2007 Chevrolet Tahoe Pics and Information

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Ugh, can somebody tell me what the big deal is with large wheels on SUV? I personally HATE them. Now big rubber is a completely different deal. 38, 44 or even 49 inch tires look good on a large SUV like this, but 20's?? Maybe on the Crysler 300 but if I never see them again on an SUV, it'l be too soon....

Just my two cents.

[post="19411"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I just like the look better personally.

But, I have limits. I won't go bigger than 18's on cars and 20's on trucks.

These cars/trucks running around with wheels that are so big they actually jack the vehicle up look dumb IMO.

[03Yukon]

Don't know if this has been answered, but has anyone seen pics of the base model Tahoe? All I have seen are pics of the LTZ model.

[titan]

Go sit in a new M35 or M45.

[post="19181"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

My thoughts exactly. Nissan/Infiniti's so called interior quality are on the mend.

[caddycruiser]

Don't know if this has been answered, but has anyone seen pics of the base model Tahoe? All I have seen are pics of the LTZ model.

[post="20532"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Nope, not released yet. I'm imagining the difference between models will be VERY much like the Equinox--the LS is essentially identical to the LT and with the same wheels, just with black mirrors and door handles. This will be the same on the interior, with the only real differences maybe being two different cloth materials and then a trim that is either woodgrain or silver, depending on the interior color you get.

[smartdude193]

damn. that thing is as hot as hell.i just wanna see the escalade and suburban pics. good job gm. u hit a home run.

[caddycruiser]

My thoughts exactly.  Nissan/Infiniti's so called interior quality are on the mend.

[post="20623"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

True, just don't go sit in a new Titan/Armada/QX56 because the exact opposite seems to be true....you might get a good laugh, or even be appalled, by what you see and touch--I CERTAINLY was after driving in our '02 Chevy Avalanche to the '04 Baltimore auto show, seeing a new Titan and Armada and then opening the door.... :o

They still, two years later, seem sub-prototype in the look and feel of not only their materials, but also of their overall build quality.

A lot of the cars are great though. Too bad some of that didn't go to the trucks. Edited October 2, 2005 by caddycruiser

[shayes287]

http://www.chevrolet.com/tahoe/2007/

if you go to this site and click on gallery they have a pic of the standard interior without the nav...not that bad

[chrominium steel]

It is ugly without chrome bumpers.

[G. David Felt]

<_< Lutz Lied, he said they would move those ugly warts from the top of the roof to the back to not detract the styling. GM still has not learned how to not cheapen a vehicle even a new important one like this. :(

[Flybrian]

True, just don't go sit in a new Titan/Armada/QX56 because the exact opposite seems to be true....you might get a good laugh, or even be appalled, by what you see and touch--I CERTAINLY was after driving in our '02 Chevy Avalanche to the '04 Baltimore auto show, seeing a new Titan and Armada and then opening the door.... :o

They still, two years later, seem sub-prototype in the look and feel of not only their materials, but also of their overall build quality.

A lot of the cars are great though.  Too bad some of that didn't go to the trucks.

[post="22972"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Agreed. Not to mention the Armada and especially QX56 are absolute pigs. The Infiniti weighs as much as an Escalade ESV.

[thedriver]

overall i like it a lot, and i agree there seems to be a resemblance to the toyota highlander. im not so sure about the dash. its beautiful, but the center stack seems too wide, lots of wasted space on the sides. so, will the suburban be just like this but longer?

[Shantanu]

Many people at Edmunds are saying the lack of a folding 3rd row seat will be a deal breaker. If it's true that the rest of the competition has this, it could be a huge blunder for GM. :huh:

[caddycruiser]

Many people at Edmunds are saying the lack of a folding 3rd row seat will be a deal breaker.

If it's true that the rest of the competition has this, it could be a huge blunder for GM. :huh:

[post="31616"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It might well be for a LOT of people, including our family as the time to replace the '04 'Burban rolls around. The big, clunky, carry out bench seemed fine back when the trucks came out in '00, since no one else had anything much better, but now, for '07, not to have at least something that folds down flatter and flusher and doesn't need to be removed is an INSANE oversight. I've said it many times here on C&G, but no matter how nice the new fit&finish, materials, MPG's, etc. are (and those are, trully, GREAT improvements), things like the still clumsy 3rd seat will put a sour taste in the mouths of a LOT of buyers, regardless.

