2007 Tahoe Debuts -- It's BIG

Linkie.

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/ima...4145845558.JPG

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/ima...3652120519.JPG

It looks like a sensible evolution of the existing truck, which is smart, since Tahoes continue to sell reasonably well.

A new Gen IV small-block V-8 family – the newest chapter in the small-block’s 50-year history – offers more power than comparable powertrains in previous models. Fuel-saving Displacement On Demand technology also enables better fuel economy. When combined with other vehicle-wide features, including improved aerodynamics, the small-block V-8 helps give the Tahoe the segment’s best fuel economy. Preliminary testing with 5.3L-equipped models shows unadjusted combined fuel economy ratings of 20.5 mpg with 2WD models and 20.1 mpg with 4WD models. That’s better fuel economy than any other full-size SUV.

New engine choices allow consumers to choose the performance level that meets their needs. A Vortec 5.3L V-8 with 320 horsepower (238 kw)* and 335 lb.-ft. of torque (463 Nm)* offers fuel-saving Displacement On Demand technology is standard at start of production. A Vortec 4.8L V-8 becomes available later and will be standard on Tahoe 2WD models.

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/ima...5121255312.JPG

Looks like a winner.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srivendel

Looks like a winner.

---

Looks like a surburban :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srivendel

Looks like a winner.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackzx3_13

Looks like a surburban :tongue:

---

Looks like another car that can run right over my Miata. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackzx3_13

Looks like a surburban :tongue:

---

No kidding? :scratch:

Interesting...

:mrgreen:

S.

PS -- I would never own one of these (well, maybe if I had five kids and lived in Montana...), but I do hope it succeeds. Our Arlington assembly plant needs the jobs! :drink:

S.

In the front 3/4 shot the a pillar and the roofline remind me of my dads surburban.

Ugh, I remember the 80's model disasters... er... the 4-6-8 cylinder engines from GM...

Do these vehicles really need to get bigger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Treibenschnell

Do these vehicles really need to get bigger?

---

Looks like it about the same size, is it bigger?

I do like the dash! The previous interior wasn't very bling, which is one of the reasons I bought the Ford last time around since the Ford had the bling down a bit better! 8-)

Wonder if the 'burban and the Tahoe is going to be the look of the new look of the Chevy/GMC pickup trucks?

Yeah, the interior is a huge improvement over the current ones.

That said, I think GM is barking up the wrong tree with by investing so much in their full-size trucks ot the detriment of their medium and small car capability. No one in their right mind can honestly think that full-size SUVs are a growth market with gas prices hovering near historic highs. Yes, the people that need a tow vehicle/people mover will still buy one, but the vast majority of current Yukon owners don't need one, and I doubt that a large percentage of them will be looking for another full-size 'ute when their current lease is up.

POS springs to mind as a perfect example - planning on replacing Expedition #2 with another full-size SUV, good buddy? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altiain

POS springs to mind as a perfect example - planning on replacing Expedition #2 with another full-size SUV, good buddy? :wink:

---

Well the last tank of gas for the Expedition cost me $75.00 at $2.75 @ Gallon, so what do you think? :wink:

Plus the Estimated Mileage stuff in the article makes me wonder. My Expedition(s) has never even gotten close to the EPA mileage figures, had the dealer look at it several times and was told, "They just don't get as good of mileage as the sticker says!"

It sounds like GM is being quasi-realistic for the prospects of the segment:

"People are still going to buy full-sized sport-utilities at $3 a gallon. But even at $3 a gallon, it's 750,000 people a year. It's not going to go to a million," Lutz was quoted as saying. "Two years ago we would have told you the segment is going to go to a million vehicles. It's not going to do that. It's leveled off."

Let's just hope he's right and all the segment is doing is "leveling off". There will always be some natural demand for these types of vehicles. If you have a big family, it's possible that the convenience of moving lots of people and all their crap is worth the poor gas mileage. Too, lots of minivans aren't doing much better in terms of gas mileage.

That's why Consumer Reports does its own gas mileage test on every car it reviews. In its October issue, the magazine compares its numbers with the EPA's. Champion showed Koeppen with a Honda Odyssey minivan.

"According to the EPA, you should get 20 in the city, 28 on the highway," Champion says as he starts to conduct a test.

A device attached to the engine calculates the gas mileage. With the air conditioning turned off, Champion and Koeppen hit the track. Champion says the course simulates typical city driving.

