For most of its history, the Electra was Buick’s largest and most luxurious sedan, and the most prestigious car in GM’s fleet that wasn’t a personal luxury coupe or a Cadillac. In other words, the Electra offered a similar levels of luxury, comfort, and practicality to a Cadillac, but in a slightly more understated manner which some humbler buyers preferred.
Naturally, the days of the big luxo-barge sedans are over. People who want the feeling that they’re floating down the interstate in their living room generally go for a big, luxurious SUV, or more recently, large CUVs. While I’d hardly call the Cadillac Escalade the direct successor to the RWD Fleetwood Brougham, it does share many similarities with its departed ancestor.
For starters, the Escalade the largest vehicle in Cadillac’s lineup, and certainly makes no apologies for this nor its unimpressive fuel economy. Also like the Fleetwood Brougham, the Escalade offerers plenty of interior room to stretch out, as well robust power from a massive V8. Similar to the Fleetwood Brougham, the Escalade holds a position of disconnect from both the rest of Cadillac’s lineup of now German-fighting cars and crossovers, as well as the direction Cadillac is trying to go as a brand.
My extended case for the Cadillac Escalade versus the Fleetwood Brougham naturally relates back to Buick, and our featured car, this 2007 GMC Yukon Denali. After the discontinuation of the rear-wheel drive Electra’s belated and short-lived Roadmaster successor, Buick has been left without an ostentatious flagship vehicle. Enter the GMC Yukon Denali.
As stated, big, fully-loaded Buicks were often purchased by those who those who found comparable Cadillacs just a bit too pretentious (and probably a bit too unjustifiably expensive). While it’s true that the Buick name didn’t have the same cachet as Cadillac, in terms of appearance, the big top-trimmed Buicks were just as gaudily trimmed as their Cadillac relatives.
Naturally, Buick Electras were still bought to make a statement of wealth, just not quite as much of one as a Cadillac. If buyers really wanted to stay humble, they would’ve stuck with a fully-loaded Impala. This is where the Yukon Denalis comes into play. More or less, it occupies the same position in GM’s hierarchy as the Electra as a that’s still quite flashy, with most of the same luxury accommodations as its Cadillac sibling, just not the top-shelf brand name and price tag.
Forgive me if my theory seems too far fetched, but this is the best conclusion I could reach to the question of why somewhat would buy one of these over an Escalade. What got me trying to wrap my head around this dilemma, and the very reason why I’m writing about this car is that I recently had the chance to take one for an extended overnight test drive. As most readers probably have guessed, this is not my type of vehicle at all, which is the very reason I asked to take it home for the night, to experience something very different.
Starting with the outside, it’s safe to say terms such as “expressive”, “trend-setting”, or even “interesting” have ever been used to describe the styling of any GMT400 and later full-size SUV. After all, they’ve always been based on their more utilitarian pickup truck counterparts, and these gigantic SUVs’ primary purpose has always been to haul families and all their gear around.
Clearly an example of form following function, the basic box shape has never allowed for major moves in the styling department. In any event, I personally find the clean lines of the GMT900 (2007-2014) SUVs to be more attractive than the fussier styling of their immediate predecessors or successors, the former of which hasn’t aged gracefully and the latter of which is too incohesive.
Opening the heavy (and in this example, creaky) driver’s door activated the power-deploy running boards, which were by no means necessary but nonetheless rather handy. Ascending up into the cabin revealed a very straightforward layout with a profusion of different materials. The most frequently touched surfaces are covered in stitched leather or vinyl, including the padded door panels and armrests.
The large thin-rimmed steering wheel was covered in leather and rich-looking burl wood (the only interior wood I was certain was real) all around. I was rather surprised to find that the wheel only tilted, and didn’t telescope, but it wasn’t much of an issue in this car as I needed to be quite close to reach the pedals anyway. Apparently the Denali does have power adjustable pedals, but I couldn’t easily find how to adjust them among the myriad of small, confusing buttons and levers scattered throughout the cabin, many of them out of easy reach.
Regardless, the extra wide bucket seats are supremely comfortable, with generous padding and a surprising amount of support. The fact that the woman who traded it in was about my height and stature made it easy to find my optimal seating position after just a few minor adjustments.
In terms of its ride-quality, the GMC Yukon Denali presents a smooth, sobering ride that often feels like you’re gliding through air. Even with its 20-inch chrome rims, the Denali soaked up all but the worst bumps in the road, nullifying my usual challenge of dodging potholes. That said, I really don’t like driving something that gives me no feel of the road.
The soft-sprung suspension gives off an overly floaty feel that gave me the sensation of being on a cruise ship and quite frankly had me wanting Dramamine. A soft, floaty ride may be alright for passengers, which may explain why these vehicles are so popular for shuttling around often drunk people as livery vehicles.
But as a driver and one who actually enjoys driving, the Yukon has all of the handling characteristics of trying to drive your living room around. Along with its very high ratio, loose feeling steering, calculating every maneuver leaves a great deal of guessing.
Of course, no one buys these gargantuan SUVs because they’re “fun to drive”. Vehicles like the Yukon, and its Tahoe/Suburban/Escalade siblings are bought for their comfort, space, and ride height, among other more hedonic characteristics. The Yukon certainly delivers in these areas, and in the case of this top-spec Denali model, luxury features are in abundance.
