TCC review the new Chevrolet Tahoe . . .

[VetteZ06]

Here's the link.

 

Wow.

[RichardJensen]

Gee, and since this is a rapidly growing segment of the market, GM's gonna really kick some tail.

 

...

[VetteZ06]

Gee, and since this is a rapidly growing segment of the market, GM's gonna really kick some tail.

 

...

 

Always have to find a way to degrade the GM product. Makes sense.

 

Rapidly growing, no, but it's still a very, very large market. I suppose it would've been better just to keep the GMT-800s on the lots, then? :rolleyes:

 

Give me a break.

[silvrsvt]

The review almost makes me think they wrote it just to say something nice instead adding to the bad news that GM has had.

[Bluecon]

If this truck is as good as he says it will be a problem for the Expedition and the Explorer.

 

And this will be the basis for the new GM 1/2 ton pickup.

When the new Toyota 1/2 ton and the new GM 1/2 ton are launched that is going top be one tough market.

[Paul Selby]

I'm not much of an SUV or GM person but this Blahoe Tahoe looks good. IMHO the only thing the latest Expedition has going for it is the interior, outside looks like crap to me. Hard to tell from the picture but it looks like GM is STILL putting way too many controls on the turn signal stalk. Please tell me at the very least, GM put the cruise control buttons on the wheel.

[RichardJensen]

Always have to find a way to degrade the GM product. Makes sense.

 

Rapidly growing, no, but it's still a very, very large market. I suppose it would've been better just to keep the GMT-800s on the lots, then? :rolleyes:

 

Give me a break.

Well, the GMT900s are better than the GMT-800s.

 

But given that it's been eight years, and would've been nine if personnel hadn't been reallocated, they dang well should be.

 

Additionally there are the questions around DoD and the real-world benefits for most drivers. The typical driving cycle for the typical driver allows little to no opportunity for DoD cruising; rendering it worthless in the typical day-to-day routine of the typical customer.

 

All in all, I believe the greater problems at GM surround their investment in niche products, at the expense of their bread and butter. HERE at least they are putting time and attention to important products. That much is true; the GMT900s are more important to GM than Kappa or Zeta or Sigma. And they look much better than the old GMT800s (especially on the inside). But I still quibble with their DoD and their pursuit of hp and displacement in a segment where those areas were never seen as issues.

 

I also think the T1 frame and the Expy IRS offer Ford a better shot at offering class-leading NVH, response, and ride-isolation. I mean the GM engineers have had the old T1 frame to mess around with, and Ford is introducing improvements to the frame with this model. I thought it funny that the article made mention of aluminum control arms that reduce unsprung weight; seeing that with a live axle every part of the drivetrain after the transmission is sprung weight. The five link rear suspension also sounds needlessly complex.

 

...

Edited January 4, 2006 by RichardJensen

[PolarBear]

"The Tahoe's engine lineup includes a revised 320-hp version of Chevy's 5.3 liter V-8 with standard cylinder deactivation technology that provides better fuel economy than a V-6-powered, mid-size Ford Explorer..."

 

You think they aren't going to hammer that for all it's worth? The DOD itself isn't significant (10% fuel savings, on the outside), it's the perception of new technology.

 

"...They include in-dash satellite navigation; real-time damping suspension; rain-sensing wipers; first- and second-row heated seats (and heated windshield washer fluid, too); power-articulating running boards; rearview camera; Ultrasonic Park Assist; and a rear-seat DVD entertainment system. Standard safety features now include stability control, and front, side impact, and curtain airbags with rollover-mitigation technology."

 

Those were all items on a carefully compiled customer wish list.

 

All in all, I believe the greater problems at GM surround their investment in niche products, at the expense of their bread and butter. HERE at least they are putting time and attention to important products. That much is true; the GMT900s are more important to GM than Kappa or Zeta or Sigma. And they look much better than the old GMT800s (especially on the inside). But I still quibble with their DoD and their pursuit of hp and displacement in a segment where those areas were never seen as issues.

 

I'll take that bet- soft response and poor gas mileage are consistent Expy complaints. The added HP from GM just adds fuel to that fire.

