By on September 12, 2013

IMG_6432

Any minute now, GM will be taking the wraps off the 2015 GMC Yukon and Chevrolet Suburban. For now, we’ve got some press shots to keep you held over. The big news so far appears to be GMC’s pushing of the Denali model as an upscale alternative to the normal Yukon and Suburban trims. Denalis get a nicer interior as well as a 6.2L V8 making 420 hp and 460 lb-ft of torque. The other models get the standard 5.3L version. More info to follow.

IMG_6456

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

150 Comments on “2015 GM Full-Size SUVs Revealed...”


  • avatar
    davefromcalgary

    Those headlights are supremely unattractive to my eyes.

    • 0 avatar
      Hank

      It’s like they got it right, then said, “How can we self-sabotage this?”

      • 0 avatar
        Detroit-X

        Hank:
        I love GM’s current entries in this segment, and I agree with you.

        So here we start another generation of GM Big Stuff…

        I call the 2007-2013 Suburban styling very nice, but I’m disappointed with the 2015s. The grill is just cartoonish/too big, the headlights look like they were drawn while someone was on crack and twerking, and 20 and 22″ wheels? Jesus! Please. Me don’ wanna be pimpin, got it Welburn? Nor do I want to pay out the noise for tire replacements, or suffering the poor handling, shuddering ride, and tread noise they cause. Oh yeah, the excess weight, too.

        As for the interior, I long for truck styling,’ not this car-like stuff. “Car-like”, what GM consensus-bot thought that up? “People are running away from cars, to trucks, so we must make trucks into cars??” Huh?

        To spend 2X/3X more than a basic car, I demand big comfortable seats, front and rear, not too close to the floor (Lamba SUVs suck in this regard, and the new pickups’ rear seat have gotten lower into the danger-zone, too). A large console is nice if it has usable storage, but for 2015 it appears that they have gotten too large (to fit Welburn’s head?). And I want the 3-across front seat back. Versatility.

        Maybe I’m too practical, but Magnetic Ride Control? Just look up the replacement shocks for that compared to conventional.

        All the minuscule “EPA MPG improvement powertrain gimmicks” that cost $500+ per visit to fix? No thanks. Stop-start someday? Don’t you dare. Someone with the balls in GM to do it, take a stand, please.

        The computer in a dashboard/touchscreen junk? Hell no at 5X-10X the price, and 1/3 the speed of an add-on GPS unit.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m guessing the Escalade will look like a bigger version of the XTS.

      You say that this looks unnatractive, but I will say that it looks more “Murican” than the new Cherokee.

      • 0 avatar
        davefromcalgary

        Take your absolute favorite vehicle from an aesthetics point of view. That is how much better this Suburban looks than the Cherokee to me. That being said, I am not much caring for the look of the Suburban and Yukon/Denali shown here.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        It’s right here…

        http://www.autocars2015.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2014-Cadillac-Escalade4.jpg

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Doesn’t too bad, I don’t love it but I won’t jihad against it.

        • 0 avatar
          whynot

          That is a speculative rendering way back from January:

          http://www.carscoops.com/2013/01/future-cars-gm-upcoming-2014-cadillac.html

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            But we now know what the the GM full sized SUVs look like so the Escalade is going to look like them. Out of all the speculative drawings I’ve seen, this one looks like the SUVs pictured above. Do you think it will vary wildly from what we’re looking at here?

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Here’s one of the Denali, which is about as close to an Escalade then any of them…

            http://www.carscoops.com/2013/09/gm-big-daddy-suvs-2015-chevrolet-tahoe.html

    • 0 avatar
      Featherston

      @ davefromcalgary – agreed. That salient of sheetmetal reminds me of a skin tag hanging off an eyelid. The recently refreshed Scion tC has this detail also; apparently it’s the next big thing.

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      They do rather badly mar an otherwise clean, cohesive, logical design. They also remind me of the Nissan Maxima and 370Z, which have nearly identical “notches” cut into their headlamps at the seam between the fender and front bumper.

    • 0 avatar
      billfrombuckhead

      I guess we can now call the “deathwatch’ officially over. Bad day for GM haters.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        “Bad day for GM haters”

        Not really. The front end of these things simultaneously provide ammunition and entertainment to anyone who wants to poke at GM. Who the hell penned those headlights and grill? Who approved them?

    • 0 avatar
      Type57SC

      Agreed. It’s one part Nissan Elgrand (without the flow) and one part stacked headlight from Vacation.

    • 0 avatar
      bkmurph

      Meh, the Suburban’s headlights are no worse than the ones Nissan has on the 370Z, Maxima, etc.

  • avatar
    cwallace

    I’m surprised they so obviously used the Ford Flex as a benchmark.

