Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2007 Chevy Tahoe unveiled!
- Thread starter quagmire
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They are indeed, but people should have the freedom to buy what they please, but I think that some sort of incentive to not should be in place...masterapple04 said:How anyone, ANYONE, can laud an SUV in today's oil market and environmental state is beyond me. I curse at anyone who drive's an SUV of any kind - they are pointless, wasteful, and extravagant. Screw them, and the people that drive them, because they are killing all of us.
Ford is the worst of the 3 big companies, in my opinion...EJBasile said:
What the hell? This isn't new. This is the best GM could come up with to attempt to save itself from haemorrhaging money left and right?
Weak.
Weak.
EJBasile said:No...This is an interior
I'm not even a BMW fan and I will have to disagree with your choice. There are a # of flaws with this interior
1) All the steering wheel buttons look like complete (insert explitive)
2) The knobs and gauges under the center A/C vents go under complaint #1, what is this a luxury SUV or an airplane?
3) The indentation on the passenger airbag throws off what could have been a decent look
4) the side air vents do not flow at all with the center section and don't claim they're framing the center section. There are so many unnecessary lines and hard angles I don't know how you could call this an example of a nice interior. I will give you the quality of materials and craftsmanship of the leather in the seats, but it does not really make a point of being one of the nicest interiors ever. However, I don't expect someone to understand this that also thinks that $80,000 for a truck is acceptable. If you're going to get a truck from Range Rover get an old Defender 90 and go crawl some rocks.
The new GMT-900's are not supposed to be the all saving vehicle for GM. I hope the $3+ a gallon on gas will keep the soccer moms away. The Tahoe/Suburban/Silverado and there twins have a purpose. As work vehicles. Now they aren't these days as you see about 70% of them for just everyday commuting. That is American thinking, " bigger is better." For the 2008 model year, these new vehicles will come in a hybrid flavor. I am already hearing the fuel economy for these things is 20.5 for 2WD and 20.1 with 4x4 with the 5300 V8 with DOD COMBINED w/o hybrid system. GM can't let their trucks/SUV's go stale because of gas prices. GM and any other manufacture will never see SUV record sales anymore or at least not until Hydrogen is introduced and gets below $3. They need to maintain competitive so the work force will still come to them and not Ford, Dodge, Toyota, or Nissan.
I think you'll find THIS is an interior..
..no..I think I'll change my mind and opt for the 5 Series one instead!
..no..I think I'll change my mind and opt for the 5 Series one instead!
yoda13 said:Is that a Renault or a Yugo?
It's a Renault Espace (1984 - 1987 model).
Checkered brown eh..blurgh..!
Okay, i'm gonna take a shot at that one... is that the interior of a tercel? my buddy has like an '84 tercel or something that we use to get our bikes to the hill.
Completely ignoring the greater significance of this car and just looking at it from a design point of view: Total let down on the outside, i was kind of excited to see the new look, but just got a mild refresh that in my mind isn't as nice as the last one, which wasn't as nice as the one before (before they started rounding our those boxy headlights and grill and stuff). The interior is a definite improvement, but i agree with what someone said about straight edges being pretty nice sometimes.
I'd like to point out that Ford and GM should not be lumped together on the SUV issue. I'm studying mechanical and environmental engineering, so i've got the hippy roots and beliefs, i bike to school every day and curse just about anything with a tail pipe. At the same time, i've got a childhood crush on Ford, I think the mustang is the hottest car, and yes... some day, i WILL build a mustang that i could consider letting myself drive (ie one with a torquey electric motor charged up on quebec hydroelectricity). In the mean time, I gotta say that I follow automotive news a lot, its pretty much all i do on the net aside from checking this site and homestarrunner (hmm, that reminds me...), and lately, GM and Ford are on totally different wave lengths.
Ford has openly admitted that SUV sales are going down and staying down, and they're adjusting their production accordingly. At the same time GM says sales are gonna climb back up and that redoing all of their full size SUVs and pickups will get them back on top of things. To me, ford has seen the light and is just beginning its long turn around, with fresh new product (fusion, various hybrids), an All-Star design team, and, unfortunately, less plants operating at less than full capacity, meaning they've adjusted their capacity to the lower demand the market has shown for their cars. GM, on the other hand, seems to still feel strongly about their bland trucks.
I give GM credit for the solstice/sky, the new vette (Z06!!! holy crap its fast and cheap), for and teaming up with BMW and DC on hybrid technology.
Completely ignoring the greater significance of this car and just looking at it from a design point of view: Total let down on the outside, i was kind of excited to see the new look, but just got a mild refresh that in my mind isn't as nice as the last one, which wasn't as nice as the one before (before they started rounding our those boxy headlights and grill and stuff). The interior is a definite improvement, but i agree with what someone said about straight edges being pretty nice sometimes.