 

RichardJensen "I also think the T1 frame and the Expy IRS offer Ford a better shot at offering class-leading NVH, response, and ride-isolation. I mean the GM engineers have had the old T1 frame to mess around with, and Ford is introducing improvements to the frame with this model. I thought it funny that the article made mention of aluminum control arms that reduce unsprung weight; seeing that with a live axle every part of the drivetrain after the transmission is sprung weight. The five link rear suspension also sounds needlessly complex."

 

The real issue with the Expy's IRS is the yowling and howling that comes with the unit. Don't misunderstand- it seems to be quite sturdy, but the entire Expy drivetrain generates an astounding number of warranty complaints. The issue basically boils down to drivetrain noise- whining, clunks, and creaks that may or may not respond to a techs therapy. And while we're on a rant <_< , could Ford please find a tire vendor that can produce a consistently round tire? Holy crap, I don't know of a dealership that doesn't have Conti take-offs stacked to the ceiling- and that problem runs through the entire SUV/F-Series product lines.

 

Now, I know this sounds negative- but the Expy is nicely styled, has an intelligently designed, attractive interior, and offers superior towing/hauling capacities compared to it's competitors. The brakes alone are world class in this size/weight vehicle (a notorious GM weak point). It could be a class leader, but certain fundamental issues have to be addressed for that to happen. Meanwhile, almost 750,000 full-size SUV's get sold in this country (in a poor market), and GM's snagging almost half the market share.

[RichardJensen]

I'll take that bet- soft response and poor gas mileage are consistent Expy complaints. The added HP from GM just adds fuel to that fire.

 

RichardJensen "I also think the T1 frame and the Expy IRS offer Ford a better shot at offering class-leading NVH, response, and ride-isolation. I mean the GM engineers have had the old T1 frame to mess around with, and Ford is introducing improvements to the frame with this model. I thought it funny that the article made mention of aluminum control arms that reduce unsprung weight; seeing that with a live axle every part of the drivetrain after the transmission is sprung weight. The five link rear suspension also sounds needlessly complex."

 

The real issue with the Expy's IRS is the yowling and howling that comes with the unit. Don't misunderstand- it seems to be quite sturdy, but the entire Expy drivetrain generates an astounding number of warranty complaints. The issue basically boils down to drivetrain noise- whining, clunks, and creaks that may or may not respond to a techs therapy. And while we're on a rant <_< , could Ford please find a tire vendor that can produce a consistently round tire? Holy crap, I don't know of a dealership that doesn't have Conti take-offs stacked to the ceiling- and that problem runs through the entire SUV/F-Series product lines.

 

Now, I know this sounds negative- but the Expy is nicely styled, has an intelligently designed, attractive interior, and offers superior towing/hauling capacities compared to it's competitors. The brakes alone are world class in this size/weight vehicle (a notorious GM weak point). It could be a class leader, but certain fundamental issues have to be addressed for that to happen. Meanwhile, almost 750,000 full-size SUV's get sold in this country (in a poor market), and GM's snagging almost half the market share.

If consistent feedback on the Expy is a noisy powertrain and weak response off the line, well, I'd hate to think that Ford's engineers can't sort those problems out. I would think that the Expy should offer as much, or more in the way of improved NVH over the outgoing model as the '04 F150 offered over its predecessor. Minor engine tweaks and a 6-speed should help the perceived lack of power on the Expy.

 

The backlash to GM on those stratospheric EPA ratings could be customer discontent with real world mileage (perhaps resulting in warranty complaints of their own), also it will be widely reported that observed mileage will not meet EPA estimates.

 

IMO the DoD isn't as big a deal as the improved Cd.

 

...

Edited January 4, 2006 by RichardJensen

[PolarBear]

We can hope. I've been pretty vocal about the fact that I'm rooting for the home team(s). My worst nightmare is that Ford or GM gives the customers a reason to visit ye olde import car dealership. The Explorer proves Ford is perfectly capable of designing and building a competant, desireable SUV (what's his name's experience nonwithstanding).

