2007 Chevy Tahoe unveiled!

[superfunkomatic]

I always thought they just don't care!?!? As well as most of the US population.

i think until there is no fuel left or the world's gas guage says "5%" people won't change their habits. especially north americans, there's some kind of "i should have the right to do whatever i want, regardless of the outcome" mentality. look at the previous posts - americans (and some canadians) consider driving a vehicle of their choice a right.

with fuel prices continuing to rise simple economics will start weeding out the SUV drivers - it'll become too expensive to operate. and frankly, as i mentioned in a previous post - why would anyone want to pay more for gasoline, instead of using the money for movies, fun, beer, etc? that's really beyond me.

sometimes economics helps move people in environmental directions whether they like it or not.

 

[vixapphire]

I pretty much agree with everything you say here. I probably should have used the word sensible instead of moral. However, I don't expect any unusually sensible acts from US politicians as long as there's no serious... well let's stay away from politics...

and you think politicians elsewhere are sensible? get real, wake up, etc.

 

[vixapphire]

I agree with you Stevie. I have a 2002 Chevy Suburban( also bought in 2001). It has gotten amazing fuel economy for that size of the vehicle. GM is right on saying they got the most fuel efficient full sizers in their class with V8's. I went on a road trip to New York and it got 18 MPG highway. That is right on the EPA estimate. I can't say about City driving since I mainly use it for highway and long trips( it is very comfartable). I also use it to tow horse trailers. I also had a 1996 Chevy Suburban which got traded in for my current one. The '96 had no problems what so ever to warranty the trade in. I just decided to take advantage of the good deals post-9/11. It is the same story with the current Suburban. No problems at all.

i'm one up on both you SUV gas-guzzler drivers: i drive a mid-sized European-made (0% US parts content) STATION WAGON (not an SUV, mind you) that gets me gas mileage like yours... on a good day. and you know what? i don't give a hoot because, all things considered, my "giving back" is what it is in many other parts of my life; just not the car that i'm currently driving. if i had more space in my garage, i'd put a miata or little 2.3 litre SLK in there for getting around town and save the wagon for its natural habitat (the wide open freeway), but life is full of compromises. besides, my work commute is less than 5 miles roundtrip, so my $50 fill-up lasts me around 2.5 weeks too. i need the space in a car, and i don't like the center of gravity and visibility-for-other-drivers issues that SUV's carry with them (especially driving around town). yet, many of the people on this board would rather punish me for it. i paid my gas guzzler tax, and my annual registration fees are commensurate with the sticker price on the vehicle (i.e. astronomical), so why doesn't everyone just go back to crying in their beer/latte/soy milk, already and accept that their choices and reasons for making them are different, not necessarily superior, to others', and respect others' right to choose?!!!

really, the sanctimony is getting rather nauseating when it comes to these discussions of automobiles. weren't we talking about the styling of the next-gen yukon a few pages ago?

v

 

[vixapphire]

anyone remember the 1970s?
fuel shortages, rising fuel prices, large behemoth muscle cars and huge v8 family cars.
didn't learn anything the first time?
sad to see huge flagging/failing organizations like chev and ford spending money releasing new inefficient vehicles. do you really need a 400 hp V8 motor to pick the kids up after school? i'm guessing not.

i agree, with a caveat: it's nice to have choices.

anyone buying a car that comes with a reserved spot at their neighborhood gas station should only do so knowing that they can afford it, and make the decision with open eyes. pretty much, if you don't like the high prices but you're driving a bomber, you forfeit your right to piss and moan about it. i don't have a problem with that.

what i do take issue with is (a) the tendency to blame car companies for consumers' choices; could've bought a pontiac sunfire with a 4-banger instead of that v-8 cadillac, after all...; and (b) the idea of a lot of people, including (contradictorily) anti-SUV/fuel consumption types, that there is a place for government price controls in the gasoline market during a temporary supply interruption. letting the market drive prices up north of $3 is a great way of handing choice back to the consumer: you can drive the escalade if you want to, but are you going to drive as often/far paying that much for gas? or are you going to pull out the neglected ford tempo 4-banger parked out beside the house and drive that one instead? and eventually, they trade/sell-off the 'slade and buy a hybrid lexus SUV instead in the absence of price drops at the pump.

