[VetteZ06]

And I will be only too happy to eat my "probably"s after I've had more experience with the car. But I'm going to stick with my current analysis based on the current information.

Okay, so it's fine for YOU to make assumptions, but when the GM fans do the same, it's illogical and unreasonable.

Sounds good to me.

 

[ifcar]

Okay, so it's fine for YOU to make assumptions, but when the GM fans do the same, it's illogical and unreasonable.

Sounds good to me.

Can you refute what I've said about the two cars? Anything inherently wrong with my logic? I can tell you exactly what's wrong with the logic of saying everything based on specs, and find it particularly offensive where someone will discuss what OTHERS will say about the car with almost no information on the car itself.

And for the record, I would not consider a full-size SUV with an unacceptable third row seat to be best-in-class under almost any circumstance, and the new Tahoe still seems to have that flaw.

 

[paul8488]

Well this vehicle sure was hyped... and from a visual standpoint it's met the target. Looks incredible. Best looking interior in any truck I've ever seen pictures of. There may be troubles with the truck market as a whole, but GM appears to have prepared for a great fight, at least in the looks department.

 

[VetteZ06]

Can you refute what I've said about the two cars? Anything inherently wrong with my logic? I can tell you exactly what's wrong with the logic of saying everything based on specs, and find it particularly offensive where someone will discuss what OTHERS will say about the car with almost no information on the car itself.

And for the record, I would not consider a full-size SUV with an unacceptable third row seat to be best-in-class under almost any circumstance, and the new Tahoe still seems to have that flaw.

I don't need to refute anything when what you've said is, in your words, inherently wrong. You tell everyone else to wait until the Tahoe is driven and compared head-to-head with its competition, but then proceed to tell all of us that the Durango will likely end up being better anyway (based on your own opinion, nonetheless). That's just as bad as me saying the Tahoe will "probably" be best-in-class. Sorry, ifcar, but you're wrong.

As for the SUVs themselves, the Tahoe is looking like a formidable competitor. It has every feature (aside from the fold-flat third row) that current SUV buyers could want, and then some. It has improved fuel economy, more power across the board, hugely improved interior, and a snazzy new wrapper. GM clearly did its homework here (and anyone who expected something else was being unrealistic), so I'm expecting good things from the Tahoe. You just like being stubborn and obstinant when your "logical" approach is questioned by others. I fully realize that nothing can be said about the GMT-900s until a full test is conducted, but I also realize that what we've seen is extremely encouraging. My educated guess is no different from your own.

And, for the record, what you believe constitutes a best-in-class SUV does not dictate what others will think. The lack of a fold-flat third row like the Expedition is likely going to be overshadowed by everything else, and as I said before, it really won't be a dealbreaker. Plus, if you REALLY want a roomy third row, I have a feeling the Suburban will be a great choice.

 

[drew630]

anyone notice the gmc yukon pic up, the one talking about the acoustics package? atleast i would bet that is what the front end of them will look like

 

[toro83]

I'm still getting used to the new look... The new Tahoe just isn't instantly recognizable as a Chevy, the way the rest of the Chevy Truck line is. But, change is good. And the interior looks to be something for GM to be proud of. My only gripe as far as styling is with the shape of the windows in the front and rear doors. The back end and the windows for the 3rd-row/trunk all have a very hard-edged, crisp look, but the windows for the front and rear doors still have the same curvy look that the current Tahoe has. It just looks a little disjointed to me, I think it would have looked better if they carried the clean and crisp look throughout.

 

[CarwithSoul]

Can you refute what I've said about the two cars? Anything inherently wrong with my logic?

You're being hypocritical.

It seems like it's perfectly fine for you to make an assumption comparing the Tahoe (that YOU haven't driven) to the competition, but when others make an assumption regarding the Tahoe they're illogical?

I can tell you exactly what's wrong with the logic of saying everything based on specs, and find it particularly offensive where someone will discuss what OTHERS will say about the car with almost no information on the car itself.

HELLO. That's exactly what YOU'RE doing.

 

[BORG]

There are some huge functional problems with this vehicle reletive to some of the competition, largely the column shifter and the rear-seats. Otherwise it's a much better looking vehicle even it's has some substantive issues to overcome. Ford will have some advantages with it's '07 Expy while GM will have other advantages.

 

[camaro75]

Beautiful! GM shows they still got it, in terms of design and engineering. If you think the general is going away anytime soon think again.

 

[citric acid]

Am I the only one who hates it, at least from a visual perspective?

Interior nice, exterior a mess. Does not look as good as the old ones, and for all the apparent cancelling of platforms to get it on the market, they couldn't spring for new window glass that actually integrates well into the design. Lights are terrible and look cheap, the doors are a mess and the design doesn't look cohesive. A shame, the companys most important product is set to be the worst looking one.