 

If it's any help, I put 80 miles behind the wheel of a late-model Durango today. You couldn't give me one on a bet- the transmission and the brakes would drive anyone crazy.

[NickF1011]

Why has Ford not developed a DOD type system? The Expedition is in trouble.

 

Because the first test drive I saw on the new Tahoe said they averaged 12 miles per gallon, even with DOD. Fact is, those EPA numbers are ridiculously optimistic. Fuel economy won't be the demise of the Expedition for sure. It could certainly use improvements elsewhere, but that's not one of them.

[Bluecon]

Because the first test drive I saw on the new Tahoe said they averaged 12 miles per gallon, even with DOD. Fact is, those EPA numbers are ridiculously optimistic. Fuel economy won't be the demise of the Expedition for sure. It could certainly use improvements elsewhere, but that's not one of them.

 

A 10 percent improvement in mileage is actually a large improvement at a relatively low cost, and as Polar Bear has already stated although the average customer will not understand the technical details of the DOD it will be a heck of a sales booster.

 

Why can Ford, not provide a DOD system to the consumer?

[NickF1011]

A 10 percent improvement in mileage is actually a large improvement at a relatively low cost, and as Polar Bear has already stated although the average customer will not understand the technical details of the DOD it will be a heck of a sales booster.

 

Why can Ford, not provide a DOD system to the consumer?

 

They CLAIM a 10% increase, but is it really there? I wouldn't say observed fuel economy of 12 miles per gallon is an increase of anything.

[VetteZ06]

Because the first test drive I saw on the new Tahoe said they averaged 12 miles per gallon, even with DOD. Fact is, those EPA numbers are ridiculously optimistic. Fuel economy won't be the demise of the Expedition for sure. It could certainly use improvements elsewhere, but that's not one of them.

 

I've explained this to about twenty people on five different forums by now, but what's one more time?

 

You're talking about the C&D test of the Tahoe, but apparently you didn't read very closely.

 

"One obvious culprit for our poor fuel economy is our staff's desire to emulate drag racer Don "The Snake" Prudhomme. A less obvious culprit is the optional remote start that allows the key-fob possessor to start the engine from a distance. It's a valuable feature against bitter weather--the car can be warmed in the driveway while you're waiting for that Pop-Tart to cool off--but using it means that you're burning fuel and not going anywhere. We used it, a lot."

 

They drove it like a Corvette and they used the remote start a ton. I'm sure that hurt their fuel economy tremendously.

 

Don't selectively leave information out just to make the Tahoe look bad. C&D explained their situation, so why not include that excerpt in the first place?

[NickF1011]

I've explained this to about twenty people on five different forums by now, but what's one more time?

 

You're talking about the C&D test of the Tahoe, but apparently you didn't read very closely.

 

"One obvious culprit for our poor fuel economy is our staff's desire to emulate drag racer Don "The Snake" Prudhomme. A less obvious culprit is the optional remote start that allows the key-fob possessor to start the engine from a distance. It's a valuable feature against bitter weather--the car can be warmed in the driveway while you're waiting for that Pop-Tart to cool off--but using it means that you're burning fuel and not going anywhere. We used it, a lot."

 

They drove it like a Corvette and they used the remote start a ton. I'm sure that hurt their fuel economy tremendously.

 

Don't selectively leave information out just to make the Tahoe look bad. C&D explained their situation, so why not include that excerpt in the first place?

 

Okay. How about the Motor Trend review that averaged 14.2 miles per gallon? :lol:

[VetteZ06]

Okay. How about the Motor Trend review that averaged 14.2 miles per gallon? :lol:

 

I'm sure they drove it like a normal owner would, what with doing all of those 0-60 and quarter-mile tests, going flat out. People who buy these SUVs will be doing that kind of thing EVERY day, I'm sure! Please . . . :rolleyes:

 

The housewives over at Consumer Reports drive their cars pretty tamely, so we'll see what kind of gas mileage they get.

 

I average right around 18 mpg in my '03 Tahoe, so I have no doubt the new one will improve on that.

