I need your opinion. GMT800 vs GMT900. Which to buy?

[Bill Barnes]

Hello all!

I'm currently stuck and I could use some opinions. I'm about to pull the trigger on another Yukon, but I can't decide between an 800 or a 900, so I'm looking to be talked into/out of both. I sold my 800 a decade ago and I still regret it. Right now, I have two Yukon's that I'm looking at and I can get them for the exact same price.

One is a '06 6 liter AWD Denali w/165K miles. The guy obviously takes really good care of it. The only thing to mention is that the clear coat is fading or peeling a little bit on the hood and on the roof, which I'm not too concerned with, because I know that this is probably the best GM drivetrain ever.

The other is a '08 5.3L 4WD Yukon SLT w/185K miles and it was owned by one guy for 18 years in Detroit and it has a good amount of service records. The interior and the exterior are really well kept. It could almost pass for a new truck. The only drawback is that it probably needs the rear end rebuilt - and I'm worried about the AFM issues with the GMT 900. I'm also not too educated on that engine/trans combo.

Knowing that information, what would you suggest I do? I'd like to buy something this week, but I can't decide. I'll take all of the input I can get - and I thank you guys in advance! I can't wait to get back in this forum with a new truck. I've missed this place and all the people in it.

I agree with swathdiver. Go with the Denali. I have a 2005 Yukon XL SLT 4X4 with the 5.3 Flex Fuel and the 4L60. It has 291K on it, and the engine has never been touched, except for a new MAF Sensor. Still runs like the day I bought it new.

 

[fozzi58]

I had an 08 Avalanche and still miss that thing. Never had any issues with that truck outside of the trans dying at 140k. Other than that, never had to replace any parts on it outside of typical maintenance\fluids etc.

 

[Marky Dissod]

One is a '06 6.0L ... I know that this is probably the best GM drivetrain ever ... The other is a '08 5.3L ...

Based on the above alone, the '06 6.0L.

 

[walkswithtahoes]

I'm a little late to the conversation but will add some input I didn't see already. I'm not a fan of the transmissions on the 800. I don't know if the 5.3 has the same 4L but I do know the 6.2 has the 6L which is a much better beast. The 5.3 still has afm but the 6.2 does not until 2010. If you're looking for a workhorse with a reliable platform then go 800. If you're looking for something a little bit nicer with a better transmission and a few technology upgrades go the 900.

 

[petethepug]

06 Denali since the next gen isn’t a Denali.

That coming from a previous 06 YXL Denali owner currently in an 09 Esky XL.

Both are good choices but both are 4SP trans. Orig owner hands down. The ride on the Denali w/ OEM 17’s and beefy tires is the best I’ve ever owned.

There’s just no 06 Denali that aren’t beaten up anymore. Grab it, negotiate for paint

NBS Denali also has laminate coated f/r door glass GM did away with in NNBS except 11-14 Esky front door glass to prevent theft. The laminate is also quieter.

 

[chip]

Again: Thanks guys! I'll take all of the input I can get.

 

[DaveO9]

900 all the way from me. I've owned two, '09 LS Tahoe and '13 LT Tahoe. (but admittedly, no 400s or 800s). Also, my vote is colored by my preference for the 6L80 vs 4 speed, and the '08 makes that a moot point.

Some notes on my 900 experience:

- both were high mileage when I bought them, 190k+

- Tuned out AFM on both. I have a local tuner so it's much less of a process and a lot less expensive than a service like Black Bear. Just make an appointment, drive to his house, we road test together, done in about an hour.

- rebuilt front suspension on both. New upper and lower x-arms, tie rods, struts, etc.

- cracking dashes are a problem on 900s. my '09 the dash was cracked all to heck. A carpet-style dash cover solved that one. my current '13 has just one small crack. I have a small piece of black duct tape that covers it, not very noticeable. I'm thinking about trying some black hot glue.