I'd like to point out that Ford and GM should not be lumped together on the SUV issue. I'm studying mechanical and environmental engineering, so i've got the hippy roots and beliefs, i bike to school every day and curse just about anything with a tail pipe. At the same time, i've got a childhood crush on Ford, I think the mustang is the hottest car, and yes... some day, i WILL build a mustang that i could consider letting myself drive (ie one with a torquey electric motor charged up on quebec hydroelectricity). In the mean time, I gotta say that I follow automotive news a lot, its pretty much all i do on the net aside from checking this site and homestarrunner (hmm, that reminds me...), and lately, GM and Ford are on totally different wave lengths.
Ford has openly admitted that SUV sales are going down and staying down, and they're adjusting their production accordingly. At the same time GM says sales are gonna climb back up and that redoing all of their full size SUVs and pickups will get them back on top of things. To me, ford has seen the light and is just beginning its long turn around, with fresh new product (fusion, various hybrids), an All-Star design team, and, unfortunately, less plants operating at less than full capacity, meaning they've adjusted their capacity to the lower demand the market has shown for their cars. GM, on the other hand, seems to still feel strongly about their bland trucks.
I give GM credit for the solstice/sky, the new vette (Z06!!! holy crap its fast and cheap), for and teaming up with BMW and DC on hybrid technology.
Someone should start a "guess the obscure car" thread - a photo of a light cluster or bit of bodywork etc and see if people manage to guess it.
I'm gonna go to bed anyway but if someone sets one up let me know!
I'm gonna go to bed anyway but if someone sets one up let me know!
HydroMan said:Get a Range Rover
Or accept that you have a small penis/rocky marriage/Dell/lack of self-worth/whatever, and get over the SUV fad.
Verto said:
I drive a Honda Accord and have none of the above, I think you have a problem with wishful thinking, which doesn't hurt anyone except your sensitive environmental issues.
[edit: my iMacs BIGGER than yours]
GM, are you starting to get the message yet?
Quit running and start competing with the company that is seriously starting to kick your ass.
Make the best product and I promise I will buy it. It's not like you don't have any advantages or anything. Time for change, you old Dinosaur.
Quit running and start competing with the company that is seriously starting to kick your ass.
Make the best product and I promise I will buy it. It's not like you don't have any advantages or anything. Time for change, you old Dinosaur.
The bit that really bugs me is that they're currently advertising their better than average fuel economy...Gm is all about going the extra mile, literally
They forget to mention that above average for a SUV is still crap. 16/20 is believe is the figure for the base engine. Disgusting.
Not only that, GM needs 6 liters to get what, 300-350 HP?
Audi's getting 414 out of 4.2 liters, naturally aspirated on the RS4. It may not get excellten fuel economy either, but if you're going to use that much gas, you might as well make it worth it. Oh yeah, the RS4's V-8 also spins to something like 8750 RPM.
GM doesn't lead in price, design, longevity, warranty, power, anything. The rare, but notable exception being perhaps cadillac, and definitely the Solstice.
It's no wonder to me that GM's slowly tanking. If they got up some engineering effort, they might get a powerful, fuel efficient engine, as many japanese makers have done. anything over 5 liters is huge, IMO, no mater how many hundreds of horsepower it makes (unless it's like the Porsche Carerra GT, which has about 5.3 liters, but is 10 cylinders and about 600 HP). GM is a displacement hog, and only has poor mileage and middle of the road power to show for it. My Audi Allroad gets 22mpg in a mix of city and highway, weights almost 4500 lbs, and has a 2.7 liter engine. Oh yeah, its fast and fun too.
Why doesnt GM wake up and start doing things right?
BTW, I also think poorly of Ford and Chrystler, for the most part
Edit:despite my protests, my parents have a denali, which gets 15 mpg if you try pretty hard.
They forget to mention that above average for a SUV is still crap. 16/20 is believe is the figure for the base engine. Disgusting.
Not only that, GM needs 6 liters to get what, 300-350 HP?
Audi's getting 414 out of 4.2 liters, naturally aspirated on the RS4. It may not get excellten fuel economy either, but if you're going to use that much gas, you might as well make it worth it. Oh yeah, the RS4's V-8 also spins to something like 8750 RPM.
GM doesn't lead in price, design, longevity, warranty, power, anything. The rare, but notable exception being perhaps cadillac, and definitely the Solstice.
It's no wonder to me that GM's slowly tanking. If they got up some engineering effort, they might get a powerful, fuel efficient engine, as many japanese makers have done. anything over 5 liters is huge, IMO, no mater how many hundreds of horsepower it makes (unless it's like the Porsche Carerra GT, which has about 5.3 liters, but is 10 cylinders and about 600 HP). GM is a displacement hog, and only has poor mileage and middle of the road power to show for it. My Audi Allroad gets 22mpg in a mix of city and highway, weights almost 4500 lbs, and has a 2.7 liter engine. Oh yeah, its fast and fun too.
Why doesnt GM wake up and start doing things right?
BTW, I also think poorly of Ford and Chrystler, for the most part
Edit:despite my protests, my parents have a denali, which gets 15 mpg if you try pretty hard.
