for Navigation System. (It also controls AM and FM tuning.) If you want movies, you need to get the Entertainment System.

ezrapon · January 2004

yes, yes, and no. I too have not enjoyed the amount of recline available on the denali seats. Probably, they are truck seats and were designed as such, not to recline into the back of the cab. Same might be said of the middle row buckets. Horsepower for the 6.0 is limitless. The vette is now using this configuration,(avolvofan) yes with a aluminum block and different cam, head design etc, but, the same engine family, with many interchangable parts. It must be remembered that the current truck engines were borrowed from the vette in the first place...chevy small blocks are chevy small blocks. Remember... a 327 with a 283 crank is a 302 Z'28 engine. Ahh the good ol' days!

dako_tian · January 2004

I remember those too! Ah that little 1969 Camaro 307, three-speed-on-the-column that would keep up with anything in first and second -- IFF I put two of my buddies in the back seat to keep that 4-11 rear end from tire-hopping.

Of course, it also had the tendency to yaw on the slightest slickness. Several times I rode that Camaro through 360+ degree spins on a damp street/highway. But my guardian angels were working overtime because it never once contacted any other vehicle nor any solid objects beside the road.

I think I'll stay with the more safety-engineered products that have contributed significantly to a decline in the absolute highway death toll (now about 40,000 per year) at the same time that the population has increased by more than 100 million, the number of vehicles on the road has more than doubled (tripled? quadrupled?), and the number of vehicle miles driven has done likewise. Impressive and a very good thing!

lobsenza · January 2004

The only way GM could get a fold flat 3rd row is to install an independent rear suspension like Ford did.

rusilly · January 2004

Thanks for the replies.

ezrapon · January 2004

if the Ford 150 pick ups have IRS like the SUV's?
Along those same lines, when comparing these big suv's to the highly refined German/japanese models, there is an apple an orange factor. These are first and foremost work trucks designed to pull, push, haul, and transport almost anything. They have a blue collar heritage. They are thinly desquised work trucks... I think thats a good thing and gives them an advantage over the prissy beamers, merc, lexus, and all the others...apples and oranges.

cornellpinoy · January 2004

Ezrapon - I drive my '02 Denali on the weekends. I drive a 2004 F-150 during the week. It does not have an independent rear suspension like the SUVs. It has a solid rear axle, as do the other full size pickups. Its actually my first Ford. I'll probably go back to GM with the next one.

lobsenza · January 2004

Are you unhappy with your F-150?

cornellpinoy · January 2004

Lobsenza - The new F-150 is night and day compared to previous generation, which I've also driven extensively. The new style looks great and its steers and brakes better than any of the domestic full size pick-ups. But the Silverado/Sierras accelerate quicker. More importanly, the GMs ride smoother which is what I miss the most. The Avalanche is actually the best riding pick-up I've ever driven - no surprise to us GM full size SUV owners!

ezrapon · January 2004

that ford has made a more earnest commitment to their SUV's than GM is prepared to do. The explorer had to have the IRS to keep it right side up, but the expedition went to it to make it much more advanced in both handling and room utilization. Although, my Denali seems to ride as good or better than any of the ford products I've been in. Is GM ahead of the game by using truck-proven parts, or just cheap by using off the shelf parts (like the seats). An optimist would say GM is using more durable work force parts with little effect on ride or stability... while others might say they have dropped the technological ball.

avolvofan · January 2004

Just because GM does not offer independent rear suspension in either the Escalade or the Denali doesn't get to a conclusion of dropping the technological ball. It really is about results - if GM can produce a superior ride to what Ford can do with independent rear suspension in the Expedition, then more power (or profits, or market share, or whatever) to them.

cornellpinoy · January 2004

ezrapon - I've driven the Explorer back to back with a Trailblazer and a Expedition (without the air suspension) back to back with a Tahoe LS (no Autoride). Like you, I found the GMs had the smoother ride and were quieter. I agree with avolvofan that GM isn't exactly dropping the ball. At the very least, I'd wait for the next generation full size GMs to come out before coming to that conclusion.

blockislandguy · January 2004

Ezrapon, I think you're right that sourcing from family's parts bins makes good business sense. GM must save big bucks on this. Take a look at the dask on an Escalade/Denali, Tahoe, Sierra, etc. etc. They are all the same. Basic seats, probably, too. But, what is really amazing is that GM gets more money for their SUVs and they retain their value longer than the , IMHO, more technically advanced competition! Now thats a good trick: give the customer recycled, comparatively lower tech, non-cutting edge components, maybe even less total content, charge more and have the market value it longer.