    • 0 avatar
      OldandSlow

      That ain’t no Flex under the sheet metal. With exception of the interior, it’s definitely a truck build.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      But without the Flex’s space efficiency.

      Still colossally huge on the outside and only moderately big on the inside.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        I’m going to doubt the interior is as nice as the Flex’s as well. I’ll believe it when I see it, but even the Acadia and Enclave are shamed by the Flex’s interior. The Flex shames them in many other ways, but that’s a big one.

        • 0 avatar
          cognoscenti

          Apparently, sales isn’t one of them.
          YTD sales, as of July 2013:

          Acadia: 54,056
          Enclave: 36,804
          Traverse: 60,910

          Flex: 15,525

          From http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/08/usa-midsize-suv-crossover-sales-figures-july-2013-ytd.html

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            If you want volume, see Explorer. The Explorer and Flex together move about the same amount of volume the Lambda triplets.

            If you told me I could have any of those vehicles, the Flex would be first on my list. It isn’t even close. Unfortunetly, it isn’t the best seller for a number of reasons. Pricing, styling, the existince of the Explorer, etc. Now that the Explorer has the 3.5EB for 2013, Flex sales are down.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I see a hint of the Ford Expedition in the title image.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    The really big news would be if they found a way to make a yacht-sized vehicle on the outside not feel as cramped as a phone booth on the inside.

    • 0 avatar
      Hank

      No kidding. Twice the size of a (not so)mini van on the outside, 2/3′s the legroom, hiproom, and breathing space. I’ve been in compact car rear seats with better room and more airy interiors. Suburbans are great vehicles for size when it come to ride and drive, but the space utilization just plain stinks compared to other classes.

      • 0 avatar
        Kyree S. Williams

        I think that this has a lot to do with the secure feeling that large vehicles are supposed to provide. A giant SUV that doesn’t have two whole feet of insulation between the outer body panels and the interior starts to feel flimsy and vulnerable rather than tough and meaty. This, high ground clearance, wide center consoles, high belt-lines and thick roof pillars are all techniques to make us feel like our vehicles are brawnier than they actually are.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        Twice the size of a minivan? What minivan is that? At our old house you would never park a minivan where my wife kept her Tahoe and shut the garge door. You also wouldn’t tow what we have with our and make it back home. Hank have you ever actually sat or ridden in one of these things or are you just going off pictures you have looked at on the net?……….LOL

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Yes, I’m always amazed that these things are smaller inside than my former xB1, although safer I guess.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    My, my must all of these vehicles with a large, wide interior have a center console so wide that it crowds my right leg?

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Gosh the interiors have come a long way in 10 years. But then again for what they ask (and get) for these, they always needed a nicer interior!

    Is this the first time Denali is seen on the steering wheel rather than GMC? I’m not too familiar with the Denali trims. However, seeing it on the steering wheel, I can picture Denali as a separate, upscale brand…

    And the fronts are now ugly and less dignified than previously. This isn’t a good redesign!

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Actually, the outgoing Sierra and Yukon Denali models have circular steering-wheel badges with “Denali” rather than “GMC” in them. This was also true for the Acadia Denali until the 2013 refresh for the Lambdas, when they reused the same airbag covers, but embossed the logos like you see here instead of using the circular printed pieces. I don’t know about the Terrain Denali; it probably just has the standard GMC insignia.

      As for your comment about the front ends of the vehicles, I always thought that the front fascia of the 2007-2013 Yukon (Denali or not) looked hideous, while the Suburban and Tahoe looked classy and muscular. This time it’s the other way around. Those tacky headlamps make the Suburban and Tahoe look ridiculous.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Hmm, it does say Denali in the Terrain.

        http://image.motortrend.com/f/auto_shows/new_york/2012/1204_2012_new_york_2013_gmc_terrain_denali/37305736/2013-GMC-Terrain-Denali-interior.jpg

        I think it warrants its own brand. With Denali on the front. I usually like the Denali versions much better than the regular ones. With the exception of the Acadia Denali which just looks ridiculous.

      • 0 avatar
        Type57SC

        I really liked the old Sub/Tahoe lights and grill too.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    Any word on dimensions, weights, capacities, fuel economy, etc?

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    This would be the first time for the GM truck-based-SUVs to have fixed windows on the rear doors. I suppose the squarish design kind of constituted those windows if they didn’t want these new trucks to look like reincarnations of the first-gen GMT-4XX series (1992-1999).

  • avatar
    xflowgolf

    The GMC headlights look like they’ll carry over to the Cadillac model. They have the same ATS/CTS-esque drawback style.