For a 2007, this truck came just about as “fully loaded” as I can think. Heated seats, heated steering wheel, navigation, bluetooth, satellite radio, power tailgate, power deploying running boards, rear-view camera, and a rear seat entertainment system were all included. For a moment I even thought it had lane-departure assist, although again, this was due to a confusingly labeled button that just ended up changing the info in the gauge cluster to display miles until empty.
Now I’ll be 100-percent honest when I say that I wanted to hate this car. It’s a big, brash, excessively large truck with uninspired styling inside and out, horribly tacky chrome exterior and woodtone interior trim, and a numbing driving experience. In other words, it’s exactly the opposite type of vehicle that appeals to me, and driving it was about as out of character as me stepping foot in a fast food joint.
Yet, in a way I can’t clearly explain, I kind of liked it. It wasn’t that I liked the physical act of driving this gussied-up truck of humble origins, as I found nothing about it particularly enjoyable to drive, and nothing about its styling or interior had me oohing and aahing. It was more what this car stands for — unnecessary size, arrogance, tackiness, and above all, a model of conspicuous consumption and money outweighing good taste — that appealed to my inner rebellious side.
(Game face)
Driving this chromed-out, black 5,600+ pound tank gave me a great sense of empowerment. Riding up high, surrounded by colossal cage of steel and tinted glass, I felt like I owned the road, and quite frankly, I probably drove like even more of an arrogant driver than I typically do.
(A big SUV on a cul-du-sac of cookie cutter homes – the American dream)
So would I ever consider buying or even driving a car of this nature for an extended period of time? Absolutely not. However, it was nonetheless a one night stand I did not regret the next morning. Sometimes it feels good to be bad.
I drove the Chevy equilavent for a weekend while my 1st generation Ford Escape was in the shop.
I agree with all your observations (floating ride, vague steering, confusing egronomics, etc). Also, the extra wide center console took up the equal of one entire seating position and the best gas mileage was 16 at a steady 65 MPH. The sole redeeming value was a rear camera for reverse. The only market for this car were Secret Servive agents and those on a 36 month lease.
When I got back into my Escape on Monday afternoon, I felt I shed a 1000 lbs of excess.
I guess this sentiment would apply to just about any large SUV since they are all very similar. These are the 2016 equivalent of the 1976 Lincoln Continental Town Cars.
One difference: I don’t remember many new Town Cars & Sedan deVilles being used as young family transportation, despite their exemplary interior & trunk space. They hauled grand-kids around instead. I still recall the surprise in seeing a large family we knew taking full advantage of an [old] Caddy.
But now, people don’t want to wait that long to get all the fruit.
“Sedan deVilles being used as young family transportation…”?
That’s what my family did in ’75. [Although we were 7-14 y/o kids] But, most families had LTD/Impala/88/Fury/LeSabre class big cars.
Traded in our ’68 Plymouth Fury [318 v8]wagon for a ’72 Sedan DeVille. The price was right, due to depreciation, and my dad liked to get used cars through coworkers.
But Ma hated the gas mileage, from nearly 16 to 10! The 472 sure had an appetite. But, when squeezed, could get 16 going 62 on Interstate 90.
Got a ’77 LeSabre, from another coworker, in ’79, and could get 20 on highway.
My dad got a ’78 Coupe deVille & then an ’80 Sedan deVille, but by then I was the only kid left at home, & was driving age anyway.
Once I measured the MPG for the latter & it was 18, pretty decent.
In many ways I think they are, but in ride, comfort and quietness I think the 70s luxury boats is better, even today.
So you’re saying that, when Americans want a real luxury car, is has to be big, thirsty, ill-handling and pretentious? It has to ride like a fluffed pillow, be a relative dog on curvy roads, and be full of lots of little gewgaws and gimcracks to be considered luxurious?
And we wonder why the market went nuts over Mercedes, BMW, and Audi? Based on what they were building 20-30 years ago? (That caveat is aimed primarily at BMW who is making a radically different lineup from back then. Audi and Mercedes have pretty much stayed true to form, other than the addition of SUV’s due to market demand.)
Being uncomfortable is not luxurious. This has been a universal truth since the beginning of time. Do you think the kings and lords of medieval times sat on hard wood chairs? No, their advisers did. They sat on lushly padded upholstered thrones.
I personally find soft and wallowy cars more fun to drive at responsible speeds than firm ones. The current BMW 5-series is amazingly soft in comfort+ mode. Just driving along at 45 mph you can sense a slight pitch, as you gaze over the big hood. So what if a car rolls in the corners, that only gives you a sense of the forces involved.
We can’t all be racing drivers after all. 🙂
The BMWs that established BMW as anything resembling the “ultimate driving machine” tagline were a brief fad for the nouveau riche in the grand scheme of things. Audi too rests on their past laurels quite well, pretty much featuring the first gen Quattro ripping through a dirt rally stage in every other ad they make – I’d like to see a plushy low slung A7 do that stage today, course that’s what their SUVs are for now I guess. Mercedes I’d argue were always squarely in the Cadillac mold, just with better engineering and less emphasis on flash and gimmick, and ride tuned for the autobahn rather than speed limited American highways.
Y’know, all the criticisms you have about American cars, could also be leveled at Rolls Royce and Bentley as well. As those cars share just as many characteristics as American luxury cars, just with a higher price tag.