This slow and steady wins the race approach, incidentally, is almost the reverse of Mercedes: pack the vehicle so full of cutting edge technology that it doesn't mesh well, watch the customers complain and then see your resale plummet like a rock.

hansienna · January 2004

Both reliable, quality TRUCKS and TRUCK based vehicles.
     In sedans, Toyota and Honda reign supreme for reliability and quality.
     My Ford F-150 4 WD is one fine vehicle as was my 1980 Chevy (GM) passenger van.
     Although I like my 2001 Chevy Blazer LT, the Ford Explorer feels like a nicer, more roomy vehicle. Probably would get a Ford Explorer if I purchased another SUV. Toyota Highlander is too light duty without real 4 WD for hunting and fishing.
     Toyota Sequioa and 4-Runner too expensive compared to GMC Yukon XL or Ford Expedition. I don't need the mammoth size of these very large SUVs.

jjdavidson · January 2004

Does anyone know the timeline for the next generation full size SUVs? I have am 03 Denali and love it, mainly the horsepower and good looks. I do see GM lagging behind in some of the creature comforts being offered on others now such as fold flat third row seat and power liftgate. I would trade my Denali for another Denali in a heartbeat if it had a fold flat third seat. Still no comparison to the others when it comes to engines though. Will be interesting for see how Nissan/Infiniti fares. Rave reviews so far. They could be for real.

lobsenza · January 2004

Heated and cooled seats would be nice too....

ezrapon · January 2004

from what I'm reading, Gm slam-dunked the ball as opposed to dropping it. What can I say. I bought 2 of them this year myself. I wonder if they ever will go to IRS for space saving or handling issues. Mine rides fine, better than the fords and all of the imports that I have been in. The biggest difference I see between the GM brands is the offering of the big motor in the upscale models. Given a choice, I'll always grab the keys for the Denali over the 5.3...guess I'm spoiled. The interior differences are not that great even between the lowest LS tahoe to the Escalade. Add leather and the Bose (and 6.0, mono tone paint) and I'd be in a Tahoe. They are all chevys under the skin!

lobsenza · January 2004

One option is to equip the 5.3 with the 4.10 axle. That will make them closer. But, this will not give the feeling of full time 4WD.

circutmann · January 2004

While 95% of the time I would like it if the 3rd seat would fold down flat, for ease & convenience, the other 5% of the time I prefer to remove the seat.

I occasionally use my 01 YXL to tow a heavy 31 ft travel trailer. When the family goes camping for a 2 week stretch, we are packed heavily with much gear & extra weight in both the XL & the trailer. While I have never had any problems, I am glad to shed & leave the weight of that 3rd seat at home. I am probably approaching the GVW & trailer towing spec on the truck, for that annual trip.

While I have never actually weighed the seat, it seems substantial. The folding mechanism probably would add more weight. I don't know if there is a weight savings going to the IRS. If there is, maybe it is comparable to the weight of the 3rd seat. If so, maybe its a wash in terms of weight. Just another consideration on the folding 3rd seat pro's & con's. Dave

hansienna · January 2004

IF Consumer Reports had their way, ALL seats but the driver's seat of every SUV and Minivan would have to fold flat before they would "Recommend for Purchase".

blockislandguy · January 2004

Lobsenza, I thought (but I could be wrong) that Yukon's could be operated in four wheel drive on a full time basis (on hard pavement). How is the AWD in Denali any different except no low range??