- 5.3 engines. No problems with either. Even though they had AFM active throughout a lot of their lives. my current '13 has developed what may be a slight lifter tick in the last year. I'm trying to decide if I want to do full AFM delete or swap in a 6.0 without AFM. (L96)

- 6L80 trans. I'm pretty sure both are original and not rebuilt. No problems with either, knock on wood. Lots of good posts about transmissions here, and upgrades (especially TC) for 6L80. If I pull the engine for swap or AFM delete, I'll replace the TC then.

- The '09 is no longer with us - my son rolled it three times going 70 with me and my two daughters in it. We all walked away, nary a scratch. And that is why I have had two 900 tahoes in less than 4 years.

 

[calsdad]

I used to have a 2003 Suburban 2500. Bought it in 2009 used - and sold it in early 2016 , after I had already picked up a 2010 Yukon XL 2500. I've had the Yukon since then - it currently has about 145,000 miles on it.

Overall I think the 2010 is better quality than the 2003. The 2003 had a persistent leak somewhere in the windshleld area - that would fill up the driver's footwell with water - which wicked into the jute under the rug - and kept frying the control module under the driver's seat. The headliner was falling off. There was a big patch of crap paint on the driver's side rear door and quarter panel where the clear was peeling off. The rear bumper rusted out. The frame had a lot of rust. The transmission pan rusted thru. The transmission cooler lines rusted out. The power steering cooler rusted out. When I had to replace the rear brakes it was a rust nightmare.

The rear cargo area was "better" than the 2010 - like one of the previous said: the 2nd row seat would fold flat (the 2010 doesn't) - so that made easier to deal with for a lot of things. Even though the 2003 and 2010 supposedly share the same frame and suspension - I think the 2003 drove nicer than the 2010 for some reason. In the end I sold it mostly because of the rust problems, it was at the point where I either needed to get rid of it or do major restoration. The engine and transmission never gave me any real problems - other than mice got into the wiring and caused a nightmare of tracking down a bunch of cascading problems.

The 2010 has held up better than the 2003 as far as rust goes. There is perforation in the body, but the frame is in better shape than the 2003 was, and all of the various tranny cooling lines,, brake lines - etc - have not rusted thru. The engines in both of them have been good. I did have to replace the throttle body in the 2010 a couple of years ago.

I miss the 2003 sometimes, but overall I think the 2010 is a better truck.

 

[Bronson357]

Just curious, it seems everything you are saying is based on rust and rodents, will that happen to the next one and so on? I would love to know, I mean will it happen to a newer vehicle? I'm guessing north east? Thank you

 

[calsdad]

Just curious, it seems everything you are saying is based on rust and rodents, will that happen to the next one and so on? I would love to know, I mean will it happen to a newer vehicle? I'm guessing north east? Thank you

The 2010 has definitely been better rust-wise , in my opinion - even though it's got body rust. The 2003 had less body rust - but the frame and undercarriage and fuel lines , transmission pan - were all rusting thru. To the point where I felt like it was headed towards a junk yard.

All that being said: I still see a lot of GMT800 trucks driving around. I am in the Northeast (MA). Personally I like the "newer" look of the GMT900s. I've upgraded the headlights to Morimoto LEDs and upgraded the tailights to Spyder LEDs - so the truck has a newer look to it.

I'd own a GMT800 again - if I could find a 2500 that was in decent shape.

If you're in an area of the country where rust is not a concern - then I suppose the body/frame rust issues are secondary to mechanical problems.

Since both of the trucks I've owned had the 6.0L truck engine in them - I haven't had to deal with an of the AFM or other issues the 1500 trucks experience.

Things I definitely like in the 2010 that the 2003 did not have: automatic open/close tailgate, heated seats in both 1st and 2nd row, better stereo and dashboard layout that allows for upgrades ( have a Pioneer head unit in the 2010 - upgrading the stereo in the 2003 would have been more of an issue). At this point the 2010 still has a "modern" looking interior to my way of thinking - whereas the 2003 would seem dated if I had to go back to driving one.

