MotorTrend 2008 Fullsize SUV Comparison Test

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Michael_S

On the other hand, it begs the question - if the Suburban is so good, why bother with the Tahoe?

The Tahoe is a trendy vehicle. It was spawned after the success of the S10 4dr Blazer. It used to be a trim level on the 2door K5. The short wheelbase is a bit easier to park than the much longer Suburban but the economy and performance is basically a wash. The ride is much worse than the Suburban, the room is less, everything is less. Suburban has always been more practical than Tahoe and has always been a vehicle people purchased for utility long before Tahoe ever existed or they were even called SUVs (remember the term 'carryall'?). I have a feeling Chevy will be down to Suburban for big utes 15 years from now.

I wouldn't buy a Tahoe as long as the Suburban exists, it offers no advantages. Suburban is in a class all of its own and remains the king of big SUVs.

Side aggravation point: Why in hell did motor trend use 0-60 as a measurement? If you want that buy a sports car. A big SUV is all about comfort, style and utility.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by 2003SCT

I hate Toyota and dont think that the Sequoia is particularly attractive however that acceleration time is pretty amazing for a 6,000 lb truck. Its AS quick as the regular truck....quicker in some cases. Almost nobody buys those on acceleration but wow. They really needed the 6.2 and 6 speed combo....it must jump the Tahoe into a markedly higher price point but it shouldnt....esp if the Sequoia gets the 5.7 /6 speed for anywhere near that price. THe 5.3 or the 6.2 should be cheaper to manufacture as well.


CHRIS

The LTZ gets the 6.2L

[pinyon]

I have driven the 4-speed in a GMT360 with the 4.2 and now the Avalanche with the 5.3. As far as hunting, it just has never been a issue for me. The only complaint I have is the gap between 2nd and 3rd when on a steep grade. As far as an everyday driver around town I find it a very good tranny and even though it's new, an not wanting for power in the Avalanche. I know it's a different application, but the 6-speed in my Aura has more issues, although these are more programming than hardware.

[stevecmh]

i cant believe they rated it last

get the new tranny in there..

did anyone notice that it is much cheaper than the rest

[Bvonscott]

What is wrong with motortrend? The Sequoia has the crappiest interior of the bunch. Why give the win? Because of the engine? Because its new? That engine has already proven to be unreliable.

And the Armada really blows my mind. Thta thing is a stinking POS. Most unreliable SUV on the road.

The Tahoe should have beaten them all. Simply based on looks alone, not to mention its other pluses. Ya it needs a six speed and better rear seats. IT's STILL BETTER! WTH?

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by F14CRAZY

How does a 4 speed auto hunt? It hardly has any gears to hunt through.

Wouldn't it be more fair if they tested a 6.0L Tahoe?

Motor Trend drives with its foot on the floor constantly reviewing every vehicle as if it were a BMW M3. And I own a GMT900 SUV, it does NOT hunt. Its lacking in power at 40mph due to gearing but that's it. It has plenty of passing power at 60mph. I have never had an issue with it gear searching while towing the fishing boat.

It would be far more balanced if they tested a more powerful Tahoe. The 5.3 competes with the 4.7L Sequoia.

What you have here is a case of sport car enthusiasts reviewing SUVs. What do you know, they picked the fastest one with the hardest suspension. But GM's 80% ownership of this market proves that people simply don't care about performance, find the GM economy attractive, and like the soft absorbent ride.

EDIT: Then there's reliability. The Chevy will be running years past when the Toyota blows a motor, the Nissan falls apart, and the Ford blows blue smoke out the tailpipe.

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by Olds88

I think sales volume agrees with me.

So you agree that the Camry outclasses the Malibu in every possible way then? And that the F-150 is a far better truck than the Silverado?

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by stevecmh

i cant believe they rated it last

get the new tranny in there..

did anyone notice that it is much cheaper than the rest

It was cheaper because that's what GM gave them to test.


And, yes, the 6.2L/6-speed would have helped in the accleration/tranny hunt issue they encountered, but that's it. Seeing as how the Denali and Escalade get significantly worse fuel economy than the 5.3L Tahoe, that portion of the test would have suffered. Beyond that, the live axle and 3rd row seating constraints would have remained. So would have the lack of steering feel.