lobsenza · January 2004

The Denali is designed to run in 4 WD all the time. Under normal conditions power is given to all 4 wheels. This give a feeling of security on acceleration that is not there on the regular Yukon. Locking a Yukon in 4WD high cannot be used in the same way. The yukon system is a part time 4WD system, the Denali is a full time system. There are sites that explain the differences, but I don't remember where they are.

avolvofan · January 2004

With All Wheel Drive (AWD), as its name implies, all four wheels drive the vehicle (all the time). There is usually only one final drive gear range with AWD. Four Wheel Drive has the ability to drive all four wheels as well. If it is not a full-time four wheel drive system (such as is found on Land Rover Discovery and Range Rover), it will not be able to be engaged all of the time. This is due to strain on the differentials from the varying distances traveled by the wheels as the vehicle turns (the outside wheels travel farther than the inside wheels). For this reason, non-full time four wheel drive vehicles are referred to as part-time four wheel drive. Additionally, four wheel drive systems generally have both a high and a low final drive gear selection that can be made by the driver. Most of the time, the high final drive will be selected.

erinsquared · January 2004

I have driven both AWD (Denali) and auto 4WD vehicles (Trooper) and I find that the Denali AWD offers far better traction on street and light off-road situations. Part time 4WD systems require some driving wheel slip to engage the torque transfer (either through applying brakes or through clutch packs) to the non-driving wheels. In soft sand, the torque transfer in the auto 4WD system is jerky and has a tendancy to dig in vs. the AWD which proceeds smoothly since driving power is always engaged. The Denali's lack of a low range limits its capabilities off-road, but this limitation has been addressed in the H2 which uses the same AWD system as the Denali but has the addition of a low-range transfer case. Someday, someone will figure out how to retrofit the H2 transfer case into a Denali to remove this limitation. AWD incurs a slight loss of fuel economy and robs a little bit of power over a part time 4WD system which can be set to 2WD mode. My Trooper would get 1MPG more in 2WD mode city/highway vs. the auto 4WD.

Kirstie_H · January 2004

A reporter is looking to interview someone in the Portland, OR metro area who owns an SUV and is feeling quite proud of its capabilities in the city's unusual weather. Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Friday, January 9.
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
PR Director
Edmunds.com

ezrapon · January 2004

had 4wd lo, 4wd hi, 2wd,and auto trac for mixed conditions. I'm sure its not as sophisticated as the awd, but don't fully understand the dynamics.
It also has posi which is not available with the denali.

lobsenza · January 2004

is not needed on the Denali because of the full time 4WD.

cornellpinoy · January 2004

I've driven several '02 and '03 Tahoes and Yukons in 4WD HI mode. The most noticeable difference compared to the Denali's AWD is the binding when making sharp turns. This is especially felt when you're parking - with 4HI on, the steering wheel is a bit stiffer to turn as the angle increases compared to when 2HI is selected. With the AWD, I've never felt any steering resistance.

tdoh · January 2004

FWIW--I've owned a '99 Tahoe w/ Autotrac, and currently own an '03 YXL and '04 DXL--both have AWD/Stabilitrak. Granted the following comparison between the Tahoe and YXL (haven't driven the DXL in snowy conditions yet) is apples and oranges, but still...the AWD traction of the YXL seemed somewhat more stable than the 4Hi traction of the 'hoe, although it could be possible that Stabilitrak may have had something to do with the AWD performance of the YXL. However, my observations were based mostly on straight-line maneuvers on paved (but snow-covered) roads, plus at no time during my "testing" did the DIC indicate that Stabilitrak was actually in use.

What does all this mean as far as my personal observation is concerned? Basically, I felt that I could drive faster with more confidence on low-traction surfaces w/ the DXL than with the Tahoe.

avolvofan · January 2004

Cornellpinoy, the binding that you described while driving in 4WDHi is the reason that one can not have part-time 4WD (whether in Hi or Low) on all of the time. As turns are taken, the wheels on the outside of the turn have further to go than the wheels on the inside of the turn.

Tdoh, I doubt that you had StabiliTrak engaged during your driving experience. You would have experienced a reduction in engine output as well as felt the selective application of the braking system if StabiliTrak was engaged. Since you have not described a spin of the truck, it is unlikely that StabiliTrak was in the picture - it only activates when on-board sensors detect an impending spin.

