2007 Chevy Tahoe unveiled!

[SharksFan22]

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.

Wow. Such hostility. I guess that since I drive a car that is designed to be driven much faster than virtually ever other car on the road, I can say screw all the hybrid drivers on the road because they get in my way and drive too slow, right? Seriously though, I don't understand why people get so cranked up at gas guzzling vehicles. In my opinion (and it's only an opinion), if someone wants a car that gets 14mpg of $3+/gallon of gas then they're paying (dearly) through their wallet. On the other hand, if someone wants to pay a $4-6K premium for a hybrid that gets much, much better mileage, good for them too. They pay for it through the price of the car instead of through the price of gas. Remember when Honda and Toyota brought out fuel-efficient cars in the late-70s and early-80s in the US? They absolutely KILLED Detroit and forced GM/Ford/Chrysler to start building economical cars. If people don't like paying $3/gallon, I'll bet that in two years the SUV market will be a fraction of what it is today and sedans will become the new "hot" thing.

As far as environment is concerned, I live in California and strongly believe that air quality here is much better than is was in the 80s. Admittedly, I have no scientific basis for that statement, but it seems cleaner than it used to -- and this is with many more cars on the road than 20 years ago.

Oh yeah, on the topic of the original thread ( ) I gotta say that while the interior looks like a much-needed positive upgrade, the exterior doesn't do much for me. Perhaps when I see it in person, but the pictures aren't that apepaling.

 

[cr2sh]

Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

These cars however were designed 3 years ago when gas prices were still relatively cheap. No one (I'm not sure why) had a problem with 12 miles a gallon when the gallons cost $1.10, so they introduced a full line of gas guzzlers. At the same time, toyota and honda are introducing these hybrid cars and the american companies are going the exact opposite direction... they just had no foresite.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybridTruckFlyer.pdf

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.

 

[Abstract]

From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

.......<snip>

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.

Only GM could make a hybrid car that does practically nothing in improving fuel economy.

 

[mkubal]

I can't remember the last time I saw an American car with a nice looking interior. And I sure haven't seen one that didn't seem cheap and plasticy.

I wish I could say that this new SUV was any different, but it's not. And if I saw that new body style out on the road I really wouldn't even realize it was a new model.

I'll buy an American car when I can find a combination of classy looking outside, classy feeling inside, good gas mileage (over 20 mpg at its lowest), and reliability. Until then, they can keep making gargantuan tanks I'm not interested in because I don't go off road or haul lumber.

 

[jsw]

i like the charger, but why the heck is it a four door???

So fathers-on-a-budget like myself can dream of something sportier than a freaking minivan. We need some way we can theoretically get the kids into the back seat.

 

[aloofman]

Just another nail in America's gas-guzzling coffin. What are these companies thinking??? When the backlash against these wasteful vehicles really begins, Americans will turn to fuel efficient (and mostly foreign) hybrids and small cars. The Japanese are already 10 years ahead in that department.

GM needs to get on the ball and create a Prius killer, or die a slow death.

You realize that Toyota doesn't sell many Priuses yet and makes no money on them? (Many believe they lose money on each one.) It's not a "Prius killer" that GM needs. It just needs to start building decent cars. Considering the relatively small number of hybrids being sold right now, there's not a bonanza waiting there for GM right now.

Speaking of the Prius, it's pretty overrated. I admire the technology and I hope it succeeds, but the extra initial expense will take years to pay for itself, battery replacement could be problematic, and it's not as clean-running as some gasoline-only cars. That doesn't make it a bad car, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of automotive technology. What it really is is the exact opposite of the Hummer: a political statement in favor of environmentalism.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

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's my big problem with full-size SUVs like the Tahoe. They shouldn't try to dress them up like luxury cars. The Tahoe is a great vehicle for towing trailers but it's just a waste when I see one business-suited person driving the thing 20 miles to work everyday. It ain't a commuter vehicle, people! It is a work truck!

GM and any other manufacture will never see SUV record sales anymore or at least not until Hydrogen is introduced and gets below $3.

I hope nobody's holding their breath on that one.

GM should work on putting more fuel efficient diesel engines in their SUVs - the technology is available NOW, off the shelf, and diesels would be even more appropriate for towing than the gas engines. Hybrid technology is probably not mature enough to be fitted to a heavy duty truck like the Tahoe. But low-sulphur diesel will be widespread in the US in '06.