i think most people will act rationally when given the choice. it's when the gov't steps in and says that gas/electricity/etc. prices can't go above x that people, insulated from the realities of the scarcity conditions, continue to act as though there is no interruption/scarcity, which is irrational, but sanctioned by the government in that scenario.

v

 

[vixapphire]

The issue that some of have with the larger SUV's are beyond the the MPG ratings.

you are changing the subject.

not that i disagree with your gripes about parking spots, red-light "edging" etc., but you are changing the subject. and the "nation of excess" stuff sounds funny to me. been to the ozarks lately? indiana? ohio? etc.... oh, i guess it's the stuff that's on "pimp my ride" that's driving your argument, then. ok.

incidentally, with regard to home sizes, having been active in the LA housing market during the past 4 years, i've noticed a few things. older places are smaller, new construction tends to have larger square footages. this supports your argument. on paper. the interesting thing i found is that the extra footage is often taken by things like (a) wider hallways to accommodate gov't imposed housing regulations that require halls/doors/etc. be wide enough for wheelchairs/handicapped (not a bad thing, mind you), (b) really stupid wasted areas of space that have nothing to do with the living space, and everything to do with the developer having hired a lousy architect that has to introduce such "alcoves" etc. to compensate for the design's otherwise obvious shortcomings.

i don't know the answer to it, other than to say that some of the growth is the result of regulations, etc. most houses you see in developments like valencia, etc. aren't really all that much "bigger" than older houses (they don't have more or even necessarily much larger rooms), but they've got wider halls, stairways, and more silly accoutrements like "grand foyers" etc. seriously, a grand foyer in some suburban cookie cutter house? who are these people fooling?

 

[vixapphire]

But never did we see people buying "regular" homes, only to building something that might be twice the size and out out of character for the community.

man, you would hate to see what's being done in beverly hills. it's unbelievable to me that people can come in, pay 2-3 million for a beautiful, large (yes, those 1920's homes were often 3-5000 square feet, even back then), well-situated (i.e. they sat nicely on their lots, had plenty of front and rear lawn, trees, multicar garages/guesthouses out in back, etc.), absolutely gorgeous house (albeit one that may need to be redecorated inside - so what), only to pull up on moving day with a bulldozer, mow the whole thing down and proceed to build a monstrous palace that spans practically to the 4 corners of the lot. it is truly awful, and frankly, completely mind-boggling to me what the purpose is, other than the bragging rights on the most extravagantly-outfitted joint on the block.

like you, i wasn't raised with, and have never cultivated, a set of values that can easily rationalize (or would even try) that idea of outsized living. i just don't get it! at the same time, i find the good in it by looking at the number of people employed in the demolition and new construction, most of whom would likely have a harder time of things if not for people with the means and will to build their dream homes, even on the rubble of something just as spacious (and often better-constructed).

to each his/her own, i suppose. although there is something melancholy about watching a neighborhood lose its character over time this way. i wonder what part the seeming diminishing respect for "cultural institutions" (which in this case would include architecture etc.) that feels like a substantial part of american life has played in the way people feel about this stuff.

v

 

[vixapphire]

Over the last five to ten years we have allowed the "greed" of the US to rule over over National and World interests. Bigger and faster seem to have over ruled common sense.

Car manufactures have the ability to play with gear ratios in order to get better MPG. But that comes at a price of performance.

dude, you're losing me. i think it's possible that you've lost yourself a bit, too, on this point.

when all the top-performing cars on the world market are european (bmw "m" cars, mercedes "amg" cars, etc.) and the US automakers are constantly playing catch-up in the high-performance stakes so they can claw back some marketshare from their european betters, both of which are the case in today's market, how can you support your assertions? don't talk about performance if you want to advance the argument, because that's where the argument is weakest, if not an outright failure.