    I think the GMC looks pretty sharp.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Right. I also think that the concave creases in the sides will really look good on the Escalade (especially since the XTS also has them). These new body-styles strike me as having been designed for Cadillac and them ported down to the Chevy and GMC brands…which seems like the right way to go about things. I’m also eager to see Ford’s new Navigator and Expedition (which will surely reflect all that they’ve learned about great interior design lately)

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The new Navi/Expedition will be sweet. They need to be in order to catch up in sales to the GM full sizers. It doesn’t help that Ford didn’t give them the F-150 engines when the F-series was revised. The interiors seem unchanged from the mid 2000s as well.

        The Navi is going with the 3.5 and the Expedition with the 5.0. All aluminum body and eventually a 10 speed transmission. The Chevy trucks and SUVs should get 10 speed jointly developed transmission too.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    The random headlight cutout looks effing STUPID.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Why does GM insist on locating the antenna(s) on the leading edge of the roof, directly over the driver? I see this on so many of their SUVs. The worst is when you see one optioned with XM Radio. Then you have an ugly primed black square blob next to the primed black shark fin antenna. Looks like tumors or something.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      It’s in the front because it saves twelve cents’ worth of coaxial cable. It’s black because it saves GM $4/year to stock it in black only versus stocking color-matced parts.

      I agree, it looks like the vehicle has a zit on its forehead.

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        Well, I guess I never considered that these antennae are most likely used on all variants of GM BOF vehicles. That’s a lot of variants. It standardizes the antenna position across ALL models – with or without beds, with or without sunroofs, all cab sizes, etc.

        Still, I think they could have done a better job.

      • 0 avatar

        Yuck. Hadn’t seen it ’cause quite honestly these things just don’t interest me enough. But your talk made me curious and I went looking for it. Yeah there are other things to be worried about, but boy oh boy is that badly followed through or what?

  • avatar
    thegamper

    There may be many upgrades and new features on these vehicles, but only few visual cues are visible to my eyes. I hope there are significant fuel economy gains, weight savings or tech upgrades, because I dont see any reason for most owners of GM’s full sized utes to upgrade.

    At some level though, I see GM and probably Ford’s full sized body on frame SUV’s to become like the panther that soldiered on for decades with upgrades over the years in an attempt to keep it current. I dont think this segment is ever coming back, it will continue to shrink and really all they need to do is keep the die hard customers/fans happy with something new since there are really few apples to apples alternatives to these vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      Well, that may be so, but we haven’t quite reached that point yet. GM could have pulled a Ford and kept the same basic bodies and platform, with some new chrome and a few nicer tech-bits (which is essentially what they did with the Lambda crossovers), but these new full-sizers are on a brand-new platform with brand-new bodies that look *way* different, powered by brand-new engines (albeit with the same displacement numbers) and brand-new interfaces. These aren’t some warmed-over, half-baked redesigns; they are new in every sense of the word. This is a redesign as valid as, say, that of the 2011 Elantra in comparison to its predecessor. And, when GM has very little competition in this arena and giant profit-margins on the outgoing models, I applaud them for being so thorough instead of resting on their laurels as they might once have done.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        GM does dominate this segment with 74% share. They say this product line would be a fortune 400 company with 125,000 units generating $6B in sales revenue.

        It is not that others don’t TRY to compete, Ford, Toyota, Nissan have entries. They just can’t sell many of them.

        General Motors today is a completely different company. Low debt, plenty of cash and they are setting new benchmarks for quality. Don’t mistake historic capital constraints with “resting on laurels”.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          I would argue that Ford basically stopped trying to compete with GM in this segment. When the next F-150 comes out, the Ford SUVs will be two generations behind it. Ford had little focus on these products besides selling to repeat customers at a profit. It is yet to be seen if they can be competitive with GM in this segment again. However, the new products, following the cues of the next F-150, should be the best competition GM has had in awhile.

  • avatar
    carguy

    The interior of the Tahoe and Suburban looks like a big improvement from the current model and the exterior has been kept free of the ugliness that is afflicting competitors like the QX56. I am generally not an SUV guy but a black Tahoe with the funky brown leather interior as shown in the launch photos sure would look good to me.

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    That’s the kind of vehicle that makes me yell Team America, Fuck Yeah!

    I want to live in that interior.

    Nice going, GMC.

  • avatar
    kkop

    I normally find that the GMC versions of GM’s trucks and SUVs look better than their Chevy siblings. For this generation I have to say the opposite is true. I like the headlight cutout, looks pretty good. GMC is trying too hard here IMO.

    The comments about it looking like a Flex would be valid…. if you lowered it by 5 inches, raise the beltline and painted the roof white. But then, the Flex looks like a Mini on steroids, so now everyone’s related to everyone else :-p Of course the Flex’s interior is even more cramped.