Also, like many people who are older than me have said, the market became enamored with the Germans because they were different from the brands that the Baby Boomers had grown up with, not because of their driving dynamic qualities. When those Boomers got older, they moved onto Lexus, which was just like Cadillac, it was just built better and was from a more trustworthy and better liked company.
I agree with Joseph, here. One of the great successes of the traditional American car was the democratization of luxury. The perquisites of space and fleetness was no longer the domain of the very rich and privileged.
I agree that they ‘Float’ down the road nicely, but the front of All GMC’s look like the design-guy clocked-in, created the basic shape, went to lunch, and NEVER came back to finish it. At least their cousins (Cadillac and Chevrolet) divided up the grilles and shaped the headlights (somewhat anyway). Maybe the marketing department feels that it’s ok to be uglier because some of the luxury-treatments aren’t included with the Chevy, and the Caddy’s a-Lot more expensive!
The transfer of American luxury over to trucks has been painfull for me. Utility and luxury in my mind should be for separate vehicles and the well off that drive them should be able to have a fleet of vehicles for every need. Brendan equated GMC to Buick and that is right.
People who resented the big Buick effectively banned them with CAFE standards. They left utility vehicles with less restrictions to allow commercial and lifestyle vehicles. So here come the Denali and their ilk. The big sedan survives now only in China. I wonder if they will have their own generation of 68ers take over and ban what they resent.
I live in Pittsburgh, the last thing I want, and people like me want is to feel these roads. And the inevitable creeks and rattles and broken suspension components that come with a more engaging suspension in an everyday driver. Im 28 and Driving my 79 Continental is a revelation in what a true luxury ride should feel like. It makes my 300C and even my mother’s XJ feel like lowered civics. Luxury is another thing you baby boomers should have listened to your parents about.
I agree with this. Who wants to feel the road? The roads are terrible.
A-freakin’-men. I love my 300c, but if they could make it float more like its New Yorker predecessors it would be a real home run.
I always thought the Denali would be perfect modern-day Electra Estate if they ever re-make Adventures in Babysitting
They already have, unfortunately.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4456850/
Ugh. I wonder what car they used?
I’ve got to take off the rose-colored glasses from my childhood, as I remember Electras as being nice cars that were on target for the times. Sure they were huge and flashy, but that was a much more mainstream part of the market back then. Plus, the Electra was differentiated enough from its GM siblings that you could tell them all apart at a glance. And it was certainly different and more upscale than the big Chevrolet (I’m talking Electras here, not the later Roadmonsters).
And then we have this thing. Though not for me, I can understand why someone would buy a Tahoe/Suburban (huge, indestructible workhorse). And having driven them, you do get the sense that you own the road (you certainly take up enough of it). However, the “luxury” versions from GMC and Cadillac leave me mystified. Other than tackier–but equally cheap and cheesy–trim, there is no difference except the higher price tags. I hate to think of it as a successor to the Electra, because it just isn’t as well done. The Yukon is like the “luxury” of a McMansion with the “granite package” while the Electra was more like a really solid 1960s ranch house with real added luxury like an extra bedroom and bath, family room with a fireplace, more yard and better landscaping.
I love the utility of these things, but the price for even a base Tahoe is almost $50K. I don’t understand how so many people can justify that cost.
Saur wrote: “loose feeling steering, calculating every maneuver leaves a great deal of guessing.”
Great review Brendan, but sorry to hear of this
steering issue. This is the TWENTY-FIRST
century! Cars should have the best steering
and road feel ever.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
Probably the best explanation of traditional American luxury cars. By the way, that is the full version of the very popular comment.
Really? So you are saying people who enjoy spacious, comfortable cars are stupid?
I could make the same argument about people who feel the need to buy 300+ HP “luxury” cars with cramped cabins and harsh rides so they can play boy-racer on public roads.
I don’t see much point in most luxury cars, other than pretentiousness. But they make the world a more interesting place.
No, I’m saying that people are willing to put a premium on size, flash, gimcracks and cheaply-created “luxury” over real performance. And I’m thinking of “performance” in terms of taking an average car that would appeal to the non-car enthusiast public and having it perform near that of a full-blown sports car. While still having a ride that, while stiffer, will not border on uncomfortable.
And time and again, sales have shown that the public will more readily spend their money on huge land yachts vinyl roofs, poofy pillow interiors, fake wood with plastic baroque filigree, huge chrome wheels with narrow sidewall tyres, etc. than a set of swaybars, good shocks and springing, and an engine with some (but not all) of the characteristics of a highly tuned sports car engine.
A couple of years ago, I read a blog where the writer posited the idea that Toyota should have brought out a Lexus version of the first generation Scion xB, guessing that such a car would appeal to the upmarket crowd as a commuter runabout. Now, I own said car and absolutely love it. Were it not for the lack of a sixth gear on the transmission, cruise control, and soundproofing, I would probably be happy to take that car to my grave. It’s that good a driver as a daily commuter, light duty back road bomber, and bicycle hauler.
Now try to visualize that same car with automatic (and engine upgrade to at least match mine with the manual – preferably outdo it), an interior that matches (if not slightly outdoes) the Lexus LS400-series cars, with that kind of room and space efficiency. To me, that’s a no-brainer luxury car.
To the general American public, it’s a complete flop. Too small, not pretentious enough, way too expensive for the size of car you’re getting, has nothing whatsoever to scream “look at me” – and putting that degree of Lexus LS quality in that small a platform would be too expensive to build.