 

[vixapphire]

honestly, does a 5'5" mom need a chevy suburban to drop her 2 or 3 kids off at school? i can promise you that i see at least 50 new suburbans and tahoes every day and theyre mostly driven by short woman...

it must be a napoleonic thing

 

[vixapphire]

These same folks could find comfort as I did as a child in a Ford Country Squire Wagon, and get better MPG to boot.

hate to say it, but those ol' ford country squires didn't get better gas mileage than SUV's. you've got it backwards. i've owned a handful, being a station wagon afficionado myself. my '73 had a great look to it, but got around 7 mpg, running regular (leaded) fuel. i had an 80-something one (i think it was 83, but can't remember) and it was marginally better - low tens/teens, at best.

if they've done one thing right, the automakers have engineered much more efficient internal combustion engines over the past 30 years. not saying that SUV's are paragons of fuel economy, but overall, engines have gotten much more efficient than they were back then.

and "greed is good" is always, and always has been, part of the culture here. look at the 1920's, look at the 1980's, look at the 1990's, even (*gasp!*): do you recall reading about the ridiculous excesses of the silicon valley dotcom millionaires? the houses, cars, etc. that were being flaunted back then were every bit as ostentatious as the ones in the current boom. it seems that nowadays, this country's culture of celebrity has made even the relatively infrequent (in a land of 300 million people) seem ubiquitous through the constant barrage of media like "pimp my ride/house/whatever". other than the general coarsening of people's manners over the years (which i take no position on), i'm not persuaded that the widespread hand-wringing over the "greed of the ugly americans" on this thread is much more than undergraduate-level sophistry.

v

 

[vixapphire]

I grew up in San Jose, and remember the air in the 80s. When I go back to San Jose to visit the air is unimaginably worse today-- the average day's clarity today is the same as an especially bad smog day in the 80s.

Maybe SoCal air is better than the 80s?

Gotta say you would never expect this thread to become so long by looking at that first post

i don't know where the documentation is, but i recall reading in the papers and hearing in media throughout the past few years that i've been back in LA (in addition to my own anecdotal notice of the phenomenon) that the air quality has improved since the 1980s. the first thing they did was get rid of most of the older, crappier polluting cars. by getting them off the roads, they've cleared things up considerably.

 

[DakotaGuy]

- why would anyone want to pay more for gasoline, instead of using the money for movies, fun, beer, etc? that's really beyond me.

Some people would consider that use for money as bad as using it for gasoline. I mean especially beer. You drink it and well your smart enough to know where it goes.

If everyone was more responsible with the vehicles they own right now, think about how much further along we would be. If everyone would drive a little slower (saves fuel in any vehicle), cut out all unnecessary driving (believe me, there is a lot of that) and lived closer to to school and work, imagine how much fuel it would save? I drive a Ford Explorer and I am glad I have it when the roads become bad in the winter or I have to pull my trailer. I live close to work and walk most days or ride my Yamaha ATV, which will run around town for a month on 2 gallons of fuel. (I live in a small rural town). Also, my vehicle is a Flex-Fuel model and I use 85% Ethanol whenever it is available. Considering my vehicle is parked quite a bit of the time and when I do drive I am using an alternative fuel source, I am actually using less gasoline then someone driving an economy car that is not trying to conserve.

What else can you do? Install a digital "time set" thermostat in your house and make sure the temp is lowered when you are gone from the house if it is winter or higher in the summer. I know that has nothing to do with the type of vehicle you drive, but it still helps save natural resources. Other things you can do...increase your use of electric appliances in your house (water heater, etc.) True some fossil fuels are used to make electricity, but a lot of electricity is produced with alternative energy sources.

 

[hoyboy9]

i was born in the USA and ive lived all my life here and in my short (18 year old) life ive spent time in europe and the middle east (the good part) and i have to say.. american culture makes me sick.

I totally know where you're coming from. I was born in the States, but ended up spending almost 6 years overseas. The hardest move for me to make was .... moving back to the US.

I don't think it's the culture that makes me sick, it's the sheer ignorance of other countries and wonton wastefulness that got me. Although, you can't really blame Americans for their ways, because for so long, there was no impetus to be conscious of other countries and natural resources in general.