[NickF1011]

I'm sure they drove it like a normal owner would, what with doing all of those 0-60 and quarter-mile tests, going flat out. People who buy these SUVs will be doing that kind of thing EVERY day, I'm sure! Please . . . :rolleyes:

 

The housewives over at Consumer Reports drive their cars pretty tamely, so we'll see what kind of gas mileage they get.

 

I average right around 18 mpg in my '03 Tahoe, so I have no doubt the new one will improve on that.

 

I could be mistaken, but I don't think ANY magazine worth a grain of salt includes its track time in its fuel economy calculations. As for people not driving SUV's like race car drivers, be thankful you don't live in Maryland. Around here, they DO!!!

[VetteZ06]

I could be mistaken, but I don't think ANY magazine worth a grain of salt includes its track time in its fuel economy calculations. As for people not driving SUV's like race car drivers, be thankful you don't live in Maryland. Around here, they DO!!!

 

I do every once in a while . . . :P

 

I don't usually trust magazines when it comes to fuel economy numbers, but maybe it's just me.

[PolarBear]

What's interesting is, in Motor Trends last Full-Size SUV comparo, the only gas mileage listed was of the Tahoe (15.7 average over 950 miles, '05 model). All they said was it was the best mileage of the group tested, and never once mentioned what everything else got. :angry:

[RichardJensen]

I do every once in a while . . . :P

 

I don't usually trust magazines when it comes to fuel economy numbers, but maybe it's just me.

Well, first of all, they're marketing this SUV as more powerful, so you're perhaps going to skew towards leadfooted drivers to begin with.

 

But let's take a look at this DoD system for a second:

 

It only works at steady speeds and steady engine load, and it does not cut in automatically. I don't know how long it waits to kick in, but I would assume that it will very very rarely cut in on anyone's daily routine. There are people where I live that will get very good gas mileage under certain circumstances, but they will be in a small minority. Everyone else will be getting the typical low gas mileage they have come to associate with big SUVs.

 

If the DoD doesn't cut in, what else is going to save gas? It's still a four speed transmission, and it still weighs way over 2 tons.

 

...

[HC_Earwicker]

Well, first of all, they're marketing this SUV as more powerful, so you're perhaps going to skew towards leadfooted drivers to begin with.

 

No - the base model is about as powerful as any other V8 powered full-size SUV. Yes, there is a 400 hp version but the ones that buy those probably aren't too bothered about gas prices.

 

But let's take a look at this DoD system for a second:

 

It only works at steady speeds and steady engine load, and it does not cut in automatically. I don't know how long it waits to kick in, but I would assume that it will very very rarely cut in on anyone's daily routine. There are people where I live that will get very good gas mileage under certain circumstances, but they will be in a small minority. Everyone else will be getting the typical low gas mileage they have come to associate with big SUVs.

 

If the DoD doesn't cut in, what else is going to save gas? It's still a four speed transmission, and it still weighs way over 2 tons.

 

...

 

I have done no scientific analysis of this but DoD-type systems do seem to work from what I have seen. My Chrysler 300C averages a little over 18 mpg in mixed city/highway driving (which is quite good given the size of the car and the engine) and long highway trips see a fairly dramatic improvement in the mileage.

 

Even if DoD does not cut in very much, the improved aerodynamics will help a lot. A 0.36 drag coefficient is exceptionally good for a full-size SUV. And, of course, the 4-speed automatic is not going to be around for very long. It will probably be replaced fairly soon by the new 6-speed that was co-developed with Ford.

 

- HCE

[RichardJensen]

It will probably be replaced fairly soon by the new 6-speed that was co-developed with Ford.

Not that six speed, it's only rated up to 300 lb-ft.

 

--

 

I would've hoped for better 'round town mileage with your Hemi; unless you're a leadfoot.

 

...

[HC_Earwicker]

Not that six speed, it's only rated up to 300 lb-ft.

 

--

 

I would've hoped for better 'round town mileage with your Hemi; unless you're a leadfoot.

 

...