That said, the reason that you have both described a better driving experience for AWD vs. 4WD is due to the always-on nature of AWD. Part-time 4WD is just that: part-time. If it were possible to retrofit a Hi and Low transfer case along the lines of the H2 (that erinsquared mentioned in #2313 above), you would have the best of both worlds. Don't be surprised to see such a capability in some future model of the Denali.

juice22 · January 2004

I have a question about the AWD system on the DenaliI have owned a 02 Denali (shorty) and now own a 04 Denali (shorty) and had a weird experience with an ice patch. I left my sprinkler system on by accident one night when it got real cold. I was leaving for work and half of the road in front of my house was iced up. I purposely put 2 wheels (drivers side) on the ice while the other two wheels were on pavement with no ice. I stopped and eased on the gas. My SUV (the 04) would not move, yet the tires on the ice were spinning. With that said, when I did the same test to my 02, it did the same thing until the locking rear end engaged. The 04 does not have the feature so I assume I have Lessor of a vehicle.

I am looking for feedback. Reason being, when you purchase you generally cant test these features and end up taking the salesmans word.

Help me out because I have been sold on Power goes from wheels that SLIP to wheels that GRIP! Yeah right!

juice22 · January 2004

I just had my 2002 Denali (shorty) repurchased by GM under Lemon Law and went and purchased a 2004 Denali. I noticed that the following lights were deleted from the newer model.

Front foot wells
Glove box (both on passenger side and the center console)
Rear seat floorboard
Rear door side lights (It just has a reflector)

Although GM added many new features to the 04 that improved the 02 the lights were a nice touch and VERY VERY useful.

Also, in my 02 I got a third row floor mathowever, my 04 with the second row captains has no floor mats. Are all others the same or did I get cheated?

juice22 · January 2004

I recently upgraded my headlights to the Sylvania SilverStars to improve night driving. While doing so I noticed something strange. The stock bulbs were 65W vs. the SilverStars being only 60W. The SilverStars claim to be the brightest NON-HID bulb. The light is whiter but is it brighter?

Just curious if anyone has done/noticed the same!

juice22 · January 2004

I recently purchased a 04 Denali (Shorty with 3 miles on it) with second row captains and sunroof. The MSRP was $51,615 and I used my Supplier Discount at purchase. This yielded me a before tax no-haggle price of $45,400 adn used the 0% for 60 month so that meant no rebates. I did the deal because I actually purchased in early November of last year with plenty of 03s on the lot. Then, 2 weeks ago I am on Edmunds and see that invoice for the same vehicle is at or slightly below what I paid. Is this true or am I reading Edmunds wrong? Or, are there other monies you have to consider when looking at Edmunds invoice pricing. However, I noticed I saved some bucks when comparing to Edmunds TMV pricing.

Help me out and give it to me straight.

Thanks!

erinsquared · January 2004

You did an interesting test. In a true 4-channel traction control system, both driver's side brakes should have engaged slightly to force the torque to the passenger side wheels. I have suspected that the '03-'04 Denali's are 2-channel traction control systems, but in that case, torque should have been sent to at least two wheels on the same axle which would have moved you in the situation you described. When researching the new Denali's before I bought my '01, I could not find any written confirmation on whether the Denali uses a 4-channel traction control system, so I opted to save the cash and buy the older model. Perhaps you have a problem with your traction system and should explain your situation to the dealer on your next oil change/checkup. On the older Denali, the rear differential is a limited slip unit, so your passenger rear wheel was able to pull you out of the ice patch. The front differential is an open differential, which means if you have both rear wheels on ice and on front wheel on ice, you would be stuck.

As for the Silver Stars, I replaced my lights on another car with the same observation. Supposedly, the whiter light spectrum has more lumens and thus should be brighter. Don't know about the discrepancy on the wattage - maybe call Sylvania and ask them about this. I think you should run the maximum wattage up to the factory setting so you don't overload the wiring harness and cause an electrical fire.

stever · January 2004

We're never wrong :-)

If you got the Denali at invoice and less than TMV, it sounds good to me. TMV is what the average consumer in your area is paying, so a savvy buyer can beat it.

