What you’re looking at right now has got to be General Motors’ single biggest hit in the last 15 years. Literally. Smack-dab in the middle of the SUV-craze, they pulled together their resources and did what the GM of old was known to do best: Make the best-in-class vehicle in America.
Now, I know it sometimes seems we’re a bit harsh on the good ‘ol General here at CC but it’s simply because we know that GM can and will do better if it’s so inclined. GM’s Hits are so prolific they don’t need introductions; their names have transcended from mere corporate placards into legends: Camaro, 4-4-2, LeMans, DeVille, Corvette, Toronado, Bonneville; it goes on and on and on and that’s for passenger vehicles only.
GM also made the best in public transport vehicles. The Powerglide is used to this day in Dragsters. It’s such a comprehensive collection of high-notes in every single strata they competed that it makes every failure have considerably more weight. A lot of people will tell you that GM really didn’t made anything worth noting after the 1996 B-Bodies. Gobbledygook; one of the best products ever to come out of GM was about to be released and it would tick all the boxes that GM ticked at their best.
For starters the timing was perfect. In 2000 the wagon market was irrelevant and had been for a couple of years. SUV’s were the family haulers of choice now. Why wouldn’t they be? They were bigger and stronger than wagons (or at the very least looked like it) and, unlike minivans, they didn’t shouted to the world that you had completely given up on excitement and adventure in your life and resigned yourself to ferry children from one side of town to another for various plays and little league sporting events or whathaveyou. Gasoline was cheap so you could get away with bigger is better. It wasn’t like gas was going to rise spectacularly fast was it? (Hindsight is quite a marvelous thing) Still; the people wanted carlike refinement in their SUV’s, but not at the expense of size or perceived strength. Which is where the GMT800 platform came into its own.
Far be it from me to suggest that the wide acceptance of SUV’s started with this platform, far from it. We have two jeeps to thank for that. But it certainly was more refined and better done than its predecessor and the competition (Read: Ford Expedition/Excursion).
Okay, the interior was very GM parts-bin, but it somehow managed to work, even when you got to the higher trimmed and leather-lined LT and Denali. And because fuel was cheap and plentiful you also had some enormous engines to make sure that your neo-Caprice wagon was quick to boot. I’m pretty sure that this was the last time you could order a medium-duty (2500 series) vehicle with an engine of more than eight liters of displacement (Vortec 8100). For those that didn’t need to tow a house there were more modest 5.3 and 6.0-liter offerings. And if you wanted extreme luxury there was the Escalade.
Now, there had been an Escalade before this one and, believe me, its day on the CC spotlight at my hands is coming. I just haven’t decided if it’s worth a DS or not. Like I said at the beginning of this article the monumental success of one GM product only serves to make their bad products look that much worse. And really they blew it out of the park considering its popularity with its main gentry demographic and its extreme popularity with a new-found periphery demographic.
So the Cadillac version was a hit with the affluent person that wanted to flash some cash (and would shoot you if you tried to bash). The GMC Denali was successful with the people that wanted similar equipment and refinement but didn’t want to be quite as conspicuous about it (taking over from Oldsmobile). And the Chevrolet Suburban, if I may make so bold a claim, was Americas equivalent to the Volkswagen Golf as a truly classless vehicle. This became even more conspicuous as they started hitting the used car market. You could see them at soccer practice, towing farm equipment or ferrying the cream of the crop in Washington D.C. That was only in America though.
As a salesman, my father used to use his car as much as using whatever was available in the company roster. Usually some old truck or something but on occasion there was this: a crimson Silverado. Fully loaded of course. On one very memorable occasion He was around the university when I was leaving class and offered to pick me up. For a moment I could answer the Beatles’ question about the feelings of the beautiful people, and it did elicit some questions the very next day. I admit that the idea of such reactions being caused by a common Chevrolet Pickup truck seems a bit preposterous but you’d be surprised of what rarity can do for a cars’ image.
The GMT800 platform would give way to the improved GMT900 in 2007. And at this point in the game the world was going greener, the Hummer became the poster child of the evils of gas-guzzlers, fuel was going up and it’d be silly to think it would plummet back down all of a sudden (that hindsight thing again) and not even a hybrid version was going to be able to appease all the bad press that GM was getting and would get in the next couple of years. The vehicle was still good but the timing wasn’t. Not that it was entirely their fault you understand.
Otherwise known as the National Car of Texas. They are perhaps as versatile as any vehicle made.