The GMT900s, as many have said from the start, are half-baked. They're more like GMT850s.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Bvonscott

What is wrong with motortrend? The Sequoia has the crappiest interior of the bunch. Why give the win? Because of the engine? Because its new? That engine has already proven to be unreliable.

And the Armada really blows my mind. Thta thing is a stinking POS. Most unreliable SUV on the road.

The Tahoe should have beaten them all. Simply based on looks alone, not to mention its other pluses. Ya it needs a six speed and better rear seats. IT's STILL BETTER! WTH?

Sequoia got the win because its fast and has a really harsh suspension that reminds them of a BMW.

One of my friends worked for a rental place that had Armadas as their full-size utes. They were sending them in for suspension issues with <40k on them. Over half of them had oil leaks within one year of service. Nissan's V8 isn't much better than Toyota's POS.

[Buick61]

Originally Posted by stevecmh

What you have here is a case of sport car enthusiasts reviewing SUVs. What do you know, they picked the fastest one with the hardest suspension. But GM's 80% ownership of this market proves that people simply don't care about performance, find the GM economy attractive, and like the soft absorbent ride.

.

Um, sir, they liked the ride of the Tahoe.

Despite the Z71 package, the Tahoe provided an impressively compliant highway ride as well as a surprisingly hushed cockpit, even at near-tripledigit speeds.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Buick61

Um, sir, they liked the ride of the Tahoe.

My point was ride > performance in this type of vehicle. Their priorities were those of a sports car reviewer, not an SUV reviewer. The omission of Suburban in this test a glaring mistake.

[Vladimir1978]

Originally Posted by Olds88

My point was ride > performance in this type of vehicle. Their priorities were those of a sports car reviewer, not an SUV reviewer. The omission of Suburban in this test a glaring mistake.

You're going to have to make up your mind. It's like you're throwing every harebrained reason for the Tahoe coming in last against the wall, and hoping one of them sticks.

[Olds88]

Originally Posted by Vladimir1978

You're going to have to make up your mind. It's like you're throwing every harebrained reason for the Tahoe coming in last against the wall, and hoping one of them sticks.

I'm consistent in what I say.

Full-Size SUV Important traits in no particular order
Reliability
Room
Ride Quality
Towing
NVH
Interior Quality
Off road ability (ever pull something down a 2 rut road? you'll learn to like a live axle).

Tahoe is class leading in all but room (due to 3rd row issues) and towing (debatable since it can't tow the most, but it will do better than its competition on loads within its capacity thanks to the live axle and locking diff). Suburban is even better with roominess that only a full-size van can compete with and a soft ride that will embarrass a 7-series and S-class. None of the other motors can compete with the Chevy small block's reliability.

Not so important:
Performance
Fuel Economy --> This is rising in importance with consumers who still want a big ute, but want the most efficient one they can buy.
Handling

Now if you are really confused about what an SUV is for and want performance, the Tahoe LTZ offers more of it than any of its competition.

[ericmvest]

The Tundra has had problems with rough shifting. The shifting is so rough it was like going over rumble strips. Maybe they fixed this so it is not an issue with the new Sequoia, but it was one of the issues that kept the Tundra off Consumer Reports' recommended list. The Armada is made at Nissan’s Mississippi plant. This plant has had a terrible quality record. When this plant started all its products (Titan, Armada, and Quest) were worst in class in the JD Powers Initial Quality Survey. They sent teams of engineers from Japan to Nissan’s Mississippi plant to straighten out the problems. I am not so sure all of the problems have been straightened out.

[BigEnos]

FWIW I just bought an '08 Z71 Tahoe, it's fantastic. Would a 6-speed make it better? Yes. Is it a problem? No. I wouldn't do any serious towing with it, and it could handle a small boat or utility trailer with no problem. I've used the 3rd row seats and the occupants had not complaints. I love the 'burb, but the extra 20" in length would make parking and maneuvering in tight areas a chore. I have a 3/4 ton silverado also, and that thing is a PITA to park sometimes. My wife drives the 'hoe daily and loves it even more than her 330xi 5-speed that sadly was totalled back in January.

The looks of the toyota scared me off, the Expedition/Navigators are gutless and the interior is horrid. The Armada is just a lesser vehicle in most ways, but was probably my 2nd choice. The Tahoe is, IMHO, a quantum leap in front of all other SUVs, and I put our money where my mouth is on that!

My biggest complaint about the Tahoe was the buying experience, but that's another thread