Filed under: Car Buying, In the Autoblog Garage, SUVs, Trucks/Pickups, Chevrolet, GMC
2007 Chevrolet Tahoe LT: In the Autoblog Garage Day 5
It's now time to bring our review of the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe LT to a close. We've looked over the fresh sheetmetal and crawled around the all-new interior, but before rendering a verdict we have to get behind the wheel and see if the redesigned SUV has the driving dynamics to back up its looks.
[Click through for pics, commentary, and our final thoughts on the new Tahoe...]
Under the Tahoe's hood, we find the GenIV version of the company's long-running line of small-block V8 engines. The 325 HP 5.3L engine features Displacement On Demand (DOD), which shuts down half of the cylinders under light-load conditions. This reduces the pumping losses, thus improving fuel economy. We observed 15 MPG while driving in "mixed" conditions (what we considered to be a fairly even mix of urban, two-lane highway, and expressway travel), and pulled down just over 17.5 MPG while cruising at 75 MPH on the expressway. Those are great figures for a full-size SUV, but we didn't exactly feel like we were saving the planet, either. The Tahoe is capable of running on E85 (despite our tester's lack of a yellow gas cap), but as ever, the trick remains finding a gas station that carries it.
The 5.3L delivers sufficient power, although there's no doubt that it's tasked with moving around a substantial amount of mass. The engine makes some interesting noises as it goes about its business, with an almost musclecar-like exhaust note replacing the wheezing sounds we expect to hear from this type of vehicle. In fact, some may even find the V8 rumble to be a bit too much for their liking (not us, but hey...).
Backing up this fine engine is GM's 4L60E four-speed automatic. While we expect most of our readers to focus on the number of available gear ratios (or lack thereof), that really wasn't the main source of our complaints. Rather, it was the transmission's complete and total lack of willingness to downshift that frustrated. We've experienced this gearbox in several dozen other applications and haven't had this problem to the same extent, so we chalk it up to matter of electronic calibration problem rather than a fundamental flaw of the hardware. Regardless of the cause, expect to file paperwork (in triplicate, signed, and notarized) if you want to trigger a 4th to 2nd downshift. Putting the trans into the Tow/Haul mode helped slightly, but then the upshifts were delayed far longer than prudent (probably the result of being optimized for, uh, towing and hauling). On the positive side of things, the shift feel was generally quite good. If we owned one of these, it'd be receiving an immediate reflash of the transmission shift points.
Rounding out the drivetrain is GM's Autotrac transfer case, which offers the driver a choice of 2WD, full-time 4WD (achieved via the use of a progressively-locking clutch pack, not a center differential), and part-time 4WD Hi and Low modes. We think that it's an ideal arrangement for such a vehicle, although having an available low range seemed a bit odd for a vehicle that will drag its air dam on parking-lot curbs.
A solid axle is hung from a set of four trailing arms out back, while the front of the truck receives an updated version of GM's SLA independent suspension. Gone are the torsion bars; in their place lie a set of coil springs. Aluminum lower control arms replace the previous generation's ferrous bits, and front-mounted rack-and-pinion steering equipment is used in lieu of the recirculating-ball gearbox that has been a GM hallmark for several decades.
Over most road conditions - even the Midwest's famed cratered spring pavement - the GMT900's improved rigidity almost makes it possible to ignore that one is driving a body-on-frame vehicle-- believe it or not, the solid rear axle behaves itself in virtually all situations. It's possible to upset the Tahoe's composure with the right sequence of backroad bumps and ruts, but for the most part, the overall structural integrity is a huge improvement over previous generations. We were also pleased with the spring and damper rates, which do an admirable job of keeping the big truck under control even when thrown around like a car. Get too crazy, and the Stabilitrak stability control system will step in with authority to issue a reminder that this isn't a sport car, and should not be treated as such. We elected not to push things further to see if the system indeed works as claimed, keeping the shiny side up.
Quite simply, the Tahoe steers with precision not expected of a 5800-pound SUV with a waist-high center of gravity. We'd prefer less power assist - the efforts seemed tuned towards those who like to hold a cell phone in one hand, a cup of coffee in the other, but at least every bit of wheel movement translates into a meaningful response from the vehicle.
The same magic has been carried over to the brakes, which may possess the best pedal feel we've ever experienced on a mass-market body-on-frame SUV. The takeup is immediate, with virtually no lash, and the amount of boost provided dead-nuts perfect. It does take a fair bit of shove on the pedal to bring the Tahoe to a rapid stop, but that's to be expected with nearly 3 tons of mass (we prefer this situation than to have pads that are excessively grabby). As usual, GM's ABS system works well, although the lack of traction provided by the OEM tires ultimately limits the effectiveness of the braking hardware.