I just saw a Silverado Texas model. Ford has an F-150 King Ranch version. Nothing is too big for Texas, that was my conclusion after my 1st extended stay there. Once, we stopped the car outside a ranch entrance. We couldn’t even see the ranch house, the property was that vast.
My theory: If it’s small, it’ll get overlooked.
That film was wild. I live in the country but it doesn’t resemble the ranches you describe. 5 acres is about the ideal size and my land value has climbed because of proximity to the city. Couldn’t afford it today. 15 years ago everyone had a Burban.
Yeah, I was about to say that Full Size GM SUVs are like cockroaches in DFW (Half of them seemingly riding on 22s).
It’s like the Mexican-American Dream – move to the US, buy a Tahoe or Suburban for Mami to haul around her four to six hijos.
They’re popular among rich Mexican nationals who graze at Tucson Mall, too. BTW, they’re usually fair-skinned & dress up a little more than grungy Americans. A clerk told me that some re-sell their purchases in Mexico, presumably for a nice profit.
In DFW they’re driven by a decidedly downscale portion of the Latino population.
At least the older models, no doubt due to the huge quantity of 5 – 10 year old examples being sold locally on the face-to-face used car market.
In Mexico though, black GM Tahoes/Suburbans are the ride of choice among the upper class (or more precisely, their bodyguards).
Latinos are definitely a worthwhile target for family-vehicle marketers; I bet we can find Spanish advertising for them if we looked. A Mexican family we know just bought a new Dodge Caravan.
For the nation of Texas?
That hauling kids around is deemed disreputable is a reflection of the cultural revolution in America since the ’60s. It sank deeper roots than Mao’s. As one can see in Facebook, a desirable person has to be childlike, risk-loving, & fun (or believed to be so), not adult, responsible, & dull (Dad with his fedora & pipe), & this is reflected in vehicle fashion. What chumps are those homemakers in minivans, or old folks driving Buicks or Corollas!
The original Mustang was a harbinger. While it was based on the Falcon, it couldn’t be more different in market perception.
I fully agree. After the ’60’s no one wanted to be a “grownup” Ironically, In my teens I couldn’t STAND “teen culture” (Since it was the ’70s, I guess I was right.) The biggest Irony of all is that the “old man” Buick driver WAS the youth in the ’60s!
That’s right, Baby Boomers are entering retirement now, but unlike my late grandparents, retirees I see often dress like teenagers, complete with tee shirts expressing mature thoughts like “I’m retired now & don’t have to do a damned thing” or “We’re spending our children’s inheritance.”
Demographers may label me a [late] Baby Boomer, but I reply, “Include Me Out.”
X3
Meh, while the Japanese were perfecting family vehicles that could run on far less fuel, GM was still working on things like this as if the cheap gas of the Clinton years would last forever.
The Nissan Armada & maybe Toyota Sequoia are exceptions, they guzzle fuel The American Way. Don’t know about the Toyota, but the Armada fell short in reviews & has failed to dislodge the domestics. So no repeat of the Camry & Lexus stories as yet, certainly since Detroit is fully focused on this profitable segment.
If the aluminum F-150 succeeds (a risky gamble), Ford may use it in their SUVs as well, eroding the efficiency deficit.
I don’t think Toyota cares to challenge GM on volume in this segment – they’re content to sell their ~100K annual and rake in huge coin doing it. Sequoias are mega-bucks even used.
Ford’s position is more difficult to understand – for whatever reason, they seem content to cede the crown in this lucrative segment to GM. My own opinion is that the combination of the Explorer/Firestone debacle and the Excursion ‘Exxon Valdez’ propaganda slur soured them on truck-platform SUVs.
I guess in the respect that they sold well and made a lot of money for GM they’d be considered a Greatest Hit. However it was GM’s heavy focus on them that made the company feel it was okay to neglect its car lines. When SUV sales tanked around 2007 due to rising fuel costs and the recession, GM was left without a pillar to rest against. The Suburban and friends were the car that almost killed GM. Rubbermaid interiors and enormous body panel gaps didn’t help either.
I tend to agree with that, it may have been a sales hit but it was also a DS. I would also argue the previous generation was the one that brought the Suburban into the mainstream. The Suburban was doing great and steadily gaining popularity prior to this generation being released. Along with the Tahoe of course. So I would peg the GMT-400 as more important and defining.