But perhaps the Yukon will be better. The GMC version usually is - the Envoy being the clearest example of this.

 

[syr74]

I actually like the exterior of the truck, and IMO this area represents a serious improvement over the previous generation. Likewise, the interior looks to be a huge improvement over the previous generation as well. And, IMO, it looks like the interior has a slight edge styling-wise over the current Expedition. The very well integrated door panel design helps here.

However, I do think the current F-150 offers a more attractive interior when disussing the dash and door panel design. And, the spy shots thus far seen of the next Expy's interior look better to my eyes as well. (except for the next Expy's horrible steering wheel that is ...ugh) Quality and appearance of materials used and fit and finish are next to impossible to determine from a photo, so that facet of the interior will have to wait until I see one of these in person.

 

[Phillip]

Well this vehicle sure was hyped... and from a visual standpoint it's met the target. Looks incredible. Best looking interior in any truck I've ever seen pictures of. There may be troubles with the truck market as a whole, but GM appears to have prepared for a great fight, at least in the looks department.

If the past is any indication, the fundamentals and functionality will be present, too...

 

[VivienM]

There are some huge functional problems with this vehicle reletive to some of the competition, largely the column shifter and the rear-seats.

What's wrong with the column shifter? I suspect the critics have a problem more with bench seats (which don't seem to be in the pictures, if they're at all available) than with column shifters.

A column shifter is a far more efficient use of space than a floor shifter - might as well use the space on the floor for a storage area or something actually useful (and marketable).

(If you want to see proof for this... look at the 360s and the amount of space wasted by a floor shifter and hand-operated parking brake)

Not to mention... the main reason that the critics prefer the headlights-on-left/wipers-on-right/shifter-on-floor model is that they're familiar with it because their beloved Toyohondassanzdas all use it. A lot (probably most, given the lack of growth expected in this segment) of buyers of this thing will be owners of GMT-800s, who are already used to the so-called "quirks" of GM ergonomics. If anything, they'll have to get used to the wheel-mounted cruise control...
(As an example of this principle pushed to its logical conclusion, look at Mercedes-Benz... their cruise/parking brake/wiper/etc ergonomics are horrible and totally confusing for someone not used to them, but have been consistent across the product line for a long time, and it seems their loyal buyers are quite happy with that...)

 

[citric acid]

Not to mention... the main reason that the critics prefer the headlights-on-left/wipers-on-right/shifter-on-floor model is that they're familiar with it because their beloved Toyohondassanzdas all use it.

As a frequent driver of both domestic and japanese vehicles, I honestly believe they prefer that method because it's significantly better than the headlight controls on the dash method. The reason for that is because it is much nicer to not have to reach to turn on the headlights, and every vehicle I've driven where the headlight controls were on the dash they were akward to get at. But, in a vehicle with the headlight controls on a column stalk, the controls fall easily to hand and are simple to use. With an extensive amount of experience with both systems, it boggles the mind that someone would actually prefer having headlight controls on the dashboard - it makes less ergonomic sense. Why reach for something when you can have it fall easily to hand?

The console shifter is merely preferred because it allows for quick manual-style shifting in automatics. I personally don't care about this at all though, especially in an SUV.

 

[syr74]

Wow, I was initially impressed by the hp numbers, and while they still look good things are not quite what I had feared. I thought GM might slam the door in Ford's face in anticipation of the upcoming Expedition, Super Duty, and freshened 07 F-150....especially with rumoured 350hp 5.3L engines. However, Ford's 4.6L in the Mustang GT and new Explorer is really competitive with the 5.3L V-8's 320hp right now for the most part.

The full size Ford pickup currently has a little more weight to carry around than it's GM counterparts do, but the 4.6L is getting a hp bump sometime before 07 so this should even out a bit more than current numbers represent by then. The F-Series is also rumoured to be trimming up a bit for it's 07 refresh which really puts GM's hp lead in danger if Ford makes even small advances in the areas of hp and weight.

This was an area where Ford has shown some weakness for some time now, and GM didn't really capitalize on it they way they could have IMO. This really surprises me since I would think GM would really want any extra advantage they can get considering the new F-Series, and certainly upcoming F-Series based Expedition's, excellent dynamics they have to contend with.

 

[VivienM]

As a frequent driver of both domestic and japanese vehicles, I honestly believe they prefer that method because it's significantly better than the headlight controls on the dash method. The reason for that is because it is much nicer to not have to reach to turn on the headlights, and every vehicle I've driven where the headlight controls were on the dash they were akward to get at. But, in a vehicle with the headlight controls on a column stalk, the controls fall easily to hand and are simple to use. With an extensive amount of experience with both systems, it boggles the mind that someone would actually prefer having headlight controls on the dashboard - it makes less ergonomic sense. Why reach for something when you can have it fall easily to hand?