But now that oil is passing its world peak, the American lifestyle is going to get increasingly expensive. So you would think Americans would be driven more than ever to get innovating again to fix problems. But our current situation tells another story.

Now that the manufacturing sector has largely shifted outside the US, and the technical professions next up on the chopping block, Americans will be forced to come to terms with their "culture." Decades of producing way too many lawyers, marketers, "services professionals", and middle management has sapped America of its innovative spark.

We need more American engineers and Ph.D.'s. It's hard not to notice when I sit in on my grad-level engineering classes that 90% of the class is Chinese or Indian. These people ain't staying when they get their Ph.D.'s, they will take it back home to their native country. I want tomorrow's great ideas to be American, and that won't happen if this brain-drain continues.

Developing countries, in particular, ought to look to the US as an example of what NOT to become, as our society has evolved such an unsustainable way of life.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

hate to say it, but those ol' ford country squires didn't get better gas mileage than SUV's. you've got it backwards. i've owned a handful, being a station wagon afficionado myself. my '73 had a great look to it, but got around 7 mpg, running regular (leaded) fuel. i had an 80-something one (i think it was 83, but can't remember) and it was marginally better - low tens/teens, at best.

The point being was that given the better mpg's of large sedans, so would the likes of the Country Squire wagons if they were available today.

 

[vixapphire]

The point being was that given the better mpg's of large sedans, so would the likes of the Country Squire wagons if they were available today.

huh?

if you look at a 7mpg 70's stn wagon, compare it to a 14 mpg denali SUV, i think you're still gonna find that the SUV's doing better than the station wagon. if you mean that if they built the same station wagon today, it would do better than the 14 mpg of today's SUV, i'm not going to disagree.

funny thing about station wagons is that in many cases, today's station wagons pack a little more cargo room than a lot of SUV's. at least, where the floorspace is involved (SUV's may have more cubic footage due to their height).

and when it comes to comfort, most SUV drivers are sort of fooling themselves: for instance, the cadillac DTS has more legroom front and rear than the escalade, yet it's a sedan (granted, a huge one) that weighs substantially less and thus does somewhat better on fuel.

i suppose in the final analysis, for the most part the SUV thing is a status/prestige/chest-thumping issue. how much that sort of thing gets under your skin will affect your reaction to SUVs and their drivers. it doesn't really affect me at all, although all the points in these threads about the visibility-obstructing properties of SUV's and their lethality for other drivers involved in accidents with them are well taken.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

huh?

if you look at a 7mpg 70's stn wagon, compare it to a 14 mpg denali SUV, i think you're still gonna find that the SUV's doing better than the station wagon. if you mean that if they built the same station wagon today, it would do better than the 14 mpg of today's SUV, i'm not going to disagree.

funny thing about station wagons is that in many cases, today's station wagons pack a little more cargo room than a lot of SUV's. at least, where the floorspace is involved (SUV's may have more cubic footage due to their height).

and when it comes to comfort, most SUV drivers are sort of fooling themselves: for instance, the cadillac DTS has more legroom front and rear than the escalade, yet it's a sedan (granted, a huge one) that weighs substantially less and thus does somewhat better on fuel.

i suppose in the final analysis, for the most part the SUV thing is a status/prestige/chest-thumping issue. how much that sort of thing gets under your skin will affect your reaction to SUVs and their drivers. it doesn't really affect me at all, although all the points in these threads about the visibility-obstructing properties of SUV's and their lethality for other drivers involved in accidents with them are well taken.

What I meant was that a 2005 Country Squire probably would be getting 27 to 30 mpg depending on the gear ratio (read performance) that Ford would want to give it.

You made the point that many of us have been trying to say about SUV's being an ego thing. I would say that 80% of SUV purchasers never need the cubic footage of the SUV.

The pain is that Big Oil and Big Auto interests have had their hands so far deep into the pockets of politicians, that we never have upgraded the CAFE requirements to mean anything. IMO there is little reason that we should not have Corolla class cars getting 45 to 50mpg Hwy and 35 to 40mpg City - without resorting to hybrid technology. With full size cars getting 25 to 28mpg City/30 to 35mpg Hwy.