    As far as gas mileage: they use a lot less than a Ferrari and carry many more people and much more gear. Seems like a sensible choice.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Why are these being divided so far apart from the trucks? Can you even put the new silverado front end onto the new suburban?
    No wonder people say the segment is dying, they don’t exist, can’t even Stand on that bumper without it caving in or getting scratched.
    I was really hoping they would pull through for SUV buyers.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      The interiors are a lot more distinguished than those of the outgoing SUVs versus their truck brethren, but the exteriors and some of the constructions of the SUVs were always apart from the pickups. The 2007-13 SUVs also had flimsy front bumpers that you couldn’t stand on. And before anyone makes this argument, remember that the Avalanche really *was* a Suburban with a pickup bed. It was not a Silverado with a Suburban’s front-end.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        And that is my point, I dislike the separation of the truck and SUVs.
        Think- GMT400 you could change the doors, the fenders, all forward interior bits cross matched the trucks and SUVs
        Everything in the engine bay, an obviously frame drivetrain and steering/suspension were direct fits.

        Now we get this, 80% of the stuff on that body and interior won’t work in the trucks.

        Therefore they no longer possess what made SUVs, SUVs.
        Look at the outgoing 2500 suburban, what a joke that thing was, it barely outperformed the 1500, an even the 1500 suburban didn’t match the 1500 silverado.
        At least the GMT800 suburban had the 8.1 which for a while offered more torque then the duramax.

        Instead we’re worried about fuel economy, which is nonsensible SUV=/=CUV

  • avatar
    84Cressida

    They should’ve just put the new engines and interior into the current bodies. These new ones look weird, like the Ford Flex.

  • avatar
    SayMyName

    The C-pillar angle and rear window treatment look too harsh, which contributes a lot to the slab-sided appearance. I miss the rounded contours of the previous generations.

    Surprisingly enough, that’s really my only criticism. Seems like a logical update.

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    ***YAWN***

    But seriously, woe be the man whose pulse rate quickens in reaction to ANYTHING displayed here.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It would be nice to see more diesels in the full size 1/2 ton pickups.

    I do remember reading an article where Caddy was considering reworking the 2.8 4 cylinder diesel from the Colorado for inclusion into a Caddy.

    Ford should also look at thee 3.2 Duratorque for the F-150s, nice engine.

    This engine would be nice, it would also improve FE considerably. It would make for a nice work/communter vehicle and retain the large pickup.

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    Why square wheel wells?

    Why?

  • avatar
    TMA1

    I’m not sure if that console is wide enough to cut off all the circulation in my right leg. That’s what they’re going for, right?

  • avatar
    klossfam

    Me thinks the designers got a little too Nissan Maxima with the headlights on the Tahoe. Still, they’ll sell ‘em to the people that always buy them and the few that actually need them for towing, etc.

    It is getting tough to have vehicles like this if you go into major cities. In Toronto you have a several parking lots that say ‘No trucks’ and in tight parking ramps at hotels, etc; forget about it…

    Regardless, there will always be a market for full size body on frame SUVs…especially with improvements in V8 efficiency.

  • avatar
    gkhize

    I had some serious reservations about what these would look like based on my dislike for the front end treatments on the new Silverado and Sierra, and they certainly proved out. The Yukon looks better than the Tahoe but that’s not saying much. Was not a huge fan of the 07-13 Yukon front end although I currently have a Denali version in my garage. Other features convinced my to buy the GMC so maybe the features of the new generation will overcome their ugly looks with useablity. Of course using that logic AMC should have sold a lot more Pacers too.

    Agree with the comments that it carries a lot of F150 and Flex cues.

  • avatar
    Numbers_Matching

    No diesel – No deal.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      It baffles me why GM refuses to offer a diesel in the Suburban and Yukon XL. The kind of people who buy such vehicles often use them for towing boats and campers anyway, and so would greatly appreciate the fat torque and somewhat better fuel economy, while the vehicles are expensive enough as is that the extra cost of the diesel engine isn’t going to break you. Pretty sure a well loaded Suburban is at least 50k.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “Pretty sure a well loaded Suburban is at least 50k.”

        It tops out just a hair under 70k believe it or not. The basic 2WD models start at around 45.

        • 0 avatar
          NoGoYo

          Jesus F**k! No wonder my uncle hasn’t seen any need to upgrade from his current GMT800 Suburban (which was an upgrade from his 1995 Suburban).

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Tahoe 4WD starts in the mid 40s goes up to 58 for LTZ. Suburban LS 4WD starts high 40s to just over 60 for the LTZ according to Truecar.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            By checking all the option boxes, I was able to get it to 68 and change.

          • 0 avatar
            crtfour

            That’s crazy. For that money I’d go buy an LR4 and have 10k left over. Plus you get:
            1) a vehicle that is unique
            2) a fridge in the center console
            3) 3rd row seats that you don’t have to haul out 1980′s style.