 

[Sir_Hiro]

Just curious, it seems everything you are saying is based on rust and rodents, will that happen to the next one and so on? I would love to know, I mean will it happen to a newer vehicle? I'm guessing north east? Thank you

If you live anywhere were they salt the roads. Rust is inevitable, unless you buy a brand new car and take it directly to a shop to get fluid flim, undercoating, whatever. Its only a matter of time. Even all the undercoating methods only delay it since it cant get to every nook and cranny. The only way to not get rust is to not drive it in the winter.

 

[SilverSurfer5300]

Having owned a GMT400 Suburban 4x4, a GMT800 Suburban 4x2, and now a GMT900 Tahoe 4x4, I'd go with the GMT900.

The 400 was rock solid, especially off-road, but it sucked on pavement. Felt like driving a school bus with that ridiculous 15:1 steering ratio. It never had any kind of issues whatsoever, but wasn't particularly comfortable, wasn't particularly good looking, wasn't enjoyable to drive, and the sound system was terrible; it was purely utilitarian. It was a family vehicle and was still roadworthy when we sold it (at roughly 400,000 miles).

The 800 was much nicer to drive than the 400 (obviously), but had a lot of issues. It had a dash blend door issue which required getting shoulder deep up in the dash from underneath, the instrument cluster burned out, it had wiring issues with the factory stereo as you couldn't get all the speakers to work at the same time, and we finally sold it when it started having transmission issues.

The 900 just feels like it is built a little higher quality inside and out than the 800. It definitely looks better.

 

[Marky Dissod]

Having owned a GMT400 Suburban 4x4, a GMT800 Suburban 4x2, and now a GMT900 Tahoe 4x4, I'd go with the GMT900.

The GMT400 was rock solid, especially off-road, but it sucked on pavement. Felt like driving a school bus with that ridiculous 15:1 steering ratio.
It never had any kind of issues whatsoever, but wasn't particularly comfortable, wasn't particularly good looking, wasn't enjoyable to drive, and the sound system was terrible;
it was purely utilitarian. It was a family vehicle and was still roadworthy when we sold it (at roughly 400,000 miles).

Which says quite a lot about how GM built that generation too, there are good reasons why they are still sought after even today.

The GMT800 was much nicer to drive than the 400 (obviously), but had a lot of issues.
It had a dash blend door issue which required getting shoulder deep up in the dash from underneath, the instrument cluster burned out,
it had wiring issues with the factory stereo as you couldn't get all the speakers to work at the same time, and we finally sold it when it started having transmission issues.

GMT800s older than '02 are not quite the same as those after '02, but issues aside, these will also continue to be sought after, especially 2500s.

The GMT900 just feels like it is built a little higher quality inside and out than the 800. It definitely looks better.

If you prefer more features, rack&pinion steering (1500), and a body and frame that seems a bit more resistant to rusting than the 800,
I get why one would choose a GMT900. (Although I don't see the point in a GMT900 with a 4L60E as they're a bit heavier than an analogous GMT800.)

 

[Bronson357]

Like I said 900s are more vanity and feel like a car,I own 2 so I understand,

 

[calsdad]

Like I said 900s are more vanity and feel like a car,I own 2 so I understand,

LOL. Go drive a 2500 - it doesn't " feel like a car".

 

[Bronson357]

Didn't realize we were going 2500 here,I believe that is still an 800 chassis with leaf sprung rear? Definitely more truck feel? Torsion bar front?

 

[calsdad]

Didn't realize we were going 2500 here,I believe that is still an 800 chassis with leaf sprung rear? Definitely more truck feel? Torsion bar front?

The GMT 800 and 900 2500 SUVs both share the same frame. I had both my 2003 and the 2010 for a few months before I sold the 2003 - and I couldn't find any obvious difference between the two in the frame/chassis area - other than the 2010 has a better rear axle (full floater).

The front suspension is torsion bar and the rear is leaf spring. From what I understand - the later years Suburban 3500 also uses that same exact frame with some minor differences from the previous generations.

 

[chip]

How about a 2010 Escalade w/ 170K miles? Any opinions on that compared to the Yukon's? I just got the opportunity to pick one up from Florida for about $700 more than the Yukon's.