The average (average mind you, not the crowd that congregates here or other like sites) American consumer couldn’t see the quality. The car wouldn’t be large and flashy enough for them to see it. Yet, double the size of the car, make the interior appointments louder but of cheaper materials, and you’ve got a luxury car to most consumers.
I am visualizing a Lexus Cimmaron. Sure it would be better quality and be a better car and more practical and perhaps the perfect car for you. I get that. But it’s still a gussied up econobox. And sure Denalis are gussied up trucks but they start with a $47K platform rather than a $17K one.
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to imply people who want to spend money on luxury are stupid for not wanting a premium version of an unpopular economy car while wanting a luxury version of a popular premium SUV.
Not everyone interested in premium wants or cares about sports cars. Luxury is all about image and projecting it, BMW is case and point. Want to know why they strayed from small light purposeful handlers? Because the Realtors in suburbia who lease them in droves aren’t corner carving around culdesacs with their clients in the back, and the functional ergonomics of the classic BMW interiors aren’t particularly appreciated when they realize the biggest change inside their in vogue E30 from their high school/college Cavalier were round full gauges, ooh fancy!
And I’d say the demand for handling as a luxury car trait is a demand of diminishing returns. A brand new Focus ST can run circles around a number of new costlier luxury entries as far as handling goes. Is that going to woo away a Lexus ES buyer? Uh No. That’s not something Luxury should or needs to further embrace because handling is something constantly evolving and improving with the automobile as a whole. Most of the traits you see as stupid and unnecessary really are truly luxury – If your car costs more to run because of it’s size and/or power and you can afford it, that’s Luxury – If the styling turns someone’s head, that’s Luxury. – A first gen Scion XB with a slushbox, cruise control and leather seats and fake stitching strewn about the interior? I’m pretty sure that car exists somewhere today, probably in the mainstream, and probably not with a Lexus pricetag
True, as soon as they were offered, some people said “A BMW SUV, gimmie one!” Only care about the image, not the ‘driving experience’.
The old american luxury boats was well equipped, relatively powerfull (no Cadillac with a I4 or 6 in 50//60/70s) quiet at speeds and at idle, soaked up every minor or major potholes in the road, good interior space, good safety for the day, reliable, durable, comfortable and relatively cheap to maintain. They where what the american buyer wanted for the times.
None of the European cars from that time was like this. Yes the had better handling, brakes and steering. That’s it. The where surely not quiet, some where very harsh riding, some didn’t even had power steering (my E12 1981 BMW 5 series didn’t, 90 hp by the way….). Mercedes couldn’t even build a decent automatic until late 70s, and BMW and Rolls Royce and other used GM Hydramatics, as an example. BMW couldn’t even get their frameless windows waterproof as late as in the 70s. My 67 Riviera is waterproof during a car wash maschine (if I use it….)
It looks like you think the grass was so much greener on the other side. It wasn’t. In Norway you could buy a Mercedes E-class with a 72 hp diesel engine in the late 80s. It didn’t even had power windows or door locks. In the US the German cars from that time used to put in their biggest engines, most equipment and so on just to compare to the american cars of the day.
Actually, you’ve got your image of the US luxury market in the late 80s mixed up. The hottest luxury/prestige cars on the market were six cylinder Mercedes and BMW. The alternative was Cadillac, which was pretty obviously chintzy and was acquiring a reputation for poor reliability and ho-hum performance.
The Lexus LS400 hit that market like an atom bomb. It delivered size, performance, and quality in heaping handfuls that no one else came near. It forced Mercedes and BMW to change their most popular cars from sixes to V8s for the same money.
The problem is, car companies are businesses and have to actually sell things. What you are proposing is a somewhat upscale version of the mythical brown manual diesel wagon sort of car that consumers simply don’t want. I sure as hell don’t.
Remember, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. I could give a damn about handling or “performance”, I just want enough handling to keep me on the road and enough “performance” to make my big yacht scoot if so called upon. I don’t want a sports car at all though, in fact, I despise sports cars. De gustibus and all, but the “enthusiasts” can have them!
Also, you are a few decades late. No one makes true Broughams anymore. Much as I’d love it if they did, they don’t. The only problem I have with that style is fake wood, real wood isn’t really that expensive and its well worth adding that little detail. Leave the plastiwood for the lesser makes. I want a big car to fit my 6’3″ frame, I don’t want to shoehorn myself into some little thing. I don’t much care about efficiency, I want the oldschool sedan feel, I don’t want to make the best use of minimal space.
Yes the Yukon, Yukon XL, Tahoe, Suburban is what happened to the type of people who would have bought Park Avenues, Delta 88s, 98 Regencys, et al.
No, they aren’t. Combined, the GM truck based SUVs don’t sell nearly as well as either the full sized Buick or Olds families did 40 and 50 years ago, and that was a car market half the size of today’s market.
Nice comparison to the Park Avenue / Electra, at least for the exterior. Unlike the legendary B/C bodies, the Yukon interior isn’t well-differentiated from the lower-grade Tahoe. And even the exteriors are identical from the side profile. But the Yukon certainly seems to be the choice of those who want an Escalade experience without looking (quite as) flashy.
Speaking of the side profile, I really admire the clean lines of the GMT900s, especially the short ones. A worthy successor to the GMT400, which were surprisingly modernist and elegant.