It’s not like these were really great vehicles demonstrating GM’s engineering excellence. They had the same poor build quality and iffy electronics that all GMs had. They were only good in comparison to the competition in the segment…a segment that simply didn’t have much competition.
The 99 Suburban was listed as one of the worst used cars from a reliability standpoint by Consumer Reports. Not sure where the weak link was. Was it the trans? Did it have the 4L60e?
A lot of idiots rode the Part Time 4WD in changeable conditions and cooked the T-Cases.
Have to agree with the GMT400 being more defining than GMT800. Here where i am, bordering Russia, some people still swear by the GMT400, both Tahoe and Suburban, especially in the countryside, despite the fact that some of those cars are nearly 20 years old. The newer generation, not so much. Sure 01-06 Tahoes are (relatively) plentiful and cheap, but Suburbans are really rare. Also while the GMT400 SUVs are used for everything from trailer towing and dragging logs and pulling stumps to ferrying cheap gas from Russia, the GMT800 is mainly seen as a luxury people mover. Sort of like a cheaper brother to the Escalade.
The GMT400 is like the high-point of the GM SUV with a work truck ethos and the GMT800 the start of a modern low car-like SUV, which looks really uncomfortable with mud splashing over the hood.
Couldn’t agree more. The GMT400 generation was what really put the Suburban on the map outside of Texas.
As a kid who grew up in and later moved back to the northern suburbs of Houston, a Suburban or Tahoe of that vintage just doesn’t look right unless it’s whatever maroonish shade of red GM had that year and has one of these in the rear window…..
I agree regarding the prior gen really making it popular, as well as the pickup truck version. Out here in S.Cal you still see plenty of the 92 to 99 Suburbans in pretty good shape rolling around still.
Gerardo, you have eloquently made a very compelling case for what was indeed GM’s first hit of the new millennium. It also explains why – in my mind, as I’m being a contrarian today – this is also a GM Deadly Sin.
A lot of terrific effort was put into these. They are splendid vehicles. It proudly illustrates how the GM mojo wasn’t dead. So why the hell didn’t they do this for their other vehicles? That’s what perplexes me.
I had a friend who went to work at GM Truck Division in Pontiac in 1997. On a trip to Michigan that same year, he took me by the office where he worked and I got to see several mockups of the new 1998 (or 1999) Silverado. Exciting stuff for a hick like me.
In his excitement he hit upon how GM was netting $15,000 of profit per Suburban. I still think that’s great. It shows they knew where the money was and they were catering to consumer desire. So, again, why the hell didn’t they do this for their other vehicles?
You have nailed all that was right with the Suburban, a vehicle that is underestimated in its practicality. You are right in its being GM’s first hit of the millennium although the other side of the coin sure isn’t completely hidden!
I am not sure if that’s the general consensus in America, but down here the general consensus is that if you’re buying a Chevrolet (or indeed, any American car) it must be either a Full-Size truck/SUV or, should you want a sedan, buy midsize or bigger. The logic is that Americans have traditionally preferred big cars so they tend to pool their resources in them rather than smaller offerings regardless of market tendencies.
At least around where big three is, there is never a market for smaller cars. It would be silly to pay for a lot of insurance, payment to get a car significantly less comfortable ( and probably less safe like those Escort ) and doesn’t save money on gas significantly ( It would be very significant in California I suppose ) when a comfortable larger car is easily accessible, I can’t imagine who they are buying the smaller cars like, Corolla. ( and I think GM never knows about it neither ) But since they have global operations, it’s better to just fill the gaps by borrowing something overseas rather than leaving the whole market ( or put something shabby together if they didn’t find anything to borrow ). Ford has good European division to lean on, and their smaller cars are good.
Other vehicles just don’t have that much profit. One reason why GM is barely willing to make any smaller cars is the profit margin, there is no big room to play with and no big room to charge a premium, but it still costs a lot to manufacture. The bigger a car gets, more reason to dress it up good and charge higher price at a reasonable level, but the manufacturing cost doesn’t go up at the same pace at all.
Nothing wrong with small GM cars though.
“We are Germans, not Yankees.”
I never figure out why US-based car companies need a much bigger scope of economy to stay afloat, while some smaller companies elsewhere just stay afloat on such a smaller scale, which would lead to nearly immediate bankruptcy if it happens in US.
In Germany, cars the size of the Chevrolet Cruze are considered mainstream family sedans, and sell for more money, which means greater profits on each one sold.