I see this as being a LOT like the situation when DCX redesigned their minivans for '01--they had the power doors, they had a great look, they had generally cool features and a comfortable interior, BUT no matter what the excuse was, there still was no fold-flat 3rd row after Honda had done it and people loved it. They were recognized for all the other improvements, sure, but still continued to be harped on for DCX making such an oversight--one they finally admitted and leapfrogged everyone else with the new Stow N' Go for '05.

Wonder what GM brass will say when asked about it, or if they'll change anything in years to come. Then again, it will probably be like the new '02 GMT-360's:

Auto editor: "So, why no independent rear suspension?"
GM Egr: "Well, we looked at it for a while, but then decided the solid rear axle was tougher and gave us the performance we wanted, especially with the new air springs. [read: sloppy, spongy, and cheap to make...] Plus, it can tow more this way."
Auto editor: "Okay, hmm, so why does the new Explorer with its IRS have a higher tow rating and a relatively comfortable 3rd row, without having to offer an extended model?"
GM Egr: "Umm....."

[Matt276]

Is it another bean counter decision that will cost more sales?

[deftonesfan867]

IRS is great. One of my jobs I do is security for the tribe here (Mole Lake Band of Sokoagon Chippewa) and I drive around in a 2004 Ford Explorer. Let me tell you this, it's great! Having driven a previous generation Explorer and the current generation, I can soundly say that its a much better truck and the ride is very smooth. My only complaint on the IRS is that it doesn't like off-roading too much.

[caddycruiser]

IRS is great. One of my jobs I do is security for the tribe here (Mole Lake Band of Sokoagon Chippewa) and I drive around in a 2004 Ford Explorer.
Let me tell you this, it's great! Having driven a previous generation Explorer and the current generation, I can soundly say that its a much better truck and the ride is very smooth. My only complaint on the IRS is that it doesn't like off-roading too much.

[post="31631"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Even more so, I think if the General were to spend the bucks to make such a system, not only would they likely do it VERY right, but the already great driving dynamics would probably march straight to the head of the class in every category, not to mention makes space for a 3rd row that is comfortable AND easily made to disappear.

We'll see how it goes, I guess. It may be glanced over a lot in the beginning, but give it some time and a few comparison tests and it will be a major WTF moment... :huh:

[Shantanu]

All this talk of the GMT-900's being rushed to market is complete bullshit. GM has had all the time in the world to work on these SUVs and trucks. Their existing trucks became stale long ago while the competition launched better nicer vehicles. They've been working on these vehicles since the GMT-800's first came out. Not having any feature due to "time constraints" is a total lie. If the Tahoe is missing an IRS or folding third row seats, it's due to cost cutting, plain and simple.

[caddycruiser]

All this talk of the GMT-900's being rushed to market is complete bullshit.  GM has had all the time in the world to work on these SUVs and trucks.  Their existing trucks became stale long ago while the competition launched better nicer vehicles.  They've been working on these vehicles since the GMT-800's first came out.  Not having any feature due to "time constraints" is a total lie.  If the Tahoe is missing an IRS or folding third row seats, it's due to cost cutting, plain and simple.

[post="31688"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Good point, because, in truth, they really weren't rushed. Actually, since they were started so long ago, that's probably a big reason why certain glaring faults exist--they started the initial stages of life in the "old GM".

But, even with no IRS, there still are ways the great engineers at GM could have figured out SOMETHING, and the bean counters could have considered it.

Either way, it's not a good thing, and I'll be curious to see if the longer models have ANYTHING different....but I won't bet on it. ^_^ Edited October 20, 2005 by caddycruiser

[pow]

Good point, because, in truth, they really weren't rushed.  Actually, since they were started so long ago, that's probably a big reason why certain glaring faults exist--they started the initial stages of life in the "old GM".

But, even with no IRS, there still are ways the great engineers at GM could have figured out SOMETHING, and the bean counters could have considered it.

Either way, it's not a good thing, and I'll be curious to see if the longer models have ANYTHING different....but I won't bet on it. ^_^

[post="31710"][/post]

About the lack of IRS, here's proof...



The back doesn't look particularly inviting compared to its competitors. The rearmost seat is like 5 inches from the floor. Access to the second row should be deliberate as well; the B-pillar is still in the way of the footwell, just like the GMT-800s. I guess that's what the Suburban is for, which I look forward to seeing, but most buyers can get that that room in a smaller package with an Expedition or Durango or Armada. Edited November 12, 2005 by empowah

[caddycruiser]

About the lack of IRS, here's proof...



