https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...l-photos-info/


https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...e-trim-ladder/

 

Looks like the new Hyundai crossover from the outside.

 

looks good on the outside

unfortunately that Denali interior doesnt look good, looks like its a 1980s car dash design. The dash is insanely tall, shorter people are going to hate driving it

compare

 

I like the exterior of the Denali. The regular Yukon not as much

 

On second thought I might like the Yukon overall vs the Tahoe

 

Agreed. In general, GMC does a better-looking front end than Chevy, and the interiors, though similar, are somewhat more upscale....particularly with the Denalis.

 

SUV proportions reached their peak like 25 years ago, i don't know why they needed to change, was their a collective desire for SUVs to have small windows and be more annoying to see out of?



i blame rappers for all SUVs needing to have giant rims now as well lol

 

The main issue was roof/pillar safety. SUV rollovers, from their high-center of gravity, caused so many deaths and injuries that a lot of political pressure was put on DOT and NHTSA to enact roof-strength standards. In general, that meant thicker roof pillars, more support inside of them, smaller glass-panels, and worse visibility. Added to that, of course (admittedly, with some exceptions), is the idea that it is almost considered a mortal sin today to design anything that actually looks like a box for maximum space-efficiency....there has to be wedges, curves, aero-shapes, and anything else that cuts down on visibility LOL.



It's probably more than just rappers, but, agreed....your point is well-taken. These 20-22" wheels and low-profile tires today are ridiculous. All else equal, they detract from ride-quality, lessen slick-road traction, and lessen pothole-impact protection. And the tires cost an arm and a leg to replace.

 

people always ruin things don't they... and yes it is 'bad' to make something 'too boxy', it is in our nature to be attracted to curves though, emotions too frequently get the better of logic



the escalade is much to blame, that and the navigator made it so a giant pile of junk could still be cool as long as it had as much bling as possible... essentially how many frivolous expensive things can you attach to your ride to better flex on the broke *** mark bustas

 

Sad they chose to go retro with the dash. It looks blocky, heavy, and dated overall. Guess GM has drawn a blank in moving forwarding and excelling.
Exterior is mild, or what was to be expected. The jumbled and confused c-pillar is the weakest point for these two.

 

the biggest problems I see is the way they implemented the shifter buttons, it hogs a lot of important real estate in the center dash. Then they want to go with a landscape oriented screen which ends up making your AC vent placement look like an afterthought. Since the vents are an afterthought look how comically high the dash looks. Smaller people are not going to be happy. Another issue with a landscape oriented screen is how do you reach the far right edge as a driver, especially in a vehicle as large as this one. Ram's interior is just still far aesthetically and logically better laid out.

 

They went with a giant grill. Shocking.

 

Still beats the Ram's rotary-shifter, IMO. I never have liked twisting a **** to shift......Ford, unfortunately, is using the same design in some of its recent products. I do agree, though, that GMC doesn't do the shift-buttons as well as some competitors....notably Lincoln. The ones on the Acadia leave a lot to be desired.

 

at least the rotary shifter is out of the way. The rotary shifter is less than half the size of what GM did and GMs only has the gear selector buttons, not the various 4x4 modes, hill decent (which is on the left side of the steering wheel for GMs). The rotary shifter takes up far less space. AC vents couldve been in place of the button shifter but instead you have them slapped on top making the dash taller. And to go with the bigger screen, they couldnt put the AC vents below the screen like it is on the rest of the tahoe/suburbans. Definately not a good and efficient layout

 

I've never used a rotary shifter, but I think I'd prefer it to buttons. My BMW has the joystick style shifter and I like it, in large part because I can tell by feel what gear I am putting the car in. I feel like I would need to look down every time I need to go from D to R, or back, if I'm using buttons (although it looks like GM seems to differentiate the shape/layout of the buttons). Same with a rotary--2 clicks left or right, and I know what gear I'm in.

But to each his own.