  • avatar
    Dan

    After seeing the new trucks I figured they’d overdo it on the SUV styling too but outside of the ridiculous headlight treatment this is still fairly conservative. I’m glad GM didn’t copy the chrome lower from the Silverado, black plastic will scrape and snap off too but at least it doesn’t draw the eye as badly.

    I really dislike the massive center console, higher cowl line, huge A-pillars, etc. That interior looks positively cramped.

    I’d buy the current model over this one and I wouldn’t have to think about it very hard either.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Meh, I prefer the looks of the current ones. I can’t think of a compelling reason to buy a new one over a one or two year old one.

  • avatar
    Skink

    This abortion with its double-Explorer headlight eyelids looks like the vehicle the movie studio would slap together for the next ‘Vacation’ movie. A Family Truckster rolling joke. The outgoing Suburban is arguably graceful and of a piece. This thing is one hot mess, all the way around. Breathtaking.

  • avatar
    segfault

    Looks bigger and uglier than the current models.

  • avatar
    Skink

    With its thick A-pillars and doors, this is just the thing for those who wannabe driving the president’s Beast.

  • avatar
    Type57SC

    Aaaand a big sigh of relief is exhaled in Dearborn…

    The GMC one looks quite a bit better in the front end, and the Chevy one worse. An updated interior and a few MPG are not likely to set the sales charts on fire. The sharp corner at the top of the rear door reminds me of the unfinished look of the 2004 Malibu. Did the designers not have time to finish surfacing the car?

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The contours of the body combined with those lights make it look taller than it really is. I am curious if mpg will be comparable to the Silverado. These vehicles have become less and less truck like over time. One cannot get a transfer case with hi and lo range. You can’t even get one in a 3/4 ton configuration any more. As Big Al from Oz pointed out, these things are dying for a diesel engine. GMC’s hybrid Tahoe and Silverado were a joke. A diesel would out tow, out haul, cost less and get comparable mpg or better mpg.

    They should of went with the same snout as the Sierra. When the GMT900′s came out, they should of had the nose of the big SUV’s, now the opposite has happened.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Lou_BC- If you really cared about economy, the hybrid would be a great choice,would cost you about the same to operate in the city as a Camry 4 cylinder. They are much more efficient than the diesel in the city, and better on the highway as well. With higher cost of Diesel in US, the Hybrid is the clear winner.

      These are primarily passenger vehicles with adequate towing capability for recreational purposes, but GM is reportedly planning 3/4 ton versions.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        @DocOlds
        How can a subsidised vehicle be good for the economy? Really, mate.

        Tax the consumer to sell for less? Good economics.

        Hybrids are less efficient and more polluting than a diesel.

        Diesel will be the future. As you claim to be an engineer you do know that diesel still can be exploited to make significant gains.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          @BAFO The Hybrid is NOT subsidized by government, but internally by General Motors, who sell this vehicle at substantial loss. No taxes involved on this one!

          An Aussie has not business lecturing anyone on auto subsidies, btw!

          The fact remains, the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade hybrids offer better fuel economy than a diesel which can provide similar power. The hybrid thus offers lower cost per mile of operation for typical use.

          Don’t misunderstand, I like diesels, understand their inherent thermodynamic efficiency on top of higher energy content in the fuel.

          I also know how much more expensive diesel fuel is today, in American, anyway. It is not a compelling alternative if you desire the best possible fuel economy in suburban use. A diesel would be better on the expressway, but not enough to pay for the higher cost of fuel.
          The higher cost of the diesel engine and exhaust after treatment further detracts from the business case for diesel.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Since when was high and low transfer case and 3/4 variety canceled? I agree the 3/4 is neutered but it does exist.

      • 0 avatar
        Carlson Fan

        What the 3/4 ton is nuetered because you can’t get the 8.1 in it anymore? Is that your thinking? it’s still a truck w/8 lug wheels and everything else that comes along with it which can competently tow close to 5 tons. You really don’t make a lot sense sometimes.

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          It’s neutered because it can hardly tow more than a 1500 suburban, ignoring the more sensible 8.1l, have you seem the tow numbers comparing the suburban 1500&2500 an the silverado 1500&2500?

          They have the market cornered for 3/4 SUVs and this is their best they can do?
          The 6.0 is that weak.

          Would people buy the 2500 trucks if they could only tow 10k? Hell the 1500 can tow more than that.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            I don’t put too much stock in tow ratings as they are generally born in the marketing, not engineering departments. My ’04 GMC 2500HD w/6.0 gas isn’t even rated for 10K. But the reality is it will handle 10K better than any 1/2 ton rated for the same weight with better reliability.

            The 3/4 ton burb still gives you a bigger engine with better low end grunt, just what you need for moving heavy loads. A stouter transmission and stronger chassis. Your pulling close to 10K down the road the 3/4 ton is going to handle it a lot better than a 1/2 ton, regardless of the tow ratings.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    Well, this certainly knocks the refreshed Tundra off the podium of Ugliest Mug on a Full Size Rig.

    Shame, too, I like the styling of the current Tahoe/Suburban.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    The headlight treatment could be a little better, but other than that, very very nice.

    Interesting on all the hate for the looks in the above posts. Myself, being a big fan of Toyota and Honda styling, this styling seems to hit the same conservative spot. Makes me wonder if those that disapprove of this new styling also disapprove of Toyota and Honda styling. I think GM has gotten Toyota smart and keep it very conservative.

    Unlike over the top Ford styling, this GM styling should age well.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I love them. The return of (virtually) full-width grilles thrills me very much! I see very little wrong with the styling on these.

    Call me a fan-boy if you wish, but the General is producing some fine vehicles these days, and I couldn’t be happier about that.

    It’s about time, too, especially for them. Maybe they can win back market share. They need to.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    The Yukon is the more coherent styling exercise of the two. The headlights and grille of the Chevy twins is just too busy.

    I’ve driven GM pickups for years and with the column shifter and front bench seat, there was plenty of room for your legs up front. But with their SUVs, GM thinks that it’s necessary to only make them with a center console which bangs up against tall drivers’ legs.

    The interiors look refreshingly 21st century instead of the catch up games of interior design GM has been playing over the last few decades.

    I hope that the 2500 HD Suburban ins’t dead with this new generation, tho.

  • avatar
    crtfour

    Looks pretty good except for the headlight “kink” on the Chevy. It reminds me of Nissan headlights and tail lights, which I don’t like.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Ok, my bad, they still make a 3/4 ton Suburban. I haven’t seen one in years. As far as the lack of hi/lo T case, again, I haven’t seen a new one with it.
    It is an option, why?
    Isn’t this supposed to be “truck like”?

    The 6.0 is an engine that should be killed off.

    @DoctorOlds – If one reads any test of any GMC pickup with the hybrid system, it sucks fuel on the highway under load(remember that GMC brainlessly paired the super efficient 6.0 with the hybrid system). 23 mpg highway, the 5.3 is just as efficient. It has piss poor towing capacity at 6,100 lb. Any compact truck with a V6 can tow that. Around town mpg is its only strong point but not at its asking price. It doesn’t really matter now since GMC will stop making them. The odds are, the large SUV’s with it will have it phased out too.
    A small diesel is a much better choice.

    • 0 avatar
      doctor olds

      @Lou_BC- You are correct that the Hybrid’s advantage just about disappears on the highway, and also that the cost of such a system, despite GM subsidizing it at a huge loss, is still too high to achieve many sales. I can agree that I would like to see the great 4.5L Diesel V8 GM showed back in 2008 released in these vehicles.

      Diesels have their own cost problems, particularly with the after treatment necessary to comply with US emissions requirements today.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I have yet to find a single suburban or Tahoe that didnt have a high low transfer case. (Obviously with optional 4wd)
      And new 3/4 suburban aren’t that rare, you can tell them apart from the rims, saw one yesterday in fact.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Hummer – I’m from Northern Canada. Crew Cab 1/2 ton pickups are the full sized SUV of choice. There are tons of small and mid sized SUV’s around. The soccer mom minivan stigma reaches up here too so everyone has “crossed over” to SUV’s. Big SUV’s aren’t all that common since they’ve become too car like. People like the rugged image of pickups even though many don’t know how or when to use a transfer case. Too many people haul air in their pickups. Diesel Excursions were common while Ford made them. I see more Tahoe’s around than the Suburban. There are a few Hummers around and I’ve only seen two that actually looked like they had ever seen off road use. Both were H1′s of which 1 was army surplus.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      This again is the point I’m trying to make, the suburban and Tahoe are becoming useless because of the downward designs.
      Clearly they sold well when they were truck like, and clearly their popularity has dropped off since the minivan esque interior and its abilities taken away, heck they have plastic for bumpers now. The lowered sales numbers of the current body style is clear indication that people dont want the design of these vehicles, but now we have no other available choices, so people move to trucks that at least still possess the ability to work even without the capacity for people.

      GM obviously has made no attempt to recapture this segment, instead it will continue this way, the Tahoe will eventually be cancelled, the suburban will be downsized but kept for the fact it is the oldest continuous model made. I believe this will happen within 10 years, GM has had so much opportunity to capture the excursion and full size SUV market, but offers a product with no compelling reason to buy other then the fact it’s not as bad as fords offerings.

      If they had competition this wouldn’t be a problem because they would have to offer a better vehicle at less than insane pricing, instead they now have a realistic monopoly and they get the last laugh when someone pays $900 to get a frot bench rather than bucket seats with a center console.

      • 0 avatar
        doctor olds

        @Hummer- GM absolutely dominates the segment, but it is not because other don’t try to compete, as I wrote. GM makes a huge amount of money on these and have no intention of abandoning the segment! They, like every single carmaker, are in the business of making money.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Hummer – my apologies, I misunderstood your comments. SUV’s and pickups have replaced the land yachts of the late 60′s and early 70′s. Making them car like to appeal to more people seems to have worked with pickups but has failed miserably with the large SUV.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      I suggest you look at recent sales figures for all the GM variants of the full-size BOF SUVs before making such a comment “like failed miserably” You will also want to check out the competition for comparison. And I’ll clue you in that any Tahoe or Yukon w/ 4WD has a transfer case with low and high range. That’s the only way they come. Period! Maybe your confused with the AWD Caddy and Denali which lack the

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        I can’t say I don’t disagree with them “failing miserably”
        I just did look at the sales numbers, there terrible both the Tahoe and suburban sales dropping about 40% each in 08. Can’t really blame on the economy because they have continued to fall, the 400s and 800s sold much better, they were also based off of the trucks.

        I’ll bet people in Alberta would equate taking one of these into the oil sands to taking a VW out there.
        I’ve driven a ’11 suburban with every option available, its like driving a CUV, what I would expect from caddy, not Chevy. How many companies can spend 40k to have greasy men throw greasy tools into the back of a carpeted truck and then sit on cloth seats as they try to fiddle with the (about to be only option) touch screen. That is what these vehicles are used for by many companies.
        Also I just read something I was unaware of, the Toyota sequoia can tow as much as the 3/4 suburban.

        Edit: and really the only competition (if you can call it that being it has IRS) is the expedition, which doesn’t even attempt.

        • 0 avatar
          doctor olds

          The whole segment has shrunk. The GM twins sell three times as many units as all others combined: Ford Expedition, Toyota Sequoia and Nissan Armada. GM rules the segment and they are making lots of money on them.

          As Chevrolet pointed out when cancelling the Avalanche- it virtually made the 4 door pickup segment, which is huge today.

          That vehicle is the choice for work. The SUVs are passenger vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Come on, a size able number of suburbans are bought by contractors, power companies, DMV, etc.
            These are without a doubt work vehicles, no other type of vehicle can match what they do.
            How are we not to say the segment shrunk from styling, pricing, over optioning (or under optioning) and lack of performance?

            GM also made the CUV segment which has also become massive, with the intention of a passenger vehicle, so they created this segment and still felt inclined to screw with the SUVs.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer- I agree with your comment about the capability of these vehicles, which is improved with this latest iteration.

            The point is, other makers have entries in the segment, and GM still dominates. If there is the demand you imagine for a vinyl trimmed work Suburban type vehicle- why do you suppose no other manufacturer is rushing to fill it?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I believe it’s like work trucks, std cab long bed with no options but a/c and a radio.
            People buy them because their cheap and they need the utility, but unfortunately the manufacturer doesn’t get to make the premium of the 4 door z71 with the 20 in chrome rims and all the options.

            Plus can you see a Work grade sequoia? The only current SUV with a work heritage is the suburban, other manufactures aren’t going to rush into a segment they don’t have the ability to compete. In this case heritage and cheapess, a 5.3 w/o cyclinder deactivation is much cheaper than a DOHC in a sequoia.

            If I was in charge of large platform sales at Toyota I can’t say I would want to touch that buyer pool, those are the same people who buy trucks, they trust domestic for work vehicles, I’ve seen one non domestic work truck ever, a Titan.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer- If not Toyota, why not Ford, Chrysler, Nissan?

            I’ve noticed most dealers seem to stock very few work trucks. That suggests, as data confirms, very low sales of stripped trucks.

            Why would makers want to serve a market slice at lower profit? The answer is evident. They don’t.

            btw-cylinder deactivation on a small block is very inexpensive. at one point, the small block was about $600 less cost to produce than a SOHC Ford truck engine. It is a lot less expensive than the Toyota V8, I would expect, even with Direct Injection. It is not cheap, though. Inexpensive, but not cheap.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I suppose I answered my own question on the viability of a “cheap base model suburban”. To which I can only respond, why are they allowing costs to get so high to begin with…

            And you can never convince me that cyclinder deactivation isn’t a waste of money, aside from questions regarding how to turn off the feature flooding forums, I’ve had my own personal experience with it, without a doubt cannot muster the respect of a normal LSx SBC.
            The 2011 suburban with every feature I wrote about above, is one of our “work” trucks ( can’t call it hipocrasy because I don’t expect other companies to be able to throw around a 65k truck on non-roads) but that engine has been a massive pia, as have every 5.3 w/t (most 2010 with a couple 2011).
            Older or non cylinder deactivation GM trucks have no problems with oil consumption, smoking, or sticking lifters.