We don't have any hidden money in the invoice prices but there are lots of dealer incentives out there that we don't know about. Manufacturer to dealer rebates, sales bonuses and all kinds of programs exist that aren't public knowledge.

Check out GMC Yukon Denali/Yukon XL Denali: Prices Paid & Buying Experience too (more reports are needed in there, all you new buyers).

Steve, Host

dako_tian · January 2004

As erinsquared mentions, the light output is measured in lumens. The power consumption to get that light output is the wattage. If the bulb is more efficient in converting electricity into light (and, by extension, less heat, the wasted portion of the energy used) then you would have the situation you describe of a lower wattage bulb putting out more light.

The Sylvania bulbs for home use that I've bought recently have sometimes presented me with the reverse problem: they are too much brighter than the ones I'm replacing. So, I've been forced to go to a lower wattage to get that nice soft glow from ceiling eyeballs and to keep the twelve bulbs in my dining room chandelier from over cooking the food and the guests. Considering that it's saving me electricity it's a very nice problem to have. Nice going, Sylvania!

tdoh · January 2004

avolvofan--yeah I reckoned that Stabilitrak wasn't (being) engaged in the scenario I described earlier since I didn't see a Stabilitrak-related message on the DIC.

As far as the Silverstars are concerned, I plugged in a 9005 SS on one side of my DXL and compared the color output (looking at it head-on) between that and the stock 9005 bulb, and for the life of me, I could not tell the difference between the two. The same can be said when I did a comparo between both 9005 bulbs on my YXL--no difference in visual output as far as color is concerned. Waste of money IMHO as far as buying the SS 9005 is concerned; OTOH (and FWIW) there is a noticeable difference in color (both looking at the headlights head-on and output to the road) between the stock and SS 9006 bulbs, as tested on my YXL.

dako_tian · January 2004

Good information that might well save some of us money. It's kind of like stereos, I think: if I can't hear the difference, then their isn't any as far as I'm concerned. So, except for vapid bragging purposes, it isn't worth the extra money....

jettech1 · January 2004

I have a question as to the proper procedure to file Lemon Law paperwork against GMC. Here are the particulars;
1.I purchased a 2003 GMC Denali XL-New. The car has 2500 miles and has been in twice for repairs due to the loss of power and engine vibration. Still no fix. I am going for a third shot this week.

Any info would be helpful. I live in Tennessee.

avolvofan · January 2004

Jettech1, you will need to review the requirements that are contained in the Tennessee Lemon Law. Presuming that you purchased the truck in Tennessee, then Tennessee law should control the process. If you purchased the truck elsewhere, then the Lemon Law of the state where you purchased the truck generally applies. Separately, I doubt that Edmunds.com would support the use of their website to give legal advice, and I in NO way am giving any form of legal advice. I am only exchanging information.

tdoh · January 2004

Sorry if this is old news, but boy was I surprised at all the specific changes made to the '04 Denali vs. the '03 model--read on...

Has anyone checked out gmfleet.com? I just happened upon it and it has some fairly detailed info on what specifically was changed from the '03 to the '04 GM SUV/trucks; the list consists mostly of removal/deletions, with the one major addition being the tire pressure monitor. The one major deletion that comes to mind on at least the '04 Denalis is the removal of the tranny oil cooler...go figure. Also, two deletions that got a laugh out of me were the removal of the two license plate screws and the gloves for the tool kit--LOL!

The deletion list is somewhat extensive; amazing at what GM will do to maximize as much profit as possible on their vehicles...

lobsenza · January 2004

I couldn't find the list.

tdoh · January 2004

At www.gmfleet.com, click on "Vehicle Showroom" at the top of the page, then use either of the two (vehicle type or brand) drop-down lists to bring up all applicable models, then click on the pic for your model (or alternately, click on the "View Details" link for your model), then click on the "View Online Order Guide" link. Another window should pop up; at the top of the page in this window, click on "Non-RPO Updates"--a third window will appear; in this window click on "Full Model Year" to see the updates.