"This is not a particularly stringent test," Champion says. "There's a lot of acceleration, quite a lot of braking, quite a lot of idling."

Next, Champion tested for highway mileage.

"Basic highway driving, 65 miles per hour," Champion says.

In the results of his test, the highway numbers matched the EPA's exactly. The city numbers were a different story. The EPA said it should get 20 miles per gallon. It only got 12.3.

Champion says 12.3 is a "huge" disappointment. "You're gonna be putting almost twice as much gasoline in the car as you thought you would."

:shock:

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srivendel

That's why Consumer Reports does its own gas mileage test on every car it reviews. In its October issue, the magazine compares its numbers with the EPA's. Champion showed Koeppen with a Honda Odyssey minivan.

"According to the EPA, you should get 20 in the city, 28 on the highway," Champion says as he starts to conduct a test.

A device attached to the engine calculates the gas mileage. With the air conditioning turned off, Champion and Koeppen hit the track. Champion says the course simulates typical city driving.

"This is not a particularly stringent test," Champion says. "There's a lot of acceleration, quite a lot of braking, quite a lot of idling."

Next, Champion tested for highway mileage.

"Basic highway driving, 65 miles per hour," Champion says.

In the results of his test, the highway numbers matched the EPA's exactly. The city numbers were a different story. The EPA said it should get 20 miles per gallon. It only got 12.3.

Champion says 12.3 is a "huge" disappointment. "You're gonna be putting almost twice as much gasoline in the car as you thought you would."

:shock:

S.

---

Isn't the EPA standard for mileage slated to be revised?

The Arlington plant has has about 8 weeks of shutdown this year alone, where they are not building vehicles. Seems as if they may already have more capacity than demand.... :sad:

I've never hit the EPA's highway mileage figures on any vehicle I've owned, although my real-world fuel consumption typically falls in between the EPA's estimated city & highway mileage estimates (I average 23mpg in both the CRV & the Miata, which falls at or just above the EPA "city" estimate for both). When I estimate my real world fuel usage for a vehicle I'm considering buying, I take the EPA's "city" estimate and work from that.

Still, I love to hear people on the :batman: board claim to get 40mpg while cruising at 80mph with the top down. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit about the EPA testing procedures and aerodynamics knows that claims like that carry about as much basis in fact as the stuff you see on the cover of the Weekly World News. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altiain

Still, I love to hear people on the :batman: board claim to get 40mpg while cruising at 80mph with the top down.

---

Indeed. I average 23 in the MSM no matter what I do. City, highway, it makes no difference. I know the low gearing has a lot to do with it on the highway. Don't really care, though.

We used to get very different readings with our Corolla. City would average around 26-27, but we'd see 40 on the highway. I always argued that that was a sign that the engine is truly efficient. If you car gets 23 mpg on the highway and 23 mpg in the city, it means it's inefficient at highway speeds (steady, fairly low RPM conditions), and not that it's efficient in the city.

I'm still shocked by the abysmal mileage of these modern "mini" vans. Hell, if the Odyssey gets 12.3 mpg, I might just buy a Tahoe, instead.

S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by srivendel

Indeed. I average 23 in the MSM no matter what I do. City, highway, it makes no difference. I know the low gearing has a lot to do with it on the highway. Don't really care, though.

---

This is funny. I know what you mean. Both our Miatas ('96 and '93) get 26 pretty much whatever you do. You get 27 every now and then, but only if you're super careful, which we're not really.

And to put it in full perspective, I filled up the '93, took it to the 1/8 drag strip w/Bean, Tailchaser, and company, did about 15 runs in it, drove a half tank out of it around town, filled up and got 25.

God I love Miatas.

Chuck

Most vehicles I have owned get about 1/2 between city and highway. My truck is rated 15 city and 20 hwy and I am usually around 17. NEVER have I seen 20. Same story with my Miata. Rated 21 city 28 hwy (I think) and I averaged around 24/25. I read that looooong thread on the :batman: board. Those guys are nuts.

I might be nuts because I get 29.9 avg city and highway with the top down for an entire tank. I have gotten as good as 38-40 but that was "drafting" behind a trusted driver on the highway at about 90 MPH. The trusted driver was driving a Jetta with a whaletale that made for great mileage to anyone who followed.

But 29-30 is where I average on a regular basis. This last weekend with autocrossing i went down to a measily 25.8 but I was the slowest miata that showed. ;)