Anybody else less than enthusiastic about the direction Chevy is taking with the Tahoes and suburbans?

[headwest]

Thanks for the comment and similar to a few others I’ve heard. It helps confirm the choice I’m moving to. My dealer wants to wait until the build page is posted. Hopefully soon since production begins on Monday.

 

[DuraYuk]

I think many of your grievances come from ignorance and taste.

Truck like looks? They still are giant blocks with hoods so high you can barely see someone standing in front.

Navigation is either phone based or Google. You complaining about android maps and apple maps? Can't get better than that. What you using instead ?

Engine failures? Ever brand has this. Toyota just did with their brand new Tundras. I have been putting lifters and heads on the very first 5.3s. So they have ALWAYS had these issues. Dont pretend. Go to another generation and see the issues they have. The 21+ are way more reliable. Especially when newer. I know from my own experience as a GM heavy line tech..

Ground clearance is less but interior space is HUGE compared to any past generation. I will take a 2 inch hit for the giant space inside..after all I haul people with it.

What i do like ?
Safety, efficiency, space, class leading resale value, class leading reliability, a fantastic transmission (i was a gm trans tech....this is the best gm trans I've ever seen), amazing technology (super cruise is elite). I prefer GMC styling myself and don't like how chevy gives tahoes and Suburbans to fleets. Makes them cheaper and less special since all the govt peeps have them. So I get GMC.

With that said the target audience has shifted. They want people like me as their target demographic. You were the demographic when you were my age. Times change..people get old. Bread and butter is 30 to 41 year olds.

 

[vcode]

Evolution is caused by outside factors. Degradation is caused by inside factors, and GM owns this.

Financial in that customers still wanted the Hemi despite the turbo 6 being more powerful and slightly more fuel efficient.

 

[vcode]

I think many of your grievances come from ignorance and taste.

Truck like looks? They still are giant blocks with hoods so high you can barely see someone standing in front.

Navigation is either phone based or Google. You complaining about android maps and apple maps? Can't get better than that. What you using instead ?

Engine failures? Ever brand has this. Toyota just did with their brand new Tundras. I have been putting lifters and heads on the very first 5.3s. So they have ALWAYS had these issues. Dont pretend. Go to another generation and see the issues they have. The 21+ are way more reliable. Especially when newer. I know from my own experience as a GM heavy line tech..

Ground clearance is less but interior space is HUGE compared to any past generation. I will take a 2 inch hit for the giant space inside..after all I haul people with it.

What i do like ?
Safety, efficiency, space, class leading resale value, class leading reliability, a fantastic transmission (i was a gm trans tech....this is the best gm trans I've ever seen), amazing technology (super cruise is elite). I prefer GMC styling myself and don't like how chevy gives tahoes and Suburbans to fleets. Makes them cheaper and less special since all the govt peeps have them. So I get GMC.

With that said the target audience has shifted. They want people like me as their target demographic. You were the demographic when you were my age. Times change..people get old. Bread and butter is 30 to 41 year olds.

To be fair though, a new Tahoe is nearly 7" longer than the previous gen so it better have more room.

 

[OBSandaNNBS]

As @swathdiver stated above, these changes are driven by what GM perceives that its customers want.

For those of you who are over 45, think for a few moments what the typical full size truck (Tahoe, Yukon, etc.), now called 'large SUVs', driver looked like 25 years ago, and what the driver looks like today. For me, being 72, this is what I saw then and what I see now:

25 Years Ago:
Almost always male
Usually dressed in work gear with a baseball hat
Usually had the windows open, unless it was winter or unbearably hot outside
Design emphasis on payload carrying capacity, suspension compatible with construction site travel, and capable off-roading
Little emphasis on driver creature comforts, except for perhaps a cup holder

Today:
~70% male, ~30% female
~50% dressed in work gear with a baseball hat, ~50% either a male in a dress shirt and tie, or a woman in daily clothes
Windows mostly closed, regardless of conditions outside
Design emphasis on quiet interior, smooth ride, additional comfortable seating, fancy trim, and lots of tech
Prioritized emphasis on driver creature comforts, up to and including massaging seats

I'm not saying right or wrong between now and then, I'm just saying very significantly different. As such, it is logical to expect that the truck would evolve over time, as the customer/driver base evolved.

Nailed it!
I miss the "like a rock" days...

 

[Johnny Fr]

To be fair though, a new Tahoe is nearly 7" longer than the previous gen so it better have more room.