HTH...

real4wd1 · January 2004

Just my 02 cents regarding the Yukon and no this is not a flame or what some people call trolling.

I have always thought it was the best looking of the full sizers and you cannot disregard towing and other capabilities. Since I has been looking for a full size SUV I rented a new loaded Yukon, leather, 3rd row seating and all the toys for 5 days and let me say what a total disappoinment that vehicle is. I wont get into everything but after 5 days I was annoyed and happy to give it back never to think about buying my "favourite" SUV.

1. The seatbelts are in the wrong position, everyday when reaching for it I had to strain to find it, its too low, then to make matter worse when buckling it in I had to struggle again as the arm rest gets in the way.

2. The interior feels cheap, I swear they are still using the same grade materials as a 1990 Chev 3/4 ton pickup I used to have.

3. Switches are anti-intuitive, for the first time in many years of renting vehicles for business use I actually had to pull the owners manuals to figure out how simple things like wipers and headlights work, what a nightmare.

4. I was truly embarrased when I had to use the third row seating to pick up visitors. The system is just plain ridiculous. Let me explain (if possible), first you have to pull on a cheap little strap on the second row seats and pull the bottom cushion forward, you then pull the second row back forward, then the passenger has to struggle and step on the BACK of the second row seat to get in, in a year of use the back of the second row seat which is carpeted will be black in dirt. I swear no one of smaller proportions or a smaller lady would be able to accomplish this feat.

BUT the worse part is the seating, the 3rd row passengers are pretty much sitting on the floor with their knees bent upwards. I was really surprised, my associates were laughing in disgust at this vehicle.

5. When you put the column mounted shift lever in drive, the handle blocks the fan knob.

6. The volume knobs on the steering wheel are in the wrong place I kept changing the radio stations instead thinking it was the volume, LOL.

7. To top it off the PASSKEY failed on the 4th day, ater 30 minutes of click click and the passkey malfunction light displaying on the dash it finally started.

Im sorry but I really had my heart set on the Yukon but not anymore, my illusions of SUV grandeur are erased. My associate who rented a GMC Envoy pretty much said those are same.

ezrapon · January 2004

The seating arrange I can agree with. If I was in need of a car to haul extra people I'd never look at a Yukon, but it wouldn't take a week to figure it out. Probably something most people would catch before they took delivery. Solution, step up to a suburban or XL with middle buckets. Much better people hauler and the same good looks. On finding switches and such, you must have had a model T before. The GM layout is almost universal in its setup. The switches on the wheel at the wrong place? Can't help you there. They feel right to me. Just have to figure them out. I sure hope you don't fly planes for a living! You forgot to mention the power, smooth ride, killer radio (Bose), heated seats, and all the other items that drew the rest of us to these cars. Are you sure you didn't rent an old K-5 Blazer?

avolvofan · January 2004

When I first found out about the changes (otherwise known as de-contenting) to the 2004 Denali, that clinched my decision to go for a 2003. I was sweating getting a 2003 with the equipment that I wanted before the end of manufacturing the 2003s. I am amazed that GM would drop the transmission oil cooler (and not even offer it as an additional cost option). They (GM) position the Denali as being capable of towing (8,200 lbs. for non-XL), yet do not provide for a transmission cooler.... I am so glad that I was able to get a 2003 exactly as I wanted it. I hope GM comes to their senses and re-contents the Denali. At least make the dropped items available as additional cost options. Come on! That (de-contenting the Denali) was one of your more dumber decisions.

ezrapon · January 2004

I couldn't argee more. With the awd and 6.0, the Denali is the premire tow vehicle offered today. To delete the denali name stiched in the door, a few color choices, or passenger door key lock is ok with me, but to remove a major component of the towing capability is unforgivable. I too am glad I got the 03 and would look to see the cooler return as at least an option. Did they remove the tranmission temp gauge as well?

GMC Yukon / Yukon Denali

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles