SW17LS

I'm not going to be in the market for another car for several years at this point, but I will say that the new big GM SUVs are really growing on me. At first I thought they were flat, angular, and in general sort of ugly, but I'm starting to like them, all of them really the Tahoe/Suburban, Yukon/Yukon XL and the Escalade/Escalade ESV...

Although, optioned as I would want a Tahoe comes out to an astonishing $73k, and a Suburban a more astonishing $76k!

What does everybody else think?

Toys4RJill

Well, seeing how the Sequoia is 9 MY old and the Expedition just as long, the new GM trucks are going to stand out. I really like the Escalade as its the benchmark for the segment. I am not sure if the Suburban 2500 is still made, but that was a pretty capable SUV.

mmarshall

Cheap gas is boosting their sales right now, but how long that will last is anybody's guess. And the V8s in some of them will probably be replaced with turbo V6s, except maybe for the top line and diesel versions.

There's always been a market for the Suburban, though, and that's not likely to change. It has been in continuous production since 1936......longer than any other current GM vehicle nameplate.

dseag2

I hate big SUVs because IMO most of the people who drive them don't need something that big, but I will agree that I do like the new ones from GM.

Toys4RJill

Does anyone really need most of the vehicles that are out there?

SW17LS

I know I need a 4600 lb V8 full size luxury sedan when I'm driving around by myself

Aron9000

Honestly I don't like the new GM SUV's.

I think they're a lazy design that GM could've done better on. For example, they still have a space robbing solid rear axle in the back. This makes the 3rd row ridiculously tight on the short wheelbase models.

The rear seats now fold flat. Which is stupid because they fold flat and raise the cargo floor by 4-6". Which gives you less room than the previous setup where you could take them out. Which is once again because GM cheaped out and kept the solid rear axle.

Then there is the smaller side glass that makes these trucks feel like you're riding in a tank. Plus the windshield is more sloped and stops well before the top of the roof, enhancing that closed in feeling. Also I think the front end styling on the Chevy trucks sucks, with those stupid wrap around headlights.

Not to mention that stupid shiny fake woodgrain. If you're charging me $70,000 ****ing dollars for a Tahoe, give me real woodgrain. The fake stuff in my 1st car, a 1991 Regal looked more convincing.

Toys4RJill

^ holy smokes, you really hate the GM SUVs.

Aron9000

Oh I don't completely hate on them. They're great to drive, GM has always done a good job on making such a huge behemoth handle and drive a lot smaller than it really is. The powertrains are great as well, along with the towing capacity.

Its just everything else, space ultization, small side mirrors, interior trim(once again its decent, but not great, especially for what they charge), small windows. Not to mention the styling, which is boxier than ever, except for that odd looking windswept front clip on the Chevy trucks.

The old models, you sat in them, you had a commanding view out of that greenhouse, there was a lot of glass. The new models, you feel like you're riding in a tank, and as a result it feels less roomy inside.

I've sat in all variants of the new GM SUV's and all the trim levels of the new Expidition, and I will say I vastly prefer the Expidition. Interior seemed nicer and the view out was much better. I've had a lot of seat time in both the previous year's Expiditions and GM trucks, I'm predicting the GM trucks will drive a lot nicer, while the Ford will ride nicer, at least that's been my experience. A 2013 Expidition, that had to have one of the most isolated, quietest, and smoothest rides out of anything I've ever driven. It was kind of shocking, because you didn't notice it at first how damn good the ride was. It wasn't like an old Lincoln or Cadillac, where you float along, in that truck, you just felt NOTHING. Steering was the same way though, felt like you were driving a cruise ship.

Now neither of those trucks had anything on that Mercedes Benz GL450 I drove for a while. That had a nice ride as well, way firmer than the Ford, but it never jiggled you the way some of those GM trucks did that had the 20" or 22" wheel option. The handling was great, it drove like a car, and the thrust from that twin turbo V8 was quite astounding, quicker than the Escalade and it made the Expidition with the 5.4 V8 feel like a total slug. Interior was very black and German, fautlessly assembled, way better than the Escalde, Ford, or Navigator.

mmarshall

GM used that solid rear axle (and heavy-duty differential) because these vehicles are designed for heavy-duty towing. How many vehicles that can equal a Suburban's cargo and towing payload do you see running around with an IRS? Not many, I'd wager to guess.

SW17LS

Exactly, the solid rear axle and body on frame construction is there for a reason in this particular application.

Aron9000

2016 Ford Expidition is rated to tow 9200lbs with an independent rear suspension setup that gives it a lot more room behind the 2nd row seat. Independent rear suspension has been standard since 2003.

2016 Suburban is rated to tow 8000lbs with a solid rear axle.

Like I said, this is typical old GM thinking, being cheap and lazy because they already outsell Ford 2 to one in this market. If Ford would ever design a non-ugly Navigator, it would give Cadillac some serious competition.

Toys4RJill

Come on? Seriously mmarshall. The Expedition, Sequoia, QX80, and Armada are all full size, fully boxed, body on frame SUVs with comparable towing capacity and they have IRS. The whole IRS can't be used for towing of heavy duty use is no longer valid, It looks like the IRS Expedition can out tow the Solid Axle Suburban.

Toys4RJill

I do agree that IRS is probably the way to go. But I also have to say, I rarely if ever have seen all three rows being used. I say go 5 seater and make removable third row seats an option. Land Cruise, LX and Sequoia once had this set up. FYI, the Expedition towing is not SAE spec'd, so it is likely more in line with the Sequoia. The GM, Toyota and Nissan full size SUVs are all SAE spe'd. But nevertheless, IRS is just as capable as a solid axle. But I would likely prefer a solid rear.

Aron9000

Oh I agree with ya on the 3rd row seat not being used, at least it would be RARELY used by me. Which is why if I wanted a vehicle like this, I'd probably go for a Land Cruiser, LX, or Benz GL. Bit smaller and more nimble than a Tahoe, equally tight third row seat, just as much cargo space with the 3rd row taken out.

But back when I was driving professionally, I always thought the GM SUV's drove nicer, while the Ford trucks had a lot more space behind the driver and were much roomier for my clients and their luggage.

I'm also suprised BMW hasn't entered this market. the X5 is pretty tight inside IMO, especially in the cargo area.