Chevy Tahoe

Replies to this message:
• tsmith2233 (Feb 18, 2009 11:20 am)

Replies to this message:
• tsf7 (Feb 13, 2009 8:44 am)
  • ahightower (Feb 17, 2009 4:51 pm)
    • tsf7 (Feb 17, 2009 10:14 pm) and 2 more...

Replying to: Mel0132 (Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm)

What years are you looking at? For comparison to an older model, my '04 Suburban gets 14/18 pretty frequently, and it has 4:10 gears. I've gotten close to 20 on long state highway drives (55 - 65 mph); I took a fast trip across Nevada a couple weeks ago w/ cruise set on 85 mph, and got about 15 mpg, so it depends how you drive it. With the standard 3.42 gears, I think I'd get 1-2 mpg better on the freeway, since my truck is turning about 2000 rpms at 60 and 2500 rpms at 75 mph due to the lower gears, but I need the lower gears for towing. I know you asked about Tahoes, but I'd expect their performance to be very similar if not identical to a Suburban of the same years and equipment.
 
That begs the question, why do you want a Tahoe? For me and my family's "needs" (wants), after moving up to the Sub and getting used to all the space, I wouldn't be happy with a Tahoe (or Sequoia, Armada, standard length Expedition, ect). The Sub is more useful and costs about the same as a Tahoe to drive and buy. For towing, hauling lots of cargo, or using the rear seat, the Sub is hands-down better, due to the longer wheel base and functional rear seat (which is nearly as comfortable as the middle row, unlike the Tahoe, which basically has a seat sitting on a flat floor), and there is almost as much storage room behind the 3rd seat of the Sub as there is beind the second seat of the Tahoe (w/ 3rd seat removed). The lack of a fold-flat rear seat is no issue in the Sub, b/c when you tumble it forward, there is enough room for just about anything -- I've only had to pull the rear seat out once or twice, unlike my brother, who is always installing and removing the rear seat in his Tahoe due to space limitations. We had a Dodge Durango before the Sub (we were actually shopping for Tahoes, and found a great deal on an '04 Durango, and I regretted buying it for the 2 years we had it), which is similar is length to a Tahoe, and have found the Sub to meet our needs far better. Of course, we tow a 28 ft. travel trailer in the summer and we put 6-8 people in the Sub quite frequently, so we use and need the Sub's maximum capabilities. But if you aren't doing these things frequently, and are worried about gas mileage, you probably don't need, and may not be happy with a full-size SUV -- there are cheaper, more efficient vehicles out there, to be sure. Which brings me back to the thought that if you want a Tahoe to actually do full-size SUV things with, the Sub is better at virtually all of them than the Tahoe. The only thing better/more useful would be a diesel Suburban (crossing fingers that GM comes through w/ the baby Duramax!). Not trying to start a flame war or anything -- Just some thoughts based on my experience.
 
The Sub has a bigger tank (31 gals), but it costs about $45 to fill up here w/ $1.65 gas (last summer -- $125+ ), and unless we are taking a trip or something, that lasts us about 3 weeks on average. If you can't already tell, I think they are great trucks!

Replies to this message:
• ahightower (Feb 17, 2009 4:51 pm)
  • tsf7 (Feb 17, 2009 10:14 pm)
    • ahightower (Feb 18, 2009 10:59 am) and 1 more...

Replying to: tsf7 (Feb 13, 2009 8:44 am)

Replies to this message:
• tsf7 (Feb 17, 2009 10:14 pm)
  • ahightower (Feb 18, 2009 10:59 am)
    • tsf7 (Feb 18, 2009 12:26 pm)

Replying to: ahightower (Feb 17, 2009 4:51 pm)