OK, I was going to continue on my previous post, but here goes:
The denali I mentioned, it has an 'instantaneous' fuel economy reading, and because the idle is so ****ing eager, it doesn't get more than 40 or 50 MPG going down a hill, accelerating bc of gravity. It should be several hundered (4+ times better) MPG in that situation, but in the quest for power, and a cheapo 4 speed auto, it is nearly impossible to get decent mileage even when going on a primarily downhill course.
I think that all cars should have a 'coast-clutch' which effectively shifts into Neutral, or the equivalent of 7th or 8th gear when coasting to a stop or going downhill when not down-shifted (assuming its not too steep). It would reduce the need for acceleration, and like displacement on demand, would significantly improve fuel economy by eliminating completely useless consumtion.
just my rantings
The denali I mentioned, it has an 'instantaneous' fuel economy reading, and because the idle is so ****ing eager, it doesn't get more than 40 or 50 MPG going down a hill, accelerating bc of gravity. It should be several hundered (4+ times better) MPG in that situation, but in the quest for power, and a cheapo 4 speed auto, it is nearly impossible to get decent mileage even when going on a primarily downhill course.
I think that all cars should have a 'coast-clutch' which effectively shifts into Neutral, or the equivalent of 7th or 8th gear when coasting to a stop or going downhill when not down-shifted (assuming its not too steep). It would reduce the need for acceleration, and like displacement on demand, would significantly improve fuel economy by eliminating completely useless consumtion.
just my rantings
ibilly said:
LOL. You are comparing a Vortec truck engine to a performance engine. Try apples to apples. 6.0 small block LS2 V8 400 HP. Then there is the 7.0 LS7 505 HP V8. Why are you pushing your performance crap? SUV's aren't for performance. There for hauling things. It amazes me the ignorance of Mac sites. I thought Mac people were supposed to be fair people since they get abuse from the Windows fanboys. Notice how different markets make your bias change. You think a person forking over $50,000 cares about $3 a gallon? Yes, there are too many people buying SUV's/trucks just for the image. It is ridiculous that people do that. Maybe if you are more opened minded, my 2002 Chevy Suburban gets up to 18 MPG highway. The new '07 Tahoe will get around 20.1 MPG COMBINED. Before you ask me why I have a Suburban, I need it to haul horse trailers full of horses. I need the towing capacity of the SUV.
Seems like everyone likes to bash GM here. I think the truck in the OP is decent looking. It will grow on me. GM's trucks have been more conservative design for years now but they are consistently the best looking trucks and SUVs out there IMO.
And GM has it right with their new Caddys! Those things are freaking awesome. The Escalade is still the best looking SUV on the road.
And GM has it right with their new Caddys! Those things are freaking awesome. The Escalade is still the best looking SUV on the road.
Heb1228 said:
Agree. If you look back at the last 3 generation of the Tahoe/Suburban, etc including the new ones have design cues they share. I see the GMT-400's and 800's in the new 900's. I see 400 in the 800's. I see 800's in the 900's. Evolutionary is GM's key of success of these vehicles. Even though the Escalade is 8 years old, it doesn't look 8 year old. The Tahoe/Suburban do look 8 years old though. Fords answer to the Suburban was the Excursion, but you guys bash GM for these gas guzzling vehicles. The Excursion is HUGE. Bigger then the Suburban. Luckily Ford is killing it and making another replacement. GM does make the most fuel efficient full sizers and V8's( trucks).
quagmire said:
As valid as your justification is, there is at least one engine that has about the same torque as a smaller one, but with slightly highter displacement and HP. Clearly, GM is concerned with the performance fo their engines. My point with the RS4 is that with a fairly small displacement and natural aspiration, great things are possible, much less with 6-7 liters. Thanks for the flame. The gross generalizations are also great. I remind you that most people don't 'fork over' 50K in cash, but have leases, so the costs for operation and maintenacne are nearly as significant as the MSRP.
Also, why are domestics allergic to turbochargers? The A3/4's 2.0T has almost 0 turbo lag (again, with the audissorry, and this info is from several publications), and the only boost that domestics seem to get is the occcasional supercharger, i.e. cobalt SS and hi performance mustangs.
Turbos work well, and as I reall, are very good for torque increases. Exception: Optional turbo-deisels on some pickups
Anybody know why there are almost no turbos stock or optional in most domestics?
Turbos work well, and as I reall, are very good for torque increases. Exception: Optional turbo-deisels on some pickups
Anybody know why there are almost no turbos stock or optional in most domestics?
ibilly said:
When I was a little kid, my father had a Saab with this exact feature. Whenever he let off the gas, the clutch would disengage and he got fantastic mileage -- something on the order or 30+ on the highway, which in the early 1970s was unheard of. However, the US government safety (NHTSA perhaps?) decided that "freewheeling" was dangerous as (I believe) it removed the driver's sense of "connection" to the road.
Cool idea though.