We came from a Buick Enclave which has a fairly large interior (115 cu ft, pretty sure that's more than a Grand Wagoneer). I rode in the back for the first time today, and it's significantly larger than the Enclave, fore and aft. With the front seat in a normal driving position, and the rear seat pushed back, there is a lot of leg room. The cargo being 122.7 is nothing to sneeze at. As a matter of fact, the Expedition MAX is 123.1, with the regular Expedition 108.5. I get that many don't care about numbers, it's what they like.

 

[swathdiver]

To add to what what you're saying, the GMT900 Suburban/Yukon XL has a cargo capacity of 137.4 cubic feet and the new T1 Suburban/Yukon XLs have a cargo capacity of 144.7 cubic feet. As Todd from Project Farm would say, "Very Impressive!"

 

[vcode]

To add to what what you're saying, the GMT900 Suburban/Yukon XL has a cargo capacity of 137.4 cubic feet and the new T1 Suburban/Yukon XLs have a cargo capacity of 144.7 cubic feet. As Todd from Project Farm would say, "Very Impressive!"

Add 4.5 cu ft if you remover the stupid cargo organizer from the GMT900.

 

[swathdiver]

Add 4.5 cu ft if you remover the stupid cargo organizer from the GMT900.

Learned something new today, didn't know the 900s had them. Had one in my 2006 Pontiac Montana which I found useful. Of course, it was a pain to get into when there was stuff on top of it, including the dirt tray!

 

[the 18th letter]

Bread and butter is 30 to 41 year olds.

You’re close. 35-54 is the target market for full size SUV’s.

 

[Stbentoak]

So, you're saying mid-sixties is way to old? It took me to damn near 60 before I could afford my 1st one!

 

[the 18th letter]

55+ is the 2nd largest base of full size SUV buyers

 

[vcode]

Learned something new today, didn't know the 900s had them. Had one in my 2006 Pontiac Montana which I found useful. Of course, it was a pain to get into when there was stuff on top of it, including the dirt tray!

Oooops, sorry, I meant the next gen K2 platform.

 

[homesick]

You’re close. 35-54 is the target market for full size SUV’s.

I think that's been the target demographic for consumer marketing, in general, for many decades.

joe

 

[DuraYuk]

To add to what what you're saying, the GMT900 Suburban/Yukon XL has a cargo capacity of 137.4 cubic feet and the new T1 Suburban/Yukon XLs have a cargo capacity of 144.7 cubic feet. As Todd from Project Farm would say, "Very Impressive!"

T1 kills the old ones in 3rd row and 2nd row space as well.

 

[vcode]

T1 kills the old ones in 3rd row and 2nd row space as well.

Space behind the 3rd row is pretty close though, 38.9 vs 41.5. The cargo tray on a K2 takes up 4 cu ft.

 

[swathdiver]

Ford is currently street testing deleted 6.7s. Yes, we know they make them already for the government/military, this is new and different.

 

[swathdiver]

Now GM is doing it. Good times are coming fellas!

 

[clogan2]

For me it's a matter of economics. My '16 Tahoe LTZ is still in perfect condition, but it has 138,000 miles. It would probably cost me close to $70,000-$80,000 to trade for an equivalent '26 model. For that kind of cash, I can replace lots of parts, and just keep on going down the road.

Besides, at my age, I've probably bought my last automobile anyhow. And last bike (still have 2)...and last suit (never wear 'em anyway)...probably even my last pair of dress shoes, too, LOL!

GM can target all they want the age group my 40-something sons are in, but neither they, nor any of their peers that I know, will ever be financially able to buy a new $100K SUV.

It's the economics

 

[vcode]

For me it's a matter of economics. My '16 Tahoe LTZ is still in perfect condition, but it has 138,000 miles. It would probably cost me close to $70,000-$80,000 to trade for an equivalent '26 model. For that kind of cash, I can replace lots of parts, and just keep on going down the road.

Besides, at my age, I've probably bought my last automobile anyhow. And last bike (still have 2)...and last suit (never wear 'em anyway)...probably even my last pair of dress shoes, too, LOL!

GM can target all they want the age group my 40-something sons are in, but neither they, nor any of their peers that I know, will ever be financially able to buy a new $100K SUV.

It's the economics

Yeah, and for $40K you could keep the Tahoe and buy a low mileage 2020 to go with it. But as I have been saying for a long time now, there is a lot of money out there right now. Unfortunately, not in my hands!