So, you ask... what's the verdict? While GM has done an admirable job of improving every aspect of the Tahoe's performance, the operational envelope of full-size SUVs was long ago described by Sir Issac Newton. The main competition for the Tahoe and its stablemates isn't so much the Ford Expedition or Toyota Sequoia, but rather the laws of physics. Viewed in the context of its full-size SUV competition, there is little question that GM has hit a home run, and we think it will deservedly continue to command the lion's share of its segment.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Source1 12:02PM (4/07/2006)
Nice truck if you have $48k. I'll take my loaded Pilot at $30 and spend the additional $18 on a car for my daughter, insurance and gas for a year. JMO.
Reply
TJ 12:28PM (4/07/2006)
In 2002 i traded in my '97 tahoe LT, (for a wrx wagon, but thats another blog) which i bought new in '97. Honestly, i loved the tahoe. Mainly because it was very truck-like. This new gen tahoe seems very nice, but i can't see owning this one. It sounds like it drives like a giant sedan. i have yet to drive one though. none the less, gm does get a thumbs up for producing the nicest full size family mover yet. in my opinion anyway.
Reply
MikeW 12:36PM (4/07/2006)
At least it doens't have dual beam headlights like the GMC version.
Reply
Dave in MI 12:40PM (4/07/2006)
#1 Just don't try to tow anything with your Honda. You are simply driving a minivan with crappy gas mileage. Check this out from Honda website:
Towing requires installation of power steering fluid- and automatic tranmission fluid-cooler, both available exclusively from your Honda dealer.Premuim unleaded fuel is recommended when towing above 3500 lbs. Capacity of 4500 lbs. is for boat trailers and 3500 lbs. for all other trailers.
The smaller Chevy Trailblazer can out tow your jacked minivan by a couple thousand pounds.
Reply
Joel A 12:52PM (4/07/2006)
"I'll take my loaded Pilot at $30..."
Are the Pilot and the Tahoe even in the same segment?
Reply
Fred 12:56PM (4/07/2006)
The endless debates from the SUV-haters and SUV-lovers are hysterical. It's real simple: (1) Some people really need to tow heavy loads (e.g., they own a sizeable boat or a horse trailer, or whatever) and move multiple people around, and (2) some people need to move multiple people around but don't need to tow anything. For those in category one, the Tahoe makes a lot of sense. For those in category two, it doesn't. Simple. Get over it. Buy the vehicle YOU need and quit telling your neighbors what they need to be driving.
Reply
Dave in MI 12:57PM (4/07/2006)
Oh, and your minivan is $35,795 without trailer hitch ($876) or back up sensors ($682) depending what you meant by 'loaded.'
Reply
Karl 1:01PM (4/07/2006)
I know if you can't say something nice, but...
I know editorial site are given cars to test and they probably don't have a lot of say as to what they're asked to test, but SUV's are dead. 5800lbs!!!They're only persisting because the auto industry keeps pushing them on us. What more is there to say about the segment? They're a national embarassment in an global time. Even with DOD, it gets worse mileage than my '48 Chevy truck. There's progress. I just saw the new FJ yesterday. Come on Toyota, return to your roots before you become the next Ford/GM with too much investment in too many trucks.
Reply
DarkKnight67 1:04PM (4/07/2006)
#1 was right about one thing ... His pilot probably is about $30 -- the cost of all those Coke cans it's made from.
Reply
Michael Karesh 1:06PM (4/07/2006)
This review does an excellent job describing the much improved driving experience in the new Tahoe. But I still don't get how it makes sense to have such a large, heavy vehicle with a cramped third row. Especially with the 2-2-2 seating option, where the large amount of shoulder room is unnecessary.
My review: http://www.epinions.com/content_221122956932
Reply
robino 1:08PM (4/07/2006)
Good for GM. They've perfected the dinosaur just before the asteroid gets here.
Reply
Steve B. 1:16PM (4/07/2006)
" #1 was right about one thing ... His pilot probably is about $30 -- the cost of all those Coke cans it's made from."
Ignorant statement of the month.
Isn't aluminum construction a "Good thing?" Gawd, I wish I could find a Pilot made out of recycled boat anchors in the true GM fashion!
Translation "Haha... Your SUV is more advanced than mine, and your automaker recycles. Loser."
Reply
Jeff 2:26PM (4/07/2006)
While all the snarky anti-SUV comments, sadly, are to be expected -- and while I do agree that most of the SUVs on the road today are the result of misguided purchase decisions -- you have to hand it to GM for getting this one right. All the foot-stamping and caterwauling by overpaid pundits and the "big-vehicles-are-evil" crowd can't diminish the fact that these new SUVs are selling well and filling a market need.
