Recommended Yukon configuration for family of 5
- Thread starter HAbul
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
swathdiver
Full Access Member
Not at all, it is as nimble as our old Pontiac Montana minivans.
FYI: The Suburbans and Yukon XLs are the "regular" size. Those little short ones didn't exist until the 1990s whereas the Suburban began production in the 1930s.
Right now my kids are 9 (in booster seat), soon-to-be 7 (in high-back booster) and a soon-to-be 1 year old in rear facing car seat. I currently drive a Sequoia and I like the size of it, which is comparable to a standard Yukon. Roadtrips are one of the reasons we moved back to the U.S. That being said, on a day-to-day basis, I don't see myself needing the extra space of an XL and may be fine with a cargo carrier on occasion.
EvergreenZ71
Member
Completely agree with liking the agility of my suburban (my 1992 was even better ... until I had the steering dampener repaired), but then again I've driven dualy ambulances & fire engines for years.Not at all, it is as nimble as our old Pontiac Montana minivans.
FYI: The Suburbans and Yukon XLs are the "regular" size. Those little short ones didn't exist until the 1990s whereas the Suburban began production in the 1930s.
However I'm not sure I completely agree with the second part ... the K5 Blazers date back to the late 60s and must share some lineage with Suburbans, at least by the late 70s. I miss the theory of the old full-size removable hard top even if I'd never get one up here in the Northwest.
swathdiver
Full Access Member
My reference to the "short ones" was in regards to the Tahoe, a shortened, still 4 door, Suburban. Love the K5s!
Have you asked him if he's uncomfortable? Bc he's certainly old enough to tell you if he is. His "poor legs" aren't hurting. I promise if he was turned around he'd likely cross them criss cross anyway. Its certainly more comfortable than having them dangling off the edge of a seat where they can't touch. Both of my kids rear faced until they reached the max of their seats at 40 lbs. For 1 kid he was 4, the other was 2.5. When I turned the 4 year old around he complained about how uncomfortable that was bc he had no place to put his feet. Have you ever noticed kids constantly put their feet on the backs of the front seats? Have you watched how most kids sit when they aren't in carseats? They are always scrunched up with their legs like that. Its uncomfortable for adults, sure. But kids don't care.
Yes those laws change because our knowledge changes. Kids are 75% less likely to die in a car accident when they are rear facing. We now know that their bones don't ossify until they are much older than previously thought, so we know that they are more likely to be injured in a booster seat or an ill fitting seatbelt than a proper seat. When we were kids research wasn't done on this aspect of car safety like it is now. in 1980 car accidents were the leading cause of deaths for kids, 2x the number that died from the #2 cause, cancer. 9/100,000 kids per year. Thanks to car seats and more stringent laws, that number is 1.87/100,000 in 2019. And out of those, 41% were not properly restrained.
So you may feel that those laws are ridiculous. But I promise if you were ever on the scene of an accident where a child died because they were thrown from a vehicle, or were internally decapitated bc they were forward facing at 1, you'd think differently. Or if you'd ever seen a pretty awful car accident, but the child properly restrained in an age appropriate car seat had barely a scratch, you wouldn't think those laws are ridiculous. Sure we all survived, but thousands haven't. I survived covid, and so did my kids, but I'm still vaccinated, and they will be too when they can be. Many of us survived our mothers smoking and drinking while they were pregnant with us, but I think we all agree now that moms shouldn't be doing that. Why is car seat safety the one area where people still have this mindset?
Sorry, rant over.
I'm a little late to this one, but we have 2 Yukon XL Denali's - a 2007 and a 2012. The 2007 has the captains chairs and the 2012 has the bench, which gives us the convenience of having both configurations and maybe a little different perspective. We also have 2 kids, 10 & 13, and a dog. The kids prefer the captains for around town and the bench for long trips. Around town they find the captains chairs easier to manage for getting in/out, and on long trips they each get their own row and get to lay across their respective benches and sleep. They always ask which one we're taking when we go somewhere and cheer when the answer matches their preferences as above.
On the standard length vs XL discussion, the difference in fuel mileage is too small to matter. I agree that the new shortys have a bit more room behind the rear seats, but at least 5-6 times every year, I'm grateful for the XL because we'd have needed 2 cars for the trip without the extra space. Most recently we took a trip to the beach with my in-laws with us. We used every square inch of space behind the 3rd row. And, I've rented the shortys many times and find them no easier to park or maneuver.