I drove a near-new GMT900 Suburban as a rental along highway 101 north of San Francisco–a rather windy road. I was impressed by how well it handled the curves. And it probably goes without saying that the “boulevard ride” on the straight stretches is almost peerless. I can see why many car enthusiasts wouldn’t want it to be their primary ride, but I also bet that many would love to have one in their stable. If you’re facing a long-haul drive, it’s the perfect tool for the job.
Add a spouse, 3 kids and a dog to your life and this car will look so much more attractive to you. Well, actually the XL (Suburban) version for the extra room, but you get the picture. When you have a family, space and room is the ultimate luxury.
I like your analogy which compares this car (SUV) to the big Buicks of yore. You even buy them at the same dealer now. I have never driven one of this generation, but have always suspected that they drive quite nicely for what they are. Back in the day, GM was uniquely gifted at building one single type of car – the full sized sedan. Today, GM’s core competency has transferred to big SUVs like this one. There are very few modern GM vehicles that light my fire, but the Suburban/Yukon XL is one.
Well, that black late Seventies Buick Electra in the fifth photo would be welcome in front of my house. I think it represented very well, and tastefully so, the American interpretation of luxury at that time.
I wouldn’t kick it out of my garage either. Might even extend the garage so it could fit.
My step son has a Yukon XL. It reminds me of a bus. A nice bus but still a bus. The Electra was a luxury car. The Yukon is a luxury plumbers truck. I just don’t get it.
i have a big family, tall teenage boys, big dog, outdoor activities. But still do not like the way these drive. My brother just got a new yukon XL and although it excels at moving a lot of people in hushed quasi comfort, I am surprised at how much rolling/yaw motions it displays. Although not as big, our ford flex is the best riding 7 seater we found. Even with gas chugging V8s these trucks feel like they lumber around traffic too much for me. And the high climb into the cabin is hard for short/older folks.
I am baffled big crossovers like the flex have not sold better. I guess people really, really want to sit up high.
The Flex is much smaller than the Yukon XL and doesn’t tow near as much. I like the Flex, but if you need a Yukon XL, a Flex is no substitute. Granted, not everyone who buys a Yukon XL needs one, just as many who buy CUVs would be better off with minivans. But Yukon XLs are more capable vehicles.
Now comparing a larger CUV to a shorter Yukon is more realistic as far as interior space goes. That’s what makes GM’s Lambdas so popular. The Flex is held back not by its utility but by its styling IMO.
The Flex is a great vehicle, I still own its predecessor and platform mate, the Ford Freestyle. It is a roomy, practical, FLEXible, family vehicle. Big crossovers do sell very well, as the current Ford Explorer demonstrates – sitting on the same platform and offering similar drivetrain options as the Flex.
As Phil pointed out, the Flex styling simply leaves most people cold, and its been around for most of a decade. It’s been years since its polarizing looks have turned heads. So, most folks go for the rather cramped-for-its-size Explorer on its looks.
Everything is relative, but the Escalades 6.2 liter V8 is the same engine (minus the supercharger) that the CTS-V has. Calling it “massive” seems a bit over the top.
6.2 liters is a pretty large displacement engine in any context. Especially considering that the base CTS comes with a 2.0L four cylinder.
If 6.2 is massive, then how do you characterize 8.2 liters? Fuel consumption for the 5.3 liter Suburban is not really better than the 6.2 Escalade. The 6.2 is a small block V8 from the 50’s.
The 6.2l would have easily been in big block territory in the 50s, even early 60s standards. The SBC was still 283 cubes(4.6l) at it’s biggest until 1962, Chevrolet’s first big block was a mere 348ci (5.7 liters).
Yes, but the 6.2 is based on the 283 design, not the 348 design.
Brendan and I are saying 6.2l of displacement is HUGE, not the physical engine. Also, the 6.2 is not related to the 283 besides it being a Chevy V8, they are totally different engine designs.
As I said everything is relative. While I agree that this is a large engine in todays world, it is not big compared to yesteryear, OK? I owned a couple of Buick’s with 455’s back in the day.
Had you said the 6.2 is a small block V8 from the mid 60s and 70s I wouldn’t have chimed in, but you said 50s, and that’s flat out wrong. The biggest engines from GM, be it Chevy/Pontiac/Oldsmobile/Buick, Ford and Chrysler in the 50s rarely exceeded 6.6l, most of the run of the mill “big block” engines of the era in fact hovered right in that 6.2l range give or take
Well I was curious who was right but there does not seem to be a concise definition about what constitutes a big block vs a small block. But I have determined it has little to do with displacement and more to do with the physical size of the engine block.
The 6.2 is officially a Generation IV Small Block per GM.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/l94/
That’s not what the argument is about, everyone knows the Generation IV is a smallblock, it’s whether 6.2l of displacement constitutes a ‘massive’ engine – regardless of physical external dimensions.
6.2 liters is not much bigger than 5.7 liters. The following SUV’s offer at least 5.7 liters or bigger:
escalade
Durango
Yukon
INFINITI
Grand Cherokee
lexus
Mercedes (5.5 liters)
Toyota
Bentley
Some of the above are DOHC engines. Bentley is a 12.
The Bugatti type 41 engine was indeed massive, anything less….
Brendan, you look so pissed. Like a vegetarian digesting a 16 oz rib-eye, medium rare.