For people with large families who need towing capacity, a full-size SUV is the vehicle of choice.
I don't need (or wouldn't want) to buy one of these things myself, but I appreciate and respect that there are people who have a genuine need for a large vehicle with interior space and towing capacity.
Reply
Eric L. 3:08PM (4/07/2006)
Seriously, GM made a big hype about how its mileage rating was an accurate estimate of real world conditions....uhh....mixed driving gets the "city" rating and highway doesn't crack 20mpg, even running on 4 cylinders. So much for "real world ratings."
Oh and for the guy who thinks everyone who buys a vehicle has to tow a 6000lb trailer around city streets, the Pilot outhandles and outaccelerates the Tahoe, making it a better vehicle for most of the people out there, and 100% of the people who never tow more than a Uhaul trailer.
Reply
Richard Warren 4:21PM (4/07/2006)
"They're only persisting because the auto industry keeps pushing them on us."
You don't have to buy one you know, the fact is no company "pushes" a buyer into anything, the buyer buys it. Now, if you're saying that a lot of buyers a lemmings, well, I'd agree with that one.
Reply
rw 4:29PM (4/07/2006)
Tahoe is a great vehicle. good that should not get my post deleted.
Now on to the thread. "buyers a(re) lemmings" Only if they buy a Tahoe. If they drink the Toyota happy juice they are informed and green. Please get it correct. Limmings=Detroit
Informed/Green=Tokyo
Reply
jim newbery 4:37PM (4/07/2006)
The parking brake continues to be located just where the driver would place left foot when initially positioning themselves in the driver seat (62). The comment about the seats and the support offered but we know better than to ask such a thing of truck seats is exactly one of the issues with this unit. Tahoes are trucks only w/ respect to some chassis and suspension architecture. The interior is expected to be, and should be all about sedan comfort levels if not why the new dash/C stack etc?. Why a running board on a 4WD vehicle? Ride height is compromised. Also get out of the Tahoe in bad weather and see if you can clear the boards w/o getting crap all over your trouser leg. Nice effortwanted to buy onebut will wait to see next gen Sequoia.
Reply
Jeff 4:37PM (4/07/2006)
Hey Eric -
Can't say I see the validity of the argument there. You're faulting GM for its faulty mileage ratings, when the latest crop of hybrids have been proven (in numerous and documented instances) to have even more significant gaps between their estimated and real-world mileage ratings.
There's an ABC News report that states: "The Honda Civic sedan hybrid came up 46 percent short of the EPA mileage rating."
Read the full article here:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Autos/story?id=1274541
As for people choosing a Pilot over a Tahoe, I agree that most of your average consumers would be better served by the smaller vehicle. But if you need space and significant towing capacity, a full-size SUV is the only way to go.
Reply
Juan 5:20PM (4/07/2006)
First, let me start off by saying that I really like this vehicle. The interior is nice, there's plenty of room (at least in the first two rows), and the exterior styling is sweet. But, unless you really need this type of vehicle (that would be only 30% of the people who buy this) it should not be on the road.
My gripe is not with fuel economy or pollutants cause to be honest, we're gonna ruin this freakin world and hybrids or anything else using gasoline will not stop that. I'm sure someone will come up with something that will, but until then... My gripe is with safety. Sure, the people inside of the vehicle will probably be alright, but what about the people in your average mid-sized sedan? I just saw on the news a young pregnant woman was killed (including the baby) by a Dodge Durango while making a left turn in her Acura TL. And her husband is in critical condition.
That really breaks my heart. But great vehicle, though.
Reply
running boards? 7:28PM (4/07/2006)
Wow, complaining about running boards? People will complain about anything.
If you are talking about off road cred, note this vehicle has independent front suspension. And if you're worried about getting high centered front to back, you should be considering a vehicle which isn't stretched to do 3 rows. I feel the running boards are appropriate for this vehicle, given the other constraints.
Yeah, the Pilot is better for most people. But then again, most Pilot owners would be better off with a minivan or wagon anyway, so they shouldn't be turning up the high side in here.
I would never buy this vehicle because I don't need it. But that doesn't affect whether it is a good vehicle or not. And it does get good mpg for its class.
I don't get the description of the 4WD. This thing has part time full-time 4WD? That makes no sense. How about 2WD, 4WD auto (part-time), 4WD lock (hi) and 4WD lo? Note that no system which has a clutch pack from front to back (or indeed doesn't have a center diff) has true full-time AWD, even part-time full-time AWD. It's always 2WD with auto 4WD, because when that clutch pack releases, two wheels aren't driven.
Reply