GM recently ran an add for it's large SUVs stating how their latest crop featured engine technology (displacement on demand) that made them the "most fuel efficient SUVs on the road". However, if you look at that fine print at the bottom of the screen you will see that the EPA mileage is listed as 16mpg city. When and in what universe was that ever considered "efficient"? Better than a tank, maybe, but 40 years behind cars in economy.

Fuel prices will ultimately kill the SUV as a mainstream fashionable ride. Which is fine by me. Let farmers, contractors and offroad enthusuiasts have their trucks, but keep away the soccer moms, trendy affluent commuters and whatnot.

just a bunch of curves. Typical american design.
"Hey guys, lets make everything rounded."
The line must be embraced!

Now that's an interior.

Except for that horrible iDrive...

Bah. I have been a lifelong GM and Mopar man but they both have let me down. GTO? Please. Charger? Not quite. They should both learn something from what Ford did with the Mustang.

That's why I just crossed over and bought a 2006 Mustang GT on Saturday.

The GTO is a nice car - but it should be sold as a Holden Monaro, nobody would ever confuse it with anything that looked like a GTO.

The Charger I like, it combines a Mercedes E-class platform with a Hemi and pretty successful styling. Fuel economy isn't great, though I'm not sure how much an impact Chrysler's "displacement on demand" technology will help. But it is very close to being a true musclecar. The 300C isn't bad either, but it is more $$.

IMHO, the 'Stang should not have a live rear axle - the only reson it's there is demand by nostalgic hot-rodders. Please give it a fully independent rear (We know you can Ford, you did it with the last-gen Cobra). My only other issue with the Mustang is that 9 out of every ten are the wimpy V6 poser model. But in GT form it's a sweet ride for the money.

 

[Heb1228]

From inside the states I completelly agree with you.

These cars however were designed 3 years ago when gas prices were still relatively cheap. No one (I'm not sure why) had a problem with 12 miles a gallon when the gallons cost $1.10, so they introduced a full line of gas guzzlers. At the same time, toyota and honda are introducing these hybrid cars and the american companies are going the exact opposite direction... they just had no foresite.

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovations/altfuel/vehicles/pickup/hybridTruckFlyer.pdf

The hybrid work that GM is doing only provides minor (10%) improved efficiency over gas trucks. I still prefer the diesel option.

For many of us, gas mileage is still only a minor consideration. My car gets 17mpg and I wouldn't trade it.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

[I thought my first post didn't make it up but it did...]

 

[im_to_hyper]

I definately agree with you there. SUVs are ingrained in our culture just like the dollar bill.

As to your Ford point: FORDS ROCK as of right now! They are so much better looking exterior-wise and... have you seen the interior of the new 2006 Fusion? Much like the F150. Love it!

Now in terms of gas mileage... I have a Ford Explorer that gets 21 MPG highway and around 16-17 city. I am looking to trade it in for a Jetta TDI or Golf TDI which both get 45+ MPG Highway running on diesel.

You know you can say that but unless gas gets over $5 SUVs won't be going anywhere. Some SUVs get the same fuel economy as minivans. What about pickup trucks. Think of how many people buy them and don't use the pickup function of them.

I think it is ugly on the outside. The hood portion looks too tall in proportion to the rest of the car and will probably cause poor visability. The WORST part IMO is that stupid hood. It makes it look like a stupid chevy uplander, The older models looked better. The interrior however is greatly improved. My father used to have the Yukon Denali and its interrior was just crap. Its the same as the Base model only with leather, GPS, and the dash had fake wood.

The stupid American car companies are getting so ugly. Chevy is going down hill along with dodge/crysler/jeep. Ford isn't nearly as ugly.

I think it is a decent upgrade but they could have done better. The Tahoe/suburban interiior was in real need of an updating I will call this car "The SUV version of the chevy uplander".

 

[aloofman]

For many of us, gas mileage is still only a minor consideration. My car gets 17mpg and I wouldn't trade it.

This is the common American sentiment. The Big Three have said over and over again that when they build fuel-efficient cars, people don't buy them. Of course, this is partly because they have a terrible record when it comes to building small cars. When the Focus is the best of them, you know they're struggling with it.