It’s a great revue though. But the ones who appreciate this vehicle the most are the ones who do not sit at the tiller. I once sat in the middle row of a Ford Expedition. The things that made it memorable were the empty soccer pitch in front of my feet, the floaty ride and the cabin’s quietness. I would expect the same from it’s GM counterparts.
Well, I’d be a very happy camper in an Electra Park Avenue (or a Ninety Eight Regency for that matter), but would feel a bit moronic in one of these things. I can’t put my finger on the exact reason for this, as the two types of vehicle really aren’t all that far apart in terms of style, size or practicality. In fact the Denali is probably 100% more practical (and this isn’t saying a whole lot, mind you) than the luxo-barges of old. Having said this, and having briefly owned a well-optioned ’03 Durango (chosen by my partner, against my vehement protestations), I will admit to a complete understanding of “That Feeling”. You know, the one you get when you realize you’ve got your game face on, whether you intended to or not. I was always ashamed to admit it, and actually didn’t even let on until the Durango was a distant memory, but a few times…just a few…when I was alone behind the wheel or my passenger was asleep I really felt disgustingly empowered hurtling up the interstate with that big burbling 5.9 litre V8 just incinerating dinosaurs like there was no tomorrow. So sue me.
Quoting my Great Depression era Grandfather: “Flashy mafia types and nouveau riche types, who want to show off what they have, buy Cadillacs. ‘Old Money’ people buy Buicks”.
His Grandson will now agree. “Some things never change”.
Over a decade later, I am still mentally shaking my head at fools who pay BIG BUCKS for a “Luxury SUV” that i built on a lowly, tradesman, commercial pick up truck chassis.
The Denali is a better choice than the Escalade but is still a lot of money compared to the base GMC Yukon. The full size Suburban is about the same money as the smaller Yukon. The Denali does offer wood trim I suppose. All of these truck based SUV’s can tow, which is the only reason to go for one instead of one of the CUV’s (Buick Enclave…).
I owned a Roadmonster and was struck by the LIMITED rear leg room…you really needed to step up to the Cadillac version to get decent rear seat room.
These big SUVs don’t necessarily have as much room in the back as you might expect either. Like it or not, there is more usable space in a minivan, but who wants to be seen in one of those?
Having just driven from Destin FL to Cincinnati with 5 adults in a ’16 Honda CRV, I am pondering the purchase of a bigger vehicle…that was no kind of fun. We had 4 of us on the trip down, which was OK, but added a 6ft tall, 180 LB nephew for the trip home…
Brendan
This is an excellent essay on a subject that I, like you, have been musing about for a long time -how did we get to this point? As Mark points out above, the ‘traditional’ convention was that Cadillac’s were flashy “new money” cars and Buicks were quiet “old money” cars. (Oldsmobile was for the successful professional- a doctor or a lawyer). Of course GM destroyed the hierarchy in the 70’s when Cadillacs fell to the price and quality of a fancy Chevy, and Buick began selling tiny commuter-scooter cars. However GM still gives the hierarchy lip-service and swears they are bringing it back to life. I will say that they are doing it with Cadillac, Buick, and Chevy all now offering distinctly different -cars-. In SUVs though, the one-size-fits-all thinking still prevails and that’s where the profits are; the only actual difference between a rich man’s meal and a poor man’s is how much cheese is melted on the hamburger, and what kind of pickle is on the plate: but the restaurant can charge more. Americans love cheese, no matter what’s under it. So the Caddy gets more chrome, a bigger grill, and a louder stereo. That’s it. The hierarchy insists that GMC and Chevy have plainer grills and less pizazz but they can still have the same everything else.
As to why SUVs, the answer goes back to an unintended consequence of the CAFE standards. The government tried to force Americans into smaller,some say tiny, vehicles at the very time Americans were getting fatter. However Business was able to successfully lobby Congress to exempt Trucks and Vans from the CAFE and safety regs. It didn’t take long for people to realize that the only roomy vehicle with decent power was a truck or a van….or an SUV. The minivan has room, but it’s all behind the driver, and the only power available is on the sliding door. Then Range Rover shows the world that you can put leather in these things and people will pay for it. Gas mileage isn’t a factor any more – adjusted for inflation $3.00 a gallon gas is the same price as the 26 cents a gallon price of the 1960’s.
So here we are.
When it comes to full size SUVs there is no poor man’s version anymore. Only minivans. The analogies don’t really work.
Today’s minivans are not lacking for power, by the way. Front seat space has gotten smaller compared to 10 years ago though.
I always thought that if the U.S. govt was really serious about saving fuel, it would tax vehicles based on GWVR and make the tax scale as painfully progressive as possible. Of course, you’d have your exemptions for farm and industrial use. That, and actually tying gas taxes to inflation.
I remember Cadillacs being the new money bling car, and Buick being the old money, doctor or lawyers car. The image being that they were professionals but not charging Cadillac prices for their services. Oldsmobile, in my circle, was more for the blue collar, or self employed tradesman who did well in business. There were always exceptions but that is how I remember it.
This.
I would tend to think the shocks on the 2007 probably are original and (over) due for replacement.
If I was going to go this route I would go for the Chevy version. Why pay a premium for basically the same vehicle?
Certainly not for everyone, but you will not find a finer vehicle for long road trips. I found the handling quite good in comparison to the GMT 900 SUV’s peers.
I’m mixed on the whole concept of luxury SUVs as a whole.