In the U.S., a Cruze is still considered to be a step down from a “normal” family car (think Honda Accord and Ford Fusion/Mondeo), so people won’t pay top dollar for cars of that size.
Of course there is a smaller profit margin per car on smaller vehicles. However, if you can ultimately make more total profit by having a smaller per unit profit – by selling more overall – why would you not? In turn you have more overall exposure that will broaden your appeal.
Much of this would have been gained by a bump in quality that would have helped eliminate the perpetual rebates.
You can’t just magically increase sales of your smaller cars, especially in this market, when small car sales are declining. Ford just jut Focus production back, and GM is investing billions to expand its Arlington, TX plant that makes Suburbans and Tahoes. It’s all about the price of gas, low interest rates, and more optimism in the buying public. Happy days are here again!! It’s 2005 all over….
Yes, it is absolutely amazing how shortsighted the consumer is.
A fair number of full-size SUVs are now sold to fleet buyers. The figures I’ve seen show a significant increase in the percentage of GM full-size SUVs bought by fleet customers as compared to 2007 (Pch101 provided the figures in a discussion on The Truth About Cars). I’m sure it’s not much different for the Ford full-size SUVs.
Since the demise of the old Ford Crown Victoria and Lincoln Town Car, police departments and livery operators are buying more full-size SUVs. Here in Pennsylvania, for example, both the State Police and local police departments are buying more Tahoes and short-wheelbase Expeditions as the Crown Victorias are retired from duty.
Smaller doesn’t cost much less in other areas as well. Talk to any mother with car seats in back, she’ll tell you that baby clothes aren’t cheap, & are good to buy secondhand, for it’s the labor cost, not merely the material, that is most significant. This is why a century ago & before, boy toddlers often wore gowns or dresses, for these were easier to grow through. It was a rite of passage when a boy was “breeched” (old enough to wear trousers).
Jason: not much has changed since then. The big 2.5 are making the lion’s share of their profits from trucks and SUVs. FCA would probably be bankrupt again if it wasn’t for the Rams and the big Jeeps.
Well; the profitability of most of GM and Ford’s smaller/medium sized cars has improved from the bad old days, thanks to significantly higher average transaction prices, the result of building better cars and not building too many, requiring massive price cuts to sell.
But the fundamental reality is that the trucks are golden: their profits are huge. And it’s because folks are willing to spend $40-55k on a well-equipped truck. Which to me is pretty amazing, but thanks to super low interest rates, it is affordable. As are BMWs, Audis, mercedes, etc for a lot of folks who wouldn’t have considered them 20 years ago.
Thanks to low interest rates and cheap leases, the average transaction price of new cars in 2015 is now at $32,600. That’s grown very significantly since the dark days of 2008-2010. And explains why GM has too much cash on hand (Some $60 billion, IIRC) , and is being forced to buy back its stock with $5 billion of that cash. It’s almost all coming in from big trucks and SUVs.
You’re right about the Suburban being a classless vehicle, and the Tahoe might be an even better example of this. The only fly in the ointment: Suburbans start at about $50k! The way credit flows today, that’s still accessible to a lot of people… but it isn’t Golf territory.
From 2007 up I wouldn’t say the Suburban is “classless” anymore.
These may have been the high water mark for SUVs in general. In 2007 they got too car-like and expensive for my taste. And I think the 2015s have been another step back. Less space, more money, looks like a brick. I feel they have really mucked up a vehicle that I used to find very desirable.
Ideal trailer towers. Regardless the generation.
A funny example, for you don’t need a Suburban to draw that little thing unless it has gold bricks inside. But it’s true, the best argument for Big Yank Trucks is their towing capability.
Say what you will about “gas-guzzling SUVs”, but I offer the following case study: I rented a Yukon XL (GMT900) a couple of years ago for a business trip. It carted around six adults in comfort with all our luggage (not using the roof rack), handled reasonably well, was not too difficult to park (thanks to the back-up camera), and with modern cylinder deactivation, got 23 MPG for the time we had it (about 250 miles). That’s about what my Subaru wagon gets, carrying one or two adults and just everyday cargo. I don’t need one for day-in, day-out use, but I think the case can be made that it’s a practical vehicle under certain circumstances. If I ever move to Texas…
I’m guessing you mostly drove it on the highway to get 23MPG. I had a 2014 Yukon as a rental for almost a month and it returned 15.9MPG according to the trip computer.