The only time that Americans really moved toward cars with better mileage was in the 1970s, when two trends converged: (1) gasoline drastically increased in price, a much bigger sticker shock -- in relative terms -- than what we've experienced in the last few years; and (2) big engines were stripped of their power by the new emissions technology of the time. When gas costs more and the gas guzzlers don't have much power anyway, small cars look like a much better deal.

Today's cars are much bigger and heavier (even the non-SUVs) than they used to be, so that the advances in engine technology have mostly gone into wringing more (and cleaner) power out of the engine and not on mileage. (My old '89 Honda Accord was not considered a small car at the time, but it was smaller than the current Civic.) Those gains have been impressive, but I think it's obvious that they need to turn to better mileage now.

There are two measures that could get us there: increase CAFE standards and increase gasoline taxes. Neither of these will happen as long as politicians pander to what people want to hear.

 

[cr2sh]

There are two measures that could get us there: increase CAFE standards and increase gasoline taxes. Neither of these will happen as long as politicians pander to what people want to hear.

I saw a guy on the tv over the weekend saying the exact same thing. A politician saying "we need to raise taxes on gas to get folks away from it." The benefits being that we'd raise federal funding (they can't spend it fast enough) and create an urge by the people to be less fossil fuel dependant.

I think it's the best idea I've heard in a while... wish I had a link.

 

[SharksFan22]

I saw a guy on the tv over the weekend saying the exact same thing. A politician saying "we need to raise taxes on gas to get folks away from it." The benefits being that we'd raise federal funding (they can't spend it fast enough) and create an urge by the people to be less fossil fuel dependant.

I think it's the best idea I've heard in a while... wish I had a link.

Gotta respectfully disagree on the tax for federal funding. IF a new tax is introduced on gasoline, it should go directly back into roads and infrastucture, not into the General Fund. Government spends WAY too much money as it is and a tax like this just feeds the appetite of that monster.

I will agree though that if the goal is to consume less gas on a per vehicle basis via better mileage, then the CAFE standards should be raised. Then, if automakers fail to comply they will have to pay fines to the government which will in turn raise the vehicle prices to customers. If the market (car buyers) doesn't like the high price/low mileage penalty, then the automaker will either stop offering those models or improve their efficiency and thereby acheive the goal of less consumption per person, per mile.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

This is the common American sentiment. The Big Three have said over and over again that when they build fuel-efficient cars, people don't buy them. Of course, this is partly because they have a terrible record when it comes to building small cars. When the Focus is the best of them, you know they're struggling with it.

Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

 

[quagmire]

GM should work on putting more fuel efficient diesel engines in their SUVs - the technology is available NOW, off the shelf, and diesels would be even more appropriate for towing than the gas engines. Hybrid technology is probably not mature enough to be fitted to a heavy duty truck like the Tahoe. But low-sulphur diesel will be widespread in the US in '06.

GM recently ran an add for it's large SUVs stating how their latest crop featured engine technology (displacement on demand) that made them the "most fuel efficient SUVs on the road". However, if you look at that fine print at the bottom of the screen you will see that the EPA mileage is listed as 16mpg city. When and in what universe was that ever considered "efficient"? Better than a tank, maybe, but 40 years behind cars in economy.

While 16 MPG city isn't the best MPG, but for the Tahoe/Suburban, they are the most efficient V8 vehicles in their class. Plus DOD isn't mainstream in the current 800's. The 900's except the 4.8 V8 has DOD standard. So that 16 MPG is w/o DOD.

 

[aloofman]

IF a new tax is introduced on gasoline, it should go directly back into roads and infrastucture, not into the General Fund.

I think this is defensible, even on environmental grounds. The lack of maintenance of roads and highways causes more accidents, which causes more congestion, which wastes more fuel and causes more pollution per mile driven. Even if you didn't spend the new money on new highways -- only on existing ones -- it would still reduce pollution from automobiles.

 

[aloofman]

Actually the Focus is a great car, with excellent handling, good looks (in hatchback form) and good fuel economy. Fit and finish is on par with the Japanese. The only reason people think the Civic or Corolla are superior is badge snobbery, which is a shame.