Yeah, the wind resistance is pretty noticable when towing a travel trailer (I recently towed a mid-size SUV on a flat bed with the Sub -- probably a 5500 lb. load, and it towed much easier than the travel trailer, to be sure), but you can get the trailer weight up pretty easily as well. You'll definitely need a weight-distributing hitch and a trailer brake controller on a trailer that large. On our 28 ft. bunkhouse, the mfr. weight is 5100; it weighs 5300 - 5600 on the wheels loaded to camp, and we usually have 6800-7000 lbs on the truck axles (with us, gear, bikes on top, and a full tank of gas). Our heaviest load so far was a 10 day trip w/ 4 adults, 2 kids, and transporting some extra household equipment/furniture in the trailer for a relative. We had 7900 on the truck axles and a gcvr of 14500 according to the scale, putting us just 500 under the 14000 lb max. gcvr for our Suburban w/ 4.10 gears (the gcvr for a 3.42 geared truck is 13000 lbs, at least for an '04). So we were pretty heavy.
 
The good news is the Sub handles the weight pretty well as far as the chassis goes -- it never feels overmatched, pushed around, ect, even when loaded at or above its listed capacities, and that includes going from Utah to Oregon, to Colorado, and to Montana so far, over some pretty steep, long mountain grades. Living in Utah, we have to climb hills every way we go, usually combined with wind, so we tow in pretty challenging terrain on virtually every trip. Combining the weight with the wind resistance, the Sub is adequate, but could certainly use more towing power imo -- 4th gear is pretty much useless unless on flat ground w/ little or no headwind (which we rarely have), and we spend lots of time in 2nd gear 4000 rpms going up hills. And get 8-10 mpg as a result. With 3.42 gears, I'd imagine you'd probably just have to drive it in third gear to save your tranny, although the tow-haul mode does a pretty good job of limiting excessive gear hunting under most circumstances.
 
I shopped 3/4 tons a little, but decided that the estimated 5-6 trips with the trailer weren't worth the extra sticker cost (2500s are harder to come by) and wouldn't be worth the extra gas bill each month, as we use the Sub for a daily driver as well as a vacation-mobile. And I don't think the extra 30 ft.lbs of torque from the 6.0L (360 ft/lbs in the 6.0L vs. 330 in the 5.3L) would make much of a difference at all. Although the 8.1 L puts out 447 ft/lbs, which would probably make some difference, those numbers aren't anywhere close to what a diesel will do, and gas mileage is dismal at best. Anyway, after several months of shopping, I never came across a used 8.1L in my price range, so I never got a chance to test one out, but I don't think I would have bought one had I found one. We also shopped diesel Excursions, but decided that the substantially higher cost (they jumped in price quite a bit after Ford quit making them), the more unwieldy vehicle for daily use -- we test drove a few, and my wife, who was going to be the daily driver, didn't like them at all -- and the questionable reliability history of the 6.0L diesel engine made the 1500 Sub w/ 4.10 gears our vehicle of choice for now. But in light of the fact that we use the trailer a lot more that I thought, and I underestimated how taxing it would be to pull it in our hills and wind, I'm definitely coveting a Duramax Crew-cab or Dodge Cummins Mega-cab when I'm pulling the trailer (we only have 2 kids, so if we make the extra relatives drive their own cars, we'll have plenty of space). I towed the travel trailer with my bro-in-law's '06 2500 Duramax once to try it out, and with twice the torque of my Sub (660 ft/lbs!), the difference was incredible. As a result, unless GM does come out with the 4.5L Duramax Suburban soon and it is up to the task as far as towing goes, there is definitely a 3/4 ton diesel pickup in my near future, as much as I love the Suburban for everything else. Sorry to turn this into a Suburban travel-trailer towing essay. Happy to answer any other questions about my experiences, though.

Replies to this message:
• ahightower (Feb 18, 2009 10:59 am)
  • tsf7 (Feb 18, 2009 12:26 pm)

Replying to: tsf7 (Feb 17, 2009 10:14 pm)

Replies to this message:
• tsf7 (Feb 18, 2009 12:26 pm)

Replying to: 73shark (Jan 28, 2009 4:56 pm)