Yes, it’s not bad at all. For a V8 sedan/coupe, unless it’s very performance oriented, it will return 25MPG and sometimes 27 28 for those with better drag coefficient on hwy. City range is not so impressive on the other hand but average 20ish is alright. Why buy smaller when larger car doesn’t cost significantly more on fuel? ( insurance, maintenance or such is another story but smaller car doesn’t do better neither )
About half and half (in and around Seattle). It was a bargain compared to renting/fuleing 4-5 individual vehicles, which we’d ordinarily do for a trip like that.
As I’ve stated before, my dad had an ’88 Suburban, the prior generation to this. It had the 6.2L diesel and rear wheel drive, not a 4×4 which seems mandatory for most trucks today. It was a good all-round daily driver, family hauler and tow vehicle for our boat, and provided many years of good service.
I wish that GM had offered the 6.6L Duramax diesel in this newer generation of Suburban. If they had, I’d probably be searching for a used one right now! There’s enough of a market that there are companies that specialize in this conversion, but at $23,000 US on top of the cost of the donor vehicle, that’s a bit much.
http://duramaxsuburbans.com/
I would just like to say that a circa 2004 12 passenger Chevy Express can be bought cheaper than a circa 2004 Suburban and the same is true in 2015. They can practically do the same tasks, one is less likely to be keyed by Ecoterrorists, and one has better space utilization. Not gonna lie though, a 2005 Escalade ESV or EXT would be funny to own just like those big fat mid-1970s Cadillacs.
These are useful if you must have an SUV that is full sized, not a Ford, and live in an area with bad roads, but my family’s Minivans do the same tasks many of these SUVs are used for. I usually do not try to keep up with the Jones so the image thing it not a problem and I get better fuel economy with a Minivan.
You hit on why I went with a Ford Club Wagon Chateau in 1995. Much better space utilization for passengers and cargo, it weighed about 1000 pounds less, and it cost $10-15k cheaper when I bought it at 1 year old.
Having spent quite a bit of time behind the wheel of GM and Ford vans in the early 2000’s, I cannot disagree with you more. They aren’t (In the front seats) comfortable, my size 13.5-14 feet are not able to be where they really want to be, and after a couple of hours, it’s a great relief to not be in one anymore. I had a 2000 GMC Sierra, and I was very comfortable in it. It sure wasn’t perfect, the ABS had a flaw when braking on rough surfaces (The rear brakes’ ABS basically didn’t do anything until you released them and hit the pedal again), and then there was the annoying lifter noise on cold startup (GM claimed it was “carbon” build up on the pistons/combustion chambers, and that was total BS, it was just lifter noise), and it had the worst factory stereo I have ever heard. Ever, and it wasn’t the base unit, it was one step from the top. A $99 any brand aftermarket head unit was infinitely superior. But I drove that truck for three years, until it was wrecked and never right again, and I was pretty happy with it. A GM or Ford van would never have made it home with me.
A home run for GM, but one that comes with an asterisk, I would argue. That asterisk is that nobody built anything quite like it. Which continues to amaze me.
GM had been building these for eons, when the market suddenly found GM (instead of the other way around). CAFE worked to GM’s advantage here, when folks who needed big vehicles for towing or big families got shoved out of passenger cars. After International gave up on the Travelall about 1975 (right before this segment started to take off), the Suburban was it.
Dodge never tried, and Ford’s initial efforts were either too small or too big. Then the Expedition EL finally came in 2007, just in time for fuel to skyrocket and the economy to implode. But in fairness to GM, I have read quite a few reviews that give the nod to the Suburban over the Expy EL in overall appeal.
I was a partisan of the big van in those years, but was clearly outvoted by lovers of the Suburban.
There was also the Grand Wagoneer, at least until it was discontinued after MY1991. I wouldn’t say Dodge never tried; their response was the Durango. I’ve never sat in a Durango, but looking at it and knowing it was based on the midsize Dakota pickup, I figured it was a size smaller than the Suburban though.
Much like it’s difficult to top Chrysler for minivans, it’s hard to top GM for fullsize SUVs. They seem to have the magic formula for success.
A friend of mine wanted an SUV, but the value proposition of a fullsize Ford van won him over as well. His family outgrew minivans when their second set of twins came along. (They have 6 kids in total.)
Back in January, I bought a 2002 Tahoe to replace my ’97 Blazer.