The Focus has also been subject to more recalls in the last ten years than any other car sold in North America. To me, that's a reason to consider the Civic and Corolla superior.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The Focus has also been subject to more recalls in the last ten years than any other car sold in North America. To me, that's a reason to consider the Civic and Corolla superior.

The 2000-2004 Focus had about 10 recalls between 2000-2001, the 2001-2004 Civic had 5 between 2001-2002. Neither had further recalls. So both cars had recalls early on, but both solved the issues within a year.

It's true that the early years had a lot of recalls, but I don't think it's fair to judge the current car based solely on that - the Civic had its share too. My Nissan Altima has zero - count 'em, zero - recalls, so it is far and away the superior car by your line of reasoning (I'm inclined to agree - the Civic is smaller, slower and no more relaible )

I don't want to take anything away from the Civic, which is an excellent car, but the Focus has a bad reputation with some people that it simply doesn't deserve. Just like with BMW, Honda's brand image is so strong that it sometimes prevents people from giving competitors a fair shake *cough*Mazda 3*cough*

 

[kwajo.com]

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).

you mean Newfoundland's electricity that Quebec practically stole?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

In the end we have had since the 70's to realize that we did not have bottom less supply of oil.

Some may not remember that a few years go that even the Toyota Avalon had like 32 or 34 IIRC mpg. Transmissions can be tuned to deliver better milage. But no, we we wanted powerful SUV's and cars that gave us us less than 28 mpg.

I laugh at some "reviews" of my own Subaru Baja rated at 25mpg highway. Many reviews said they got only 22mpg highway. Guess what, keeping in 55 t0 70 mph on a straight highway shot - I get 29 mpg. I use the cruse control, when I can.

This even parallels my experiences on many rental cars. I have always been able to get 10% or better mpg over the EPA highway MPG, than what reviewers have stated. City MPG has met their limited reports on the such.

My worst MPG rating has been under sever "city" driving. And I still got 21MPG! Which was the MPG that I based my decision on. Much of my decision process on my purchase was based on the worst case situation. I get great pleasure at laughing at those that complain that it cost them $40 to $50 to fill up their SUV's.

I tell them I understand their pain. That I just spent almost $40 to fill up my tank. But this was for 18+ days of driving. When they so say, "well you drive so much less miles"; I tell them no, that I planned on gas prices going to $3 a gallon when choosing my car.

Love the stewing looks on their faces. When I am bitchy, I tell them that is the benefit of of having Depression Era parents that taught me not to take things for granted.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The 2000-2004 Focus had about 10 recalls between 2000-2001, the 2001-2004 Civic had 5 between 2001-2002. Neither had further recalls. So both cars had recalls early on, but both solved the issues within a year.

It's true that the early years had a lot of recalls, but I don't think it's fair to judge the current car based solely on that - the Civic had its share too. My Nissan Altima has zero - count 'em, zero - recalls, so it is far and away the superior car by your line of reasoning (I'm inclined to agree - the Civic is smaller, slower and no more relaible )

I don't want to take anything away from the Civic, which is an excellent car, but the Focus has a bad reputation with some people that it simply doesn't deserve. Just like with BMW, Honda's brand image is so strong that it sometimes prevents people from giving competitors a fair shake *cough*Mazda 3*cough*

To be honest I have not cared about Honda after I heard of the oil filter issue on CRV's. I don't think there has been a recall on that issue that led to fires that destroyed CRV's.

It just shows me that under the current rules and/or Administration that consumers be damned.

 

[hoyboy9]

You realize that Toyota doesn't sell many Priuses yet and makes no money on them? (Many believe they lose money on each one.) It's not a "Prius killer" that GM needs. It just needs to start building decent cars. Considering the relatively small number of hybrids being sold right now, there's not a bonanza waiting there for GM right now.

Speaking of the Prius, it's pretty overrated. I admire the technology and I hope it succeeds, but the extra initial expense will take years to pay for itself, battery replacement could be problematic, and it's not as clean-running as some gasoline-only cars. That doesn't make it a bad car, but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of automotive technology. What it really is is the exact opposite of the Hummer: a political statement in favor of environmentalism.

While you're right that Prius's aren't making Toyota any cash right now, the car represents the direction that the US car market should be taking. Personally, I think our dependence on foreign oil can be greatly mitigated by doing one of two things:

1. Getting responsible cars into the market so Americans can choose to drive responsibly. This is the optimal solution.

2. Tax gasoline to penalize people who buy SUVs, forcing people to choose responsibly. This is the path that Europe has chosen, and I strongly disagree with that policy here in the US.