Who uses the headlight controls manually, these days? A lot of GM (at least) vehicles have pretty-****************-good automatic headlight systems...

For the record, a lot of Europeans (Saab, MB, for sure, maybe VW too) use headlights on the dash...

What do you think of what one might call the Bonneville/Tundra school of ergonomics, where you have a wiper stalk at the right of the wheel, along with a column shifter located right behind that wiper stalk? Is that too busy to be functional?

 

[CarwithSoul]

The reason for that is because it is much nicer to not have to reach to turn on the headlights, and every vehicle I've driven where the headlight controls were on the dash they were akward to get at......Why reach for something when you can have it fall easily to hand?

Either you're sitting too far away from the steering wheels or you have very short arms because you shouldn't be reaching for the headlight controls at all if they are on the dash. The difference b/w having it on a stalk and on the dashboard is the straightening of your arm from slightly bent to fully extended. To you that makes it awkward to get at?????

VWs and Audis are constantly praised for their ergonomics and they've had the headlight controls on the dash for a long time.

 

[citric acid]

Who uses the headlight controls manually, these days? A lot of GM (at least) vehicles have pretty-****************-good automatic headlight systems...

For the record, a lot of Europeans (Saab, MB, for sure, maybe VW too) use headlights on the dash...

What do you think of what one might call the Bonneville/Tundra school of ergonomics, where you have a wiper stalk at the right of the wheel, along with a column shifter located right behind that wiper stalk? Is that too busy to be functional?

First, if it has automatic headlights it doesn't matter either way, but none of the cars I drive do have automatic headlights, and I personally wouldn't go out of my way to get one either. Apart from that, having the headlight controls on the stalk is still more convenient and better ergonomically, you often don't even have to take your hand off the wheel.

About European manufacturers using the dashboard system, I don't care. It doesn't make it better.

Also, the two stalk system depends entirely on how the stalks are mounted. A standard Ford or GM column shifter is mounted and shaped in such a way it would not interfere with a shorter, closer column mounted stalk, being of a different shape and position. And, in that case, I'd be perfectly fine. So long as the stalks are not easily confused there is no probem.

And for the other post, it does depend on the car, but the dash mounted headlamps are always further away from the steering wheel, so by definition you're reaching. I'm not claiming I'm straining against the seatbelt, but it is more of a pain to reach dashboard mounted headlight controls, and I find them akwardly positioned on every vehicle I've driven that has had headlight controls there. The Tahoe looks no different, but I haven't driven it yet obviously so I can't say if it really is.

 

[Squachy]

looks good.

Interior looks a whole heckuva lot better than the old one.
IMO it actually looks a little TOO car like for it (its similar to the DTS/Impala/Lucerne interior). Not that thats a bad thing.

BTW Judging by the differences the impala/DTS/Lucerne have on their interiors im gonna bet the Escalade and GMC versions are gonna be similarly different. Not a simple badge job like the current ones, but nothing too different that you cannot see the similar overall interior shape.

 

[ifcar]

I don't need to refute anything when what you've said is, in your words, inherently wrong. You tell everyone else to wait until the Tahoe is driven and compared head-to-head with its competition, but then proceed to tell all of us that the Durango will likely end up being better anyway (based on your own opinion, nonetheless). That's just as bad as me saying the Tahoe will "probably" be best-in-class. Sorry, ifcar, but you're wrong.

As for the SUVs themselves, the Tahoe is looking like a formidable competitor. It has every feature (aside from the fold-flat third row) that current SUV buyers could want, and then some. It has improved fuel economy, more power across the board, hugely improved interior, and a snazzy new wrapper. GM clearly did its homework here (and anyone who expected something else was being unrealistic), so I'm expecting good things from the Tahoe. You just like being stubborn and obstinant when your "logical" approach is questioned by others. I fully realize that nothing can be said about the GMT-900s until a full test is conducted, but I also realize that what we've seen is extremely encouraging. My educated guess is no different from your own.

And, for the record, what you believe constitutes a best-in-class SUV does not dictate what others will think. The lack of a fold-flat third row like the Expedition is likely going to be overshadowed by everything else, and as I said before, it really won't be a dealbreaker. Plus, if you REALLY want a roomy third row, I have a feeling the Suburban will be a great choice.

The difference is that I am using information/speculatation that no one is refuting, and using that to hypothesize about which vehicle will be the best. Certainly a far cry better than simply regurgitating GM's viewpoints.

And it isn't the fact that the third row doesn't fold that disturbs me. Much more importantly, it appears to remain inhospitable to adults.

That said, I do have higher hopes for the Suburban, for its greater space. I hope it isn't priced out of its market.