The back doesn't look particularly inviting compared to its competitors. The rearmost seat is like 5 inches from the floor. Access to the second row should be deliberate as well; the B-pillar is still in the way of the footwell, just like the GMT-800s. I guess that's what the Suburban is for, which I look forward to seeing, but most buyers can get that that room in a smaller package with an Expedition or Durango or Armada.

[post="42234"][/post]

My point exactly. The Suburban's extra length gives space for a drop-down footwell, making the 3rd seat VERY comfortable for my 6'3" self. But in the shorties, the bottom cushion is essentially mounted right to the floor and there is no drop-down whatsoever, meaning your knees sit at about the same level as your shoulders.

There is the longer models, but it'd be nice to be able to get less bulk and still decently accomodating seating back there. Edited November 12, 2005 by caddycruiser

[91z4me]

All this talk of the GMT-900's being rushed to market is complete bullshit.  GM has had all the time in the world to work on these SUVs and trucks.  Their existing trucks became stale long ago while the competition launched better nicer vehicles.  They've been working on these vehicles since the GMT-800's first came out.  Not having any feature due to "time constraints" is a total lie.  If the Tahoe is missing an IRS or folding third row seats, it's due to cost cutting, plain and simple.

[post="31688"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

WRONG! GM brought the GMT900s forward at least 6 months if not more. Point being that they were supposed to be further back than they actually are, Production starts in December for crying out loud. BTW since the 800s came out in 00 we have seen the H2 which required quite a bit of engineering. The GMT360s were introduced in 2002. Also the Avalanche debuted in 2002 along with the required engineering for that. Also GM has the GMT360s AND 355s to engineer. Guess what they use a lot of the same people to engineer all the BOF trucks. I know people will say yeah but what else did they do. How about small improvements made each year. Heck I think it was 2004 that GM made revisions to the new 2003 silverado front end, as well as other model front ends, that reduced drag and actually improved fuel mileage a tiny bit. Since you seem to know so much about the engineering time frame on these trucks why don't you give us a play by play of when it should have been completed?

So when should 'bubble up' have started and ended?
When should the artistic design work have started and ended?
When should the first mules with improved frames have been made?
What point should GM have decided to retool the plants that with nearly 1,000,000 vehicle capacity?
Why couldn't they use the engineers to do other things and save a few million dollars that obviously wasn't needed since GM's 800s are still selling VERY well?

Who said fold flat 3rd row seats are 100% needed? I think GM will keep its marketshare, already over 60% in fullsize SUVs, and will likely gain marketshare thanks to features that other companies don't even offer. These features include VVT and DOD which seem to be mutually exclusive. The Durango's Hemi offers MDS but no VVT. The OHC motors offer VVT but no DOD. Lets not forget that Ford is the only one beating GM to the punch on 6 speeds. So what that for the first 1 year only the biggest engines will have them? It isn't like GM's are fuel hungry like the imports are. Also lets remember that in about 18 months GM will offer a 2 mode hybrid system that is LIGHT YEARS ahead of any other hybrid system out there, so much so that DCX and BMW are becoming partners so they can get access to the system.

[kunfusd]

Does anyone know when we will see pricing on the new Tahoes?

[caddycruiser]

Does anyone know when we will see pricing on the new Tahoes?

[post="44637"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Probably next month, since they're supposed to hit the lots in January.

Hopefully, they'll be DRAMATICALLY lower too, i.e, no more $37k 2wd Tahoe with no options and the smaller engine. Well, that, and low enough that they don't need to keep $5-6k rebates on the hood every single year.

[NOS2006]

I could've sworn the commercial showed a Tahoe with separated headlights (think Silverado)...

[SingleStylish]

Some people over exagerate the NEEDS of full size SUV users. Never would I call a fold flat or IRS a necesity. Period. It isn't a deal breaker like it would be in a smaller vehicle like a mid size or van. If you REALLY need a cushy on road road and plenty of back seat room... go by a Lincoln Town Car. This is still a vehicle that is to be used on and off road with towing being more prominent for this vehicle. A solid axel in the rear is MUCH MUCH better for towing. Relax. The interior and build quality and a reputation that preceeds it will sell these trucks with absolutely no problem.