What we have are laws that require us to wear seat belts. Laws for airbags in every car. Now laws that require phasing in on tire pressure! Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Being part of a country/society means making sacrifices for the good of all. Something that more than 50% of this nation has no concept of what so ever. We will lose WW III (God forbid it should ever happen), because IMO people today would not raise the need as did my parents did back in WW II.

 

[vixapphire]

What I meant was that a 2005 Country Squire probably would be getting 27 to 30 mpg depending on the gear ratio (read performance) that Ford would want to give it.

You made the point that many of us have been trying to say about SUV's being an ego thing. I would say that 80% of SUV purchasers never need the cubic footage of the SUV.

The pain is that Big Oil and Big Auto interests have had their hands so far deep into the pockets of politicians, that we never have upgraded the CAFE requirements to mean anything. IMO there is little reason that we should not have Corolla class cars getting 45 to 50mpg Hwy and 35 to 40mpg City - without resorting to hybrid technology. With full size cars getting 25 to 28mpg City/30 to 35mpg Hwy.

What we have are laws that require us to wear seat belts. Laws for airbags in every car. Now laws that require phasing in on tire pressure! Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Being part of a country/society means making sacrifices for the good of all. Something that more than 50% of this nation has no concept of what so ever. We will lose WW III (God forbid it should ever happen), because IMO people today would not raise the need as did my parents did back in WW II.

Interesting post. I'll go random in response to some of your items...

I'd say the Taurus or whatever they call it these days over at Ford, the station wagon they're currently/recently shucking is nowhere close to 27 mpg, nor is it a "performer" in the sense that we've been discussing. In other words, a failure on all counts!!!

I'd venture that the minicooper, vw rabbit/golf, etc. are all pretty efficient, lightweight cars. That said, the internal combustion engine, lord love it, appears to be near its limit on maximum squeezed-out efficiencies. Then again, every time someone says that, they come out with a new wrinkle that squeezes a few more mpg and hp out of these engines! Hell, they plopped a mild-mannered (~10 psi) supercharger on my Merc's 5.4 ltr engine and pulled nearly 475 hp and 516 lb/ft torque out of it -- whammy! I don't know the answer to your question about such high fuel efficiencies absent hybrid technology. My dad drove a '79 rabbit diesel for awhile and it did well enough on economy; i think it was up around 30 or mildly higher. Don't know if they can do much better than that on regular gasoline, though. But I'm no petrochemist/mechanical engineer, either.

"Big Oil"??? Outside the funny pages, does anyone really speak like that, or is it a convention of the written word? Just curious. On the other hand, if by "big oil" you mean that gargantuan fat-ass CEO of Exxon who was smiling across his several large, gelatinous chins the other day while discussing the company's latest quarterly earnings, yeah, he's big and he runs an oil company. Ladies and Gentlemen, "Big Oil".

On WWIII, you and I can agree to differ: personally, I think that WWIII has been declared and waged upon the west by a competing ideology (isn't ideology what all the world wars have been about, after all?) for several years before the USA, UK, etc. began a serious military response, which brings us to today.

There are a lot of people who don't see it that way. There are a lot of people who do. There are even some that consider the Cold War to have been "WWIII", and the current war between "western liberalism" and Islamist extremism to be WW IV. Upon listening, all three viewpoints have decent arguments. Oh well; it is what it is, regardless of what one chooses to call it.

v

 

[quagmire]

Okay, hopefully to get this thread back on track, the last of the GMT-900 SUV's to be revealed is the Cadillac Escalade on November 10th. Have pics and info by 12:30 am.

 

[groovebuster]

My dad drove a '79 rabbit diesel for awhile and it did well enough on economy; i think it was up around 30 or mildly higher.

Then your dad must have driven it kind of rough. My uncle had the same model and he always got more than 40mpg...

People don't see that there were already very fuel efficient cars back then with Diesel technology. Just nobody wanted to drive/buy them. And that's why the development of more fuel efficient or alternative technologies was neglected by the car manufacturers, resulting in a delay of about almost two decades...