 

Let's put it this way - I didn't buy this car to drive it slow . However, I don't consider myself a leadfoot either. Given the kind of traffic I am often in, 18mpg is quite good. I know several people with V8-powered sedans - no one gets much more than 16-17 mpg. People with V6 Accords and Camrys don't get much more than 20 mpg in this area.

 

- HCE

Edited January 4, 2006 by HC_Earwicker

[Bluecon]

Well, first of all, they're marketing this SUV as more powerful, so you're perhaps going to skew towards leadfooted drivers to begin with.

 

But let's take a look at this DoD system for a second:

 

It only works at steady speeds and steady engine load, and it does not cut in automatically. I don't know how long it waits to kick in, but I would assume that it will very very rarely cut in on anyone's daily routine. There are people where I live that will get very good gas mileage under certain circumstances, but they will be in a small minority. Everyone else will be getting the typical low gas mileage they have come to associate with big SUVs.

 

If the DoD doesn't cut in, what else is going to save gas? It's still a four speed transmission, and it still weighs way over 2 tons.

 

...

I don't know what it is like where you drive but around here we have freeways where I expect the DOD system to be working most all of the time. When I work in the Detroit area at least 80% of my driving would be in a situation where the DOD is functioning. The systems are computer controlled and automatic.

What do you think --they wait 5 sec and tell you to push a button?

A 10% savings in gas mileage is a big deal.

[Anthony]

Not sure how the GM DoD sytem works, but here's DaimlerChrysler's tips on how to achieve the best MPG with MDS:

 

Maximizing MPG with MDS

 

Tips from the Chrysler Group on Getting the Most Fuel Savings with its Multi-Displacement System

 

Chrysler Group MDS improves fuel economy up to 20 percent

Standard equipment on almost all HEMI 5.7L engines

 

Auburn Hills, Mich., Sep 1, 2005 -

Just a few simple tips can help owners of Chrysler Group engines with Multi-Displacement System (MDS) get the most fuel mileage possible from their 5.7L HEMI® V8 engine.

 

The customer does not need to drive in a certain way to realize a fuel economy improvement with MDS, but these driving habits can maximize their fuel savings with this technology.

 

Keeping speeds to 65 mph or below – MDS uses four cylinder mode most at these speeds

Use cruise control – this helps maintain a steady speed, generally allowing the HEMI to run on four cylinders for longer periods

Accelerate more gradually – the HEMI will provide V8 power whenever it is requested by the driver

Use a steady throttle whenever possible – this maximizes four cylinder mode

 

The Chrysler Group MDS is standard equipment with the 5.7L HEMI on seven vehicles: the Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger R/T, Durango, Magnum R/T, Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander.

 

With the addition of MDS to HEMI-equipped Dodge Durango and Ram, MDS-equipped vehicles through the end of the 2007 model year will save more than 60 million gallons of fuel each year.

 

The Chrysler Group MDS seamlessly alternates between smooth, high-fuel-economy four-cylinder mode when less power is needed, and V-8 mode when more power from the 5.7L HEMI engine is in demand. This optimizes fuel economy when V-8 power is not required, without sacrificing vehicle performance or capability.

 

Chrysler Group was the first to offer modern, large-volume vehicles in North America with cylinder deactivation - the HEMI-powered 2005 Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum R/T went on sale in the of spring 2004 with the Chrysler Group Multi-Displacement System, or MDS. Chrysler Group was also the first to offer cylinder deactivation in an SUV with the introduction of MDS in the 2005 HEMI-powered Jeep® Grand Cherokee. Chrysler Group is the first to offer MDS in a pickup truck - the 2006 Dodge Ram 1500.

 

MDS is a fuel-saving technology that is here today - customers get the power and capability of the HEMI V-8 that they desire with the fuel economy of a less powerful engine.

 

Some of the significant technologies enabling the Chrysler Group MDS are the speed of electronic controls, the sophistication of the algorithms controlling the systems and the use of Electronic Throttle Control (ETC). The HEMI will be able to transition from eight cylinders to four in 40 milliseconds (0.040 seconds).

Edited January 5, 2006 by Intrepidatious