From the first time I sat in it, it just felt right to me. The 5.3 has plenty of power and the ride/handling has spoiled me. It’s an LT with AutoRide and just about every option you can get on a 4×4 Tahoe.
Yeah I have some minor electrical gremlins but nothing I can’t fix and/or live with at this point. And the fuel economy isn’t that far off from the Blazer in my real-world experience.
I’ve driven the next generation GMT900 and look forward to owning one of those; besides the front end bears more than a passing resemblance to the ’67-’68 Chevy pickups. Plus newer GM vehicles tend to be better-screwed together.
Definitely one of the last great hits of “Old GM”, and as you say, it really was a jacked up Caprice wagon, basically.
When the SUV craze began, I didn’t like these because I saw them as ugly, trucky replacements for the big stately RWD sedans I loved so much.
Today? Well, I still think they’re ugly and trucky but there are no choices anymore. If you gave me $75K and said, “you must buy and drive a new car and only a new car”, I’d buy a big SUV. It’s the only full size left.
I always preferred the Excursion in the SUV boom years for its sheer and unapologetic giganticness.
I rented a new Excursion Limited, when they hit the market, for a weekend trip. It had all the options and the V10 engine. On the interstate it was great like sitting in your living room while doing 80 MPH. When we arrived at our destination, Austin, TX, the size of the thing became somewhat of a problem in smaller parking lots. At one point we were going to a restaurant that had a parking lot behind the building accessible only by a narrow driveway between the restaurant and the building next door. I had to fold the mirrors in order to clear the walls of the two buildings. Great vehicle if you are not planning on driving it in older urban areas. My ideal would be a last year model Eddie Bower Edition 4×4 with the Diesel engine. Those are in great demand and command a premium over a comparable ‘burban.
I think its important to remember feel safer when they drive these vehicles. Our lizard brains are tickled by the ride height, heft, and go anywhere/haul anything of these vehicles making us feel safer and powerful. All the women I know that have had them have loved them.
You are essentially saying stupid people like Tahoes.
It’s a common trope among some.
Fact is that if you have more than one kid and/or like to do anything outdoors related (camp, hunt, fish) a Full Size SUV is a great choice (Plus gaining you some inclement weather capability in the process).
HOW did 3, 4 and 5 children families manages to survive and take cross country road trips in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s with “just” a full sized American 4 door sedan or station wagon to ride in?
(sarcasm)
Those roomy and comfortable full size American family sedans and wagons don’t exist today. And today’s cars can’t tow squat.
If you don’t like these, that’s fine, but the snarky attitudes some people display towards these genuinely useful vehicles gets awfully old. If everybody only bought the bare minimum of what they needed, car enthusiast sites like this wouldn’t exist.
First of all, ‘cross-country road trips’ and hunting, camping and fishing aren’t precisely the same use. Four Wheel Drive is useful in both off-road and boat ramp conditions. A modern Full Size 4WD SUV is certainly a better choice for such use than the classic Full Size Sedan of past years.
But ultimately it the people who own them enjoy them and see them enhancing their lives, it ought to be their decision to make. Ridiculing another person’s lifestyle choices is a bit unseemly.
If you don’t like these, that’s fine, but the snarky attitudes some people display towards these genuinely useful vehicles gets awfully old. If everybody only bought the bare minimum of what they needed, car enthusiast sites like this wouldn’t exist.
Well said.
Three, four and five children families in the 50s, 60s and 70s tended to “pile in” to the wagon or sedan and sit wherever they could, often ignoring seat belts. I’ve personally riden in many vehicles with 10-15 people in them in the past. That is now known to be completely unsafe. Today, every child 8 and under must be in a car seat by law, and it’s not because of the “nanny state” but because the state is ensuring that children get to grow up to be able to make their own choices about their safety. SUVs, minivans and even 4 door pick up trucks can fit more car seats, simple as that.
Agree, and coming out with the shorter Tahoe was another home run.
The 2007 + Tahoe eventually put the TrailBlazer family six feet under. Why get a smaller SUV, when a bigger one could get same MPG during the recession?
That plus the Trailblazer was perhaps the worst example of the ‘Use the cheapest materials/Build for cheap leases’ mentality of GM in the immediate pre-BK years.
I worked with about a half-dozen people who had those in that time frame – all stripper 2WD/Cloth interior models got on dirt cheap leases, all complete junk. Only good thing about them was the Vortec DOHC I6 (Which GM, in their infinite wisdom, discontinued without ever using in a halfway decent vehicle).