Humans always need a big bang that affects them directly before they start to act. And history tells that in many cases it was too late then... Makes me pessimistic for the future of our planet. But I would love to be proven wrong... Time will tell.

groovebuster

 

[njstaffer]

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.

Why would you buy a new Mustang?! Those are lame attempts to feel like your in a muscle car, a.k.a. Mid-life crisis.

You need to buy a real car like a '70 Chevelle, '67 Camaro, or a '69 Mustang.

Any new car that attempts to be a muscle car is a lame attempt.

 

[quagmire]

Tonight at 12 am I will have pics of the new Cadillac Escalade. Yes, I agree that the muscle car days are gone, no matter what Ford, GM, and Chrylser do to try to revive it. I say if you going to buy a Camaro from the 60's, it is the 1969 Camaro SS.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Why would you buy a new Mustang?! Those are lame attempts to feel like your in a muscle car, a.k.a. Mid-life crisis.

You need to buy a real car like a '70 Chevelle, '67 Camaro, or a '69 Mustang.

Any new car that attempts to be a muscle car is a lame attempt.

The problem with the "real" cars you mention is that they can't do corners, can't stop and you'll die in an accident. They are fast cars but very much a piece of 60's engineering.

Don't get me wrong, 60's musclecars are in a class by themselves, but a modern Mustang GT is a true musclecar in every sense of the word - cheap, powerful and stylish.

Where I do agree with you is that a lot of the Mustangs roll off the assembly line as wimpy poser V6 models with an automatic, destined to be driven by middle-aged men and women who seek to relive their youth.

But there are definitely true muslcecars still being made. They may be a bit more sophisticated but they can still be brutal - The Charger V8/300C, Mustang GT, Holden Monaro (a.ka. the GTO). In 20 or 30 years these cars will be classics.

 

[SharksFan22]

Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Chip, while I think it's safe to say you and I disagree on many things I thought this exact same thing the other day. Tearing along on the freeway in the dead of night at about 110 (in a German-built car designed to do well into 160 or 170mph) I wondered why we have speed limits while selling cars that easily blow through the highest speed limits. Not that I'm advocate of speed limiters, I just found it curious.

Now, the whole idea of giving a tax credit (I think it's $3K here in California) for people purchasing hybrids INSTEAD of giving that money as a new-car purchase incentive to the poor bastard driving a 20-year old Ford Tempo that puts out much, much more pollution on the road still boggles my mind when the goal is to lower emissions, right?

 

[Johnny Rico]

Ah american cars: the PC of the automotive world.
And SUV's! The Gateway of the automotive world.

Enjoy your crap.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Granted these laws are for the good of the public for safety, but the laws should be there to protect shrinking limited resources for fossil based fuels. Even laws limiting the power (read 0-60 times) could be argued would be a safety benefit to consumers. As would speed limiters to restrict highway speeds to no more than 5 mph over the highest posted speed limit nationally.

Limiting speeds won't solve the problem either. My car ('99 Nissan Altima) gets better fuel economy and pollutes less at 100mph than a Chevy Tahoe does at 60mph, even with displacement on demand technologies the latter vehicle boasts about. Even cars with poor fuel economy numbers but low production numbers (like the Ford GT or Ferrari 430) have little statistical effect on resource consumption or poluution.

The offenders are gas-guzzler vehicles produced in very large numbers (i.e. Ford Explorer - over 250,000 built a year) that are driven every day as passenger vehicles (unlike the Ford GT or Ferraris). Trucks and SUVs are the biggest offender in this regard.

People in America and elsewhere will not switch over to very efficient transportation until such transportation is as cheap as and matches performance with current models.

 

[SharksFan22]

People in America and elsewhere will not switch over to very efficient transportation until such transportation is as cheap as and matches performance with current models.

DING DING DING!! I think we have a winner here. I agree wholeheartedly -- when the automakers deliver a product that's on par with regards to price and performance, then I'll consider it, but until then I'll stick with my fossil fuel burner.