            But that’s a different argument for a different time…

            Doesn’t surprise me they don’t stock w/t, we had to special order all of ours albeit they’re all ext cab. or crew

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer- I am out of touch with recent product issues, but know of no reason cylinder deactivation would be the cause of the problems you describe. The new Corvette has it, which shows GM continues with it. All GM vehicles have 100,000 mile warranty coverage for the powertrains. What mileage have you seen problems?

            It is a good, low cost way to improve fuel economy. I’ve had no issues with my ’08 Sierra, have to watch the display to know it is in 4 cyl mode. But I only have 30,000 miles on it!

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Mileage varies from 10k to 80k and the potential for higher, it’s been very well discussed, any GM truck forum will have bukus of information on it and you can get a better explanation. Of the cause(s)! And the remedies tried by GM.
            Most people report even after having the engine rebuilt the oil burning comes back and the only proven effective way to solve it, is to deactivate the cylinder deactivation feature BEFORE it starts happening, once it starts your screwed.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer- The AFM related Oil consumption issue arises from extending oil changes. This sensitivity was corrected in Feb 2011. All vehicles produced are covered by warranty and GM advised dealers how to perform a minor modification to correct the concern in technical bulletin #10-06-01-008I issued in February. Nothing wrong with AFM, per se.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            The intervals may cause problem for some, but our company changes the oil in all vehicles between 3,000-5,000 miles, which is by all means well before the computer says it is due.

            So while that may be the case for the crowd that drives til the check engine light is on, it’s not always true.
            And none of their fixes worked, finally about a year ago we just started having the feature deactivated after most engines had had the “modifications” done on top of (in one case TWO!) engine rebuilds.
            We haven’t had a single problem with any oil consumption for trucks deactivated, and gas mileage has remained the same (many on the forums claim deactivating has seen them actually increase fuel mileage)

            As you can see, I have very good reason to hate the system from what I’ve seen.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer- Any repair attempt prior to the February bulletin that includes installation of a diverter would not be effective. Then AFM should not have to be disabled.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’m telling you these trucks have been updated with all the fixes, these are 2010 and 11 trucks. NOTHING they have done stopped oil consumption permanently. The deflector and all that snazz had no effect, the engine rebuilds would last until the component screwed up the new engine.

            The feb 2011 updates have happened we didn’t start deactivating any until about June of last year, we had many in the shop between feb 2011 and June 2012.
            Why risk any more half a## repairs knowing full well that it will keep happening until its out of warranty, there are no drawbacks to disabling afm. But a LOT to lose from leaving it activated.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            As I wrote, the fix was not available until Feb. 2013. That is 2013, not 2011!

            You can NOT have had the fix done. All the repair attempts you mention occurred long before then and therefore, must not have included the fix.

            AFM is not the problem. It has nothing to due with the cylinders being deactivated, but the way the oil being bled off from the deactivated cylinder lifters is delivered back to the crankcase. That’s why the Feb 2013 fix is necessary to completely resolve the issue.

            Enabling AFM will give improved fuel economy. Losing that is the only downside to leaving it disabled. With the good fix, it will not contribute to a repeat oil consumption issue.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            My apologies but you posted above 2011 NOT 13, but in that case no we haven’t had any of those updates.
            The oil block plate was tried before, I assume the other plates didnt work if they came out with another version.

            But fixing it is out of the question now, turning it off solved everything, fuel mileage did not suffer.

          • 0 avatar
            doctor olds

            @Hummer My bad! The bulletin was released just this February,2013. The issue was fixed in production in 2011.

            Sorry for the confusing writing. Going too fast, sometimes. Just trying to help. I don’t blame you for leaving them as they are. Why mess with success.

  • avatar
    Nick

    These things make me think of Diamond T pickups but I can’t figure out why.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    The current Suburban would probably work fine in a more urban work environment. I can’t see a fleet of them in Fort Mac on the job site or can you special order them with vinyl seats?

    The one place I do see Suburban’s and Tahoe’s making sales gains is with police fleets. The RCMP seem to be buying more and more of them with the demise of the Crown Vic.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      No vinyl seats available, can’t get manual windows can’t get without key pad, can’t get without carpet, can’t get without trizone HVAC, can’t get without basic power seats, cant get front bench unless you pay $900 over base captain chairs with center console( yes I keep reiterating this because it drives me crazy) can’t get steelies…. There’s a LOT of stuff that is included in the base price once considered luxury. This makes the price insane for a utility vehicle.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States