Two of them were promptly wrecked in the first snow storm, the drivers learning the hard way that RWD + Cheap Tires = Horrible Handling, regardless of whether it comes on an ‘SUV’ or not.
We had a 2003 GMC Envoy XL with the 5.3L V-8. We got it in 2005 with 30k miles and sold it in 2012 with 150k miles. It was everything we wanted… seated 7, had all the bells and whistles, and could pull a boat, motorcycle, utility trailer etc with ease. Yeah it had it’s problems, most all of which I was able to fix. We picked this vehicle because of the smooth, comfortable ride. We found it the ride to be much less harsh than an “equivalent” Tahoe.
Can we call that firstgen M-Class a Mercedes Deadly Sin? Diluting the brand, competing with Jeep at a time when they owned it, meh engineering and build quality (one UK magazine – Car, I think – called it Britain’s most disappointing car), overall not up to the standard expected in such an expensive car from a hallowed brand, to the point where despite their popularity 10-15 years ago I see more W123s that are 20 years newer now.
That would be an interesting series: Mercedes’ Deadly Sins.
Paul? Somebody?
Hm…..
Most of their cars between -roughly- 1995 and 2005. Biggest issue was rust.
And the Fisher Price interiors in vehicles like the first gen A-class and the first gen heavy-duty Actros cabover-trucks. El Cheapo, fragile and light-grey dollhouse interiors.
One thing I find appealing about GM high level trim trucks is that they have a higher content of creature comforts than Ford. A case in point is my 1998 GMC Safari SLT’s visors. These visors consist of a normal large visor with a smaller visor behind it. Plus the main visor has a pull out shade that when pulled covers the space between the visor and the rear view mirror. A small detail but when that Texas summer sun is blinding you you’ll be grateful that you have them.
I am not knocking Ford as I have/had two Ford pickup trucks and a few Lincolns. I also had several Chevrolet/GMC vans from the 70s,80s, and 90s. Plus a 3/4 ton Chevy PU.
These vehicles have been extremely reliable and they did break down cheap to fix. The exception being my 2002 F150 Harley Davidson Edition.
My 1998 Explorer Sport had dual visors which were simply awesome when driving into the sunset. I haven’t seen that in another vehicle since. Heck, most vehicles don’t cover all the way to the a-pillar or mirror anymore. It irritates me. It’s not like it’s rocket science. It’s just lazy design and engineering.
The 73-91 suburban is a masterpiece.
The 92-2000 tahoe is a masterpiece
the 2001-2006 tahoe is a masterpiece
GM lost me after that
i agree.. just a small adjustment. i would add 2007-14 Suburban 2500 there too.
But [the Tahoe/Suburban] certainly was more refined and better done than its predecessor and the competition (Read: Ford Expedition/Excursion).
I’d dispute the ‘better refined’ portion of this. Ford had the Fold Flat Third Row Seat in the Expedition pretty early (an the expense of a CV Jointed Rear Suspension, a dubious feature given the vehicle class) while the Excursion offered a diesel engine, something GM hasn’t managed in recent times.
I’d argue that GM has succeeded by being just as ‘refined’ as the market requires and no more.
Could it be that the author of this article is just a little bit slanted in the favor of General Motors?
What puzzles me is how easily you seem to be able to sell a vehicle as “luxury” to Americans. A Tahoeburban is little more than a Silverado with a permanent camper shell, and an Escalade is little more than a Tahoeburban with some wood trim and leather and doodiddly gimmicks stuffed into, but suddenly your dressed up plumber’s truck is the “ultimate in luxury” to show off wealth. No offense, but what’s up with that?
Hey I’m American and I’m just as puzzled. Put 4 bucket seats and a center console in a pickup truck and it’s Luxury apparently. Just pretend you’re not looking as the same exact dash the plumber in the beat up work truck next to you is looking at.
I don’t “get” this uniquely American vehicle either.
A 40-50K vehicle, built on a lowly pick up truck chassis, sharing many body parts with said lowly pick up truck, is NOTTTTT a “luxury” car to me.
To my eyes THIS is what I understand an American luxury car to be/should be, not some tarted up pick up truck:
Just wondering, are the Chrysler 300C and Dodge Charger the only American RWD V8 sedans right now ?
Add to that the seemingly forgotten Chevy SS, also after phasing out the old generation and a coupe-only model year the CTS-V sedan will be available again for 2016. But to my knowledge those wrap up the bundle.