On the one hand, I like some Luxury SUVs, I like the Navigator, some of the Range Rovers, hell I even like the first Lexus GX series. I get the whole idea that the popularity of these is just an extension of our love for big cars, and they are one of the few cars that American manufacturer’s have managed to build that’s been received positively. Old habits die hard and all that jazz. I’ve never ridden or driven in one though, so I don’t know how good they are.
On the other hand, there’s always that whole idea of these seeming off. I sometimes end up remembering that the luxury icons of today are just little more than glorified pickup trucks, the whole concept of the SUV was as a good ol fashioned workhorse vehicle, and while the broughams have their many faults (even a diehard like myself won’t deny that) at least they never claimed to be more practical than as simple transportation, so yeah, you could add another layer of pretentiousness to these. It’s so hard to see these supposed do everything cars just be relegated to taking the kids to McDonalds or as suburban mall crawlers (I blame some of that on what I call, “False justification syndrome” a phenomenon in modern times for people to be dishonest to shut up the annoying nay-sayers saying “why do you NEED that?”, a trend that I find very annoying and infuriating in modern times for all the toxicity associated with it, but that’s a different rant)
I’ve cooled down significantly in many years, I can recognize the appeal of the modern luxury SUV in it’s role in the world, and hey if I had the scratch and wasn’t a broke 20 year old living at home and making minimum wage, I could see myself driving one in the future. As for the Denali itself, eh, I’m just not a fan.
Correction: I meant the first Lexus LX series, not the GX.
Wouldn’t a better analogy be that full-size SUVs are the modern day equivalent of the Kingswood Estate Wagon and whatever Buick & Oldsmobile called their full-size wagons? In my mind SUVs are nothing more than station wagon bodies mounted on pickup truck frames; calling them something else doesn’t change what they are. For the people who need and/or want a vehicle that size I’m sure they fit the bill. I don’t need or want one but to each his own. I do believe that the gas tax needs to be increased and the proceeds used to fix our roads and bridges; if you want to drive a vehicle that gets 10-12 MPG then you can pay to do so.
But I’d say a more significant percentage of these large truck-based SUVs are driven by single people or small families not because they “need” a car this big, but because they can afford it and want it for the image it projects, much in the way that people bought full-size cars back in the day.
I’d equate the modern day Kingswood Estate and siblings to large CUVs such as the Chevrolet Traverse. Much like full-size wagons, full-size CUVs aren’t bought to impress anyone.
I’m not sure that its image as much as the big SUV offers the most for its class of vehicle.
By the same token, do you drive an Acura because it really serves its purpose better than a Honda Civic, or do you prefer the Acura’s room, power, refinement, and creature comforts that offer you more for its class of vehicle?
If you drive it for image, that’s okay too. YOLO as they say. 😉
Oh, I’ll be the first to admit and have no shame doing so that image plays a large part in why I drive an Acura over a similarly-equipped Honda (Accord in my case).
For me personally, there’s just something about driving something with a higher brand name and a feeling of greater exclusivity. It’s hedonic for sure and I know some will never understand this feeling, but it nonetheless makes me feel happy and more rewarded every time I get in my Acura.
That said, features like a 280-horsepower V6, firmer suspension, supportive perforated leather, xenon headlights, bluetooth audio, and above all, edgier styling also played a huge role in my purchase decision. But nonetheless, I am someone who cares greatly about what I drive.
I disagree that large CUVs aren’t bought to impress anyone. They are typically bought by people who would be better served by a minivan. They are GM’s de facto minivan replacements. There is also a Denali version of the Acadia.
“Better served by a minivan.”
It’s all opinion and preference, not to mention freedom of choice.
I had a brand-new, 1999 Chrysler Town and Country for three years. I’ve also rented and been in many other minivans. Since then, I’ve purchased a largish SUV and one large CUV.
The SUV tows a lot better than the minivan. But, I don’t tow every day to prove that I do tow occasionally. The CUV was actually less expensive than the mini. So, that may be a step down in image? The CUV is also slightly shorter (height and length) than the minivan it replaced, and fits in my garage better.
Minivans offer a rather bus like driving experience, I’m not a fan of handling the sliding doors, I like the automated sliders even less, they seem more squeak and rattle prone, sound insulation is almost always inferior to three row wagon style vehicles. The Toyota and Honda minivans are mercilessly expensive, and the Chrysler models have, well, Chrysler FWD transverse mounted drivetrains.
One man’s opinion based on experience: I personally feel better served by my SUV / CUVs.
I wasn’t very clear, but I did say typically. There are certainly valid reasons to buy a large CUV over a minivan. Your Freestyle is a bit of an anomaly, much like the Flex. It is a fine CUV but much more car like in appearance than other large CUVs…and it didn’t sell well. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. And it’s probably also why it was cheaper than your van. If you compare Highlander to Sienna, Pilot to Odyssey, the CUVs are more expensive and the vans about 75% more spacious.
“Wouldn’t a better analogy be that full-size SUVs are the modern day equivalent of the Kingswood Estate Wagon and whatever Buick & Oldsmobile called their full-size wagons? In my mind SUVs are nothing more than station wagon bodies mounted on pickup truck frames; calling them something else doesn’t change what they are.”