Fortunately, we have seen that Americans are capable of making responsible car purchases, considering the demand for hybrids. The demand has been so strong for Prius's that Toyota can't make them fast enough. This is good. While Toyota doesn't make money on each Prius purchase, you are forgetting that those dollars are NOT being spent on American cars.

The pressure is on for the Big 3. They NEED a big hybrid, because if they don't start developing something to compete, the Japanese will wipe the floor with them.

Then we'll have to waste taxpayer dollars bailing the failing American auto industry out, just like we did for United Airlines and other air carriers. I say, if these companies can't compete, let them die. Capitalism WORKS in America.

 

[Mike Teezie]

Yikes, that's nasty.

It would helped a little if they would have showed a black one, and not a "Members Only" gold colored one.

Lame.

$50k? For an SUV? An AMERICAN SUV? Hah, I'll take a Benz or Bimmer, thanks.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

While you're right that Prius's aren't making Toyota any cash right now, the car represents the direction that the US car market should be taking. Personally, I think our dependence on foreign oil can be greatly mitigated by doing one of two things:

1. Getting responsible cars into the market so Americans can choose to drive responsibly. This is the optimal solution.

2. Tax gasoline to penalize people who buy SUVs, forcing people to choose responsibly. This is the path that Europe has chosen, and I strongly disagree with that policy here in the US.

Fortunately, we have seen that Americans are capable of making responsible car purchases, considering the demand for hybrids. The demand has been so strong for Prius's that Toyota can't make them fast enough. This is good. While Toyota doesn't make money on each Prius purchase, you are forgetting that those dollars are NOT being spent on American cars.

The pressure is on for the Big 3. They NEED a big hybrid, because if they don't start developing something to compete, the Japanese will wipe the floor with them.

Then we'll have to waste taxpayer dollars bailing the failing American auto industry out, just like we did for United Airlines and other air carriers. I say, if these companies can't compete, let them die. Capitalism WORKS in America.

AT the same point many forget that "Detroit" made close to $10K or maybe even better, on many of the larger SUV's that they have sold over the years. Add to that their lobbyists fought long and hard over the years since the 70's to prevent REAL mpg CAFE ratings.

 

[Mike Teezie]

In the end we have had since the 70's to realize that we did not have bottom less supply of oil.

Some may not remember that a few years go that even the Toyota Avalon had like 32 or 34 IIRC mpg. Transmissions can be tuned to deliver better milage. But no, we we wanted powerful SUV's and cars that gave us us less than 28 mpg.

I laugh at some "reviews" of my own Subaru Baja rated at 25mpg highway. Many reviews said they got only 22mpg highway. Guess what, keeping in 55 t0 70 mph on a straight highway shot - I get 29 mpg. I use the cruse control, when I can.

This even parallels my experiences on many rental cars. I have always been able to get 10% or better mpg over the EPA highway MPG, than what reviewers have stated. City MPG has met their limited reports on the such.

My worst MPG rating has been under sever "city" driving. And I still got 21MPG! Which was the MPG that I based my decision on. Much of my decision process on my purchase was based on the worst case situation. I get great pleasure at laughing at those that complain that it cost them $40 to $50 to fill up their SUV's.

I tell them I understand their pain. That I just spent almost $40 to fill up my tank. But this was for 18+ days of driving. When they so say, "well you drive so much less miles"; I tell them no, that I planned on gas prices going to $3 a gallon when choosing my car.

Love the stewing looks on their faces. When I am bitchy, I tell them that is the benefit of of having Depression Era parents that taught me not to take things for granted.

I do the same thing Chip. I play a "game" in my Jetta VR6.

I have real time mpg reading on the little screen. On the interstate, I get behind SUVs, 18 Wheelers, vans, trucks, whatever - and watch my mpg go up a little. It's a manual transmission (is there another kind?), so when I am going down hills or a light turns red down the road, I shift into neutral and let it coast.

My girlfriend rolls her eyes at me as I scream like a maniac, "135 mpg! 139!! 144!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, 149 mpg!!! Enjoy that suv, suucckkkaaaaaa!"