On the standard length vs XL discussion, the difference in fuel mileage is too small to matter. I agree that the new shortys have a bit more room behind the rear seats, but at least 5-6 times every year, I'm grateful for the XL because we'd have needed 2 cars for the trip without the extra space. Most recently we took a trip to the beach with my in-laws with us. We used every square inch of space behind the 3rd row. And, I've rented the shortys many times and find them no easier to park or maneuver.
bigdog9191999
Full Access Member
i am sure i am bias, but here is more thoughts.
cliff notes : if had to have only one, it would be a burb/XL , as there is just not enough difference to make up for the lack of room in the short one.
as you can see from my signature i have had more long wheelbase than short ( the avalanche is the same as the xl/burb.
with that my burb has a second bench, and her Denali has captains. now the fun part, we don't have any kids!. but we do have some god children as well as several other family members and.. the Denali usually wins out as it is just more comfortable ( i will often ride in the back seat and have even ridden in the 3rd row and I am 6'3'' and not a bean pole. ) being able to recline the capt chairs is the winning ticket, although it does hurt the rear row room. the bench in the burb ( or avy) sitting straight up sucks! granted it gives me a one extra person ( assuming they are not all my size).
if there is only going to be 4 of us then any of the three trucks work for seating. but additional space is another thing. if traveling with more than just the two of us there is no preplacement for the extra room of the longer truck. my Tahoe don't have a 3rd row, which if fine for me as i would never have it in, as there is sooooo little room back there with that row in. the longer trucks you can have all the kids/people and have say school bags or overnight camp stuff and still stop for groceries on the way home, and I just don't see how with the shorter truck.
the guy we got our Denali from (I work with, and he got it from another buddy of mine) he had a standard Yukon and with 3 kids, trying to take the camper and all the family gear it was packed. so the xl gave them all the same seating plus room for all their things ( the 6.0 over the 5.3, and the wheelbase helped for pulling the camper also)
as far as driving them goes, ( at least in the years i own ) there is only 15 inches in the wheelbase 115 vs 130. and for me I have driven ext cab short box, as well as ext cab long box dually prior. 141 and 155 and most crew cab short box commonly on the roads today are about 155 anyway ( I also drive rollback wrecker with about 200'' wheelbase, and an escalade that is is like 250''). so for me coming down to the 130 of the avalanche was already a jump down. the only place I really notice the extra short of the Tahoe is in very tight parking lots, but this is only in that I may not have to back up to readjust once, so not a huge advantage in my eye. and I would rather have the extra room to grow into or just to be able to haul things and people for the tiny bit of extra length. and it is still shorter than an ext cab short box pickup.
as for mileage, having the same motor in my avy and Tahoe and the mileage is close enough to not matter, i have had more change in mileage from tire choice than truck choice. and our two current long wheelbase have the 6.0 and AWD an 8.1 so i basically throw mileage out the window
cliff notes : if had to have only one, it would be a burb/XL , as there is just not enough difference to make up for the lack of room in the short one.
as you can see from my signature i have had more long wheelbase than short ( the avalanche is the same as the xl/burb.
with that my burb has a second bench, and her Denali has captains. now the fun part, we don't have any kids!. but we do have some god children as well as several other family members and.. the Denali usually wins out as it is just more comfortable ( i will often ride in the back seat and have even ridden in the 3rd row and I am 6'3'' and not a bean pole. ) being able to recline the capt chairs is the winning ticket, although it does hurt the rear row room. the bench in the burb ( or avy) sitting straight up sucks! granted it gives me a one extra person ( assuming they are not all my size).
if there is only going to be 4 of us then any of the three trucks work for seating. but additional space is another thing. if traveling with more than just the two of us there is no preplacement for the extra room of the longer truck. my Tahoe don't have a 3rd row, which if fine for me as i would never have it in, as there is sooooo little room back there with that row in. the longer trucks you can have all the kids/people and have say school bags or overnight camp stuff and still stop for groceries on the way home, and I just don't see how with the shorter truck.
the guy we got our Denali from (I work with, and he got it from another buddy of mine) he had a standard Yukon and with 3 kids, trying to take the camper and all the family gear it was packed. so the xl gave them all the same seating plus room for all their things ( the 6.0 over the 5.3, and the wheelbase helped for pulling the camper also)
as far as driving them goes, ( at least in the years i own ) there is only 15 inches in the wheelbase 115 vs 130. and for me I have driven ext cab short box, as well as ext cab long box dually prior. 141 and 155 and most crew cab short box commonly on the roads today are about 155 anyway ( I also drive rollback wrecker with about 200'' wheelbase, and an escalade that is is like 250''). so for me coming down to the 130 of the avalanche was already a jump down. the only place I really notice the extra short of the Tahoe is in very tight parking lots, but this is only in that I may not have to back up to readjust once, so not a huge advantage in my eye. and I would rather have the extra room to grow into or just to be able to haul things and people for the tiny bit of extra length. and it is still shorter than an ext cab short box pickup.
as for mileage, having the same motor in my avy and Tahoe and the mileage is close enough to not matter, i have had more change in mileage from tire choice than truck choice. and our two current long wheelbase have the 6.0 and AWD an 8.1 so i basically throw mileage out the window
Similar threads