This thought also crosses my mind, but the style of cars / wagons/ crossovers / suvs/ whatevers has mostly gone back to what it was in the 1930s. The Yukon is simply a modern large car. Actually, a bit of an under achiever in the wheelbase department. Take a gander at the 152 inch wheelbase 1930 Buick compared to the 2007 Buick Yukon (add the accessory shown for an authentic 1930’s touch)………………
I do see your point but a 1930 Buick is a masterpiece of styling. A Yukon, uhm, not so much.
We don’t have decades’ worth of hindsight yet to color that perspective.
If the shape of current self-driving cars is any indication, there is a great possibility that the Yukon could be looked at in the same way sometime in our distant future.
My mind is stuck on how much interior room a 152″ wheelbase would give you. Whatever the furnishings, that space would be luxury.
Notice how much of that 152″ is in front of the cabin, where it contributes nothing to passenger space (but can make the ride better).
GMC is essentially “Buick Trucks”, and was meant for rural BOP dealers to sell trucks to farmers.
To most suburbanites, and quite a few city folk, SUV’s are “cars”, and used to just go A to B. No off-roading, camping, fishing, hunting, or dirt roads at all.
Its funny the ire that various vehicles draw. As JPC said, having a large family will make the virtues of these vehicles rise to the top. Driving one of these by yourself in a tight urban area has little reward. Cruising the ‘burbs with family on board for a dinner outing, or on the highway with a boat in tow, and the Yukon will put a broad smile on your face. I have this exact relationship with my largest vehicle – an F-150 Supercrew. A quick trip to Target? I take my wife’s car.
Yukons, sold at Buick dealers, are the modern day Roadmaster / Electra. Yukons currently sell 70-75K units a year, about what a good year used to be for Buick’s top car in the ’60s and ’70s. A great year for the big Buick would break 100k.
With all the contortions GM has experienced over the last 20 years, the value of the Buick name on a global basis, and considering the true oddity that GMC has been over the years in the GM family, rebranding all GMC vehicles “Buick” would not be entirely crazy.
Buick Yukon XL Denali. Say it a few times, and you kind of get used to it.
Like Dave B just said, seeing the reaction is quite interesting.
In some ways, I view the Yukon (the Denali package is overkill, but to each his own) as a vehicle for those who had, say, a Toyota Highlander but now have more kids, taller kids, are tall themselves, or have to haul (or pull) more. Frankly, if I were to chuck down this much coin for a rig, I’d just get a Suburban and be done with it.
Plus there is a need for such vehicles. A coworker is 6’2″ tall. His twin sons just turned 14 and are 6’2″ and 6’4″. His wife is the runt at 5’5″. When the boys could simply not fit inside his Camry any longer, what do you think happened? The Toyota went away for a Ford Excursion Eddie Bauer, pretty much the Ford version of this Denali. There are no more issues with everyone fitting inside. What contemporary cars can accomplish this?
With GMC advertising itself as professional grade, its image as the Buick of light trucks is very spot on.
They sure don’t ride like a Buick. A relative has a brand new Yukon Denali and I was appalled at its crappy ride. Nothing like a real Buick. She as well used to buy Buick Park Avenues and now “Denali….Yukons” as she calls them (make sure we know she got the high-dollar version). Space utilization is terrible. The XL model is much better in all regards. Still “not a Buick!” though (nor is anything else Buick offers today except maybe the lil Verano?).
I don’t think that there is a simple explanation for the rise of the SUV market. Nor is there a simple reason for the shift away from the coupe market.
Good article and I agree that these are interesting vehicles which remind me of driving an 87 Caprice Estate. Here are some photos of a 55,000 miles rental Tahoe built in December, 2013 with some wear and tear.
The seat for the driver.
In the final seasons of The Sopranos, boss Tony rocked the Escalade and his second Silvio drove a Denali. Rank hath its privileges.
Great article and interesting debate in the comments.
Brendan, your final verdict was very to the point, if I may summarize/paraphrase it: “I wanted to hate this vehicle, but I liked it”.
I, for one, love these trucks. Now get this: I’m in Europe where American SUVs/trucks are very rare and American cars are generally looked down upon (quite undeservedly).
I actually own a 1997 Tahoe (4-door) and I immensely enjoy it, despite it being a 20-year old truck. It’s so much better in almost every way than European penalty boxes (even the modern ones).
Sure, European hatchbacks are perhaps a bit more more fun when driven hard on twisty mountain roads (I used to own a Mk5 VW Golf) – but overall, nothing beats a big American V8 beast.
I agree that large SUVs are basically big truck-based station wagons. And my 1997 Tahoe is still very much in touch with its truck roots. But actually I like it for that. It can stil transport my family in comfort and I can haul lots of stuff in the cargo area. This Spring, we moved to a new apartment which needed some renovation and a lot of new furniture – boy did I put my SUV to some good use!
And lastly, these machines are actually capable of some mild offroading which I also took advantage of a couple of times. In know that most SUVs never leave pavement, but that’s their owner’s problem…
I love cars with soft ride (on my ’97, the ride is actually not very plush), lots of space, high seating position* and, as Brendan put it so well, the “sense of empowerment”. Maybe the last one is a bit silly, but what th heck, I still love it.
* I actually like sitting high and sitting low, depending on the car. In the Tahoe, I like having good overview of the road and the feeling of a “commanding position”. But when I had the Golf, the cabin floor of that car is low to begin with and even then I adjusted the driving seat height all the way down. That just felt right for that car…