Flip94ta

Exactly, the world would be a better place with a 2 door fullsize again for people like my mom.

As for you guys that think a 300hp 4.8L is alot faster than a 255hp 5.7L, look at the swelling curb weight and the lack of torque. The late 90's models will have weighed about 500 lbs less than this new design if they add 250 lbs like they did for the last redo. The new engine will probably be rated for 300ftlbs at 4000 rpm. The 5.7L made 330ftlbs at 2800.

Do you guys remember that the 305hp mustang was slower than the 285hp camaro? It made less torque.

Duh!

dream '94 Z28

A few quick variations I'd like to see in the future:

http://photobucket.com/albums/a118/t...tahoe2door.jpg

http://photobucket.com/albums/a118/t...alancheswb.jpg

jrp4uc

I was really only half serious; I know there's a lot riding on these vehicles. I just find the result a bit unimaginative (I'm sure a competitor like Ford could have thought up an oversized Blazer without a bar all the way across the front).

It seems a bit underwhelming and convservative even for a truck. If you're in need of a homerun, you don't send up the guy who only hits for contact.

All of that is speaking to the exterior; the interior appears nice (but that should be a given in this price range).

96_Camaro_B4C

Threxx, what exactly do you mean by "typical GM piece-mill"? I remember when the whiny magazines would comment about the GM radio and HVAC units that were standalone head units mounted behind the plastic trim (like the current GMT800s, say, but unlike the current Malibu, for example). Other companies (but not all, certainly) had started doing flush-mount head units that blend in more with the dash. Is that what you are talking about? Because obviously the center stack in the 900s uses flush mount control units for the stereo and hvac (and other controls/switches).

Or are you talking about the idea of having a separate unit (flush mounted or otherwise) at all? Do you mean you'd rather have one molded panel with cutouts for all the HVAC/stereo/nav buttons (kinda like the current RX or other Lexus cars), instead of flush mounted but dedicated units for the various controls?

I'm assuming that is what you mean, and I guess it comes down to preference. I've never been a big fan of having the stereo/nav/hvac controls all melt into one array of buttons (like the Hybrid RX I rode in last night). I do like the look of flush mounted (though I never had a problem with the recessed, individual head units, either). But I sort of like having a dedicated area on the dash that is devoted to each system I'm controlling. BTW, would you consider the garish new Avalon interior, with all its various (and doomed to be ill-aligning) covers and doors, to be "piecemill"? The entire center stack on that car is rendered in alumi-look plastic, and some of the controls hide behind doors.

I guess I'm not entirely clear on what cars (except maybe the highend Lux makes) are NOT "typical piecemill". Even on newer cars that use flush-mounting for everything, one can usually find separate modules for hvac and stereo. Hell, sometimes they are completely separated on the dash, like the Honda CRV (and Ridgeline?).

As for the wood trim, I must not have the magic eye, because to me most wood trim is wood trim (even the fake stuff). Some is really good or at least interestingly colored, like the reddish stuff in the current ES, or the big sections of wood in Rolls, Bently, etc. I wouldn't say most of it (even the fake stuff) looks terrible, but maybe cliched. Of course, when the luxo cars still do it, and it does help create an ambiance of "warmth", one can see why it is put into so many vehicles. I think it dresses up the interior of the Cobalt LT nicely, for example, even though I know it is fake. Makes for a nice color contrast. IMHO, of course. Sometimes the fake (or real) metal trim in a car comes across as less inviting. Maybe cool in a machine-themed car (like a sports coupe or something), but in a vehicle trying to create an atmosphere of comfort and safety, the wood makes sense.

If it makes you feel better, though, at least some versions of the 900 SUVs will use an alumi-look finish in place of the wood, and I'm pretty sure (but not positive) the Escalade interior will use real wood like the STS.

Flip94ta

Those are funny, the avalanche didn't look too bad, the door seam threw the two door off. My mom loves her 2 door and I am gonna have to fine a late mileage 90's model to replace it with.

As for me talking performance in previous posts, what was I thinking, its a heavy suv, its not about performance. I think buyers accept slow acceleration out of these but I still think real world mpg is gonna count alot in buyers mines. I just read a review of a 98 model that was rated for 14 city 18 hwy, it acheived 15 real world. My friends get about their city rating in mixed driving, never touching the hwy rating even on road trip. My friends 00 sivlerado 4x4 gets 15 consistently also. Its rated at 15/19.

Last week on the news the local honda dealership said that they were recieving 3x as many fullsize truck and suv trade-ins as this time last year. And there is a six week waiting list for their hybrid models. So is the 900 gonna deliver on the mpg rating? Does anyone support my diesel idea? I drive a 12,000lb 6.5L NA diesel at work everyday. Stop and go 60 mile postal route inside metro nashville. Zero interstate driving. It gets 9-10mpg. Thats a 12,000 brick. I have over 30 stops in which I shut off the engine. One of my customers has a 97 4x4 suburban with 5.7L and 12 mpg. It weighs 6,000lbs. I think diesels are the 10 year answer to mpg issues. The average diesel gets 30% better mileage than is gasoline counter part. Europe figured it out and diesel outsells gas over there. The only bad side is older models have bad emissions inwhich they have some fixes for now. The other down side is higher iniatial cost, but less maintance and longer life.

2000GTP

I like it, overall it is a very sharp revision. The Trailblazer look was one of the first things to come to mind though.

graham

If you showed me the interior without a bowtie or any other hint to what it went to and made me guess.....

I would hit 50 different brands before ANYthing GM.

That is NIIICE!!!!

I do have a problem with the EPA's ratings. Everything GM I drive is way off the rating. To the good side....

PacerX

I'm not going back to this discussion on this board again. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

You're wrong.

DWray

I dig it, even though for some reason the front makes me think of a minivan. I know I'll like it in person, though.

jg95z28

It just looks too "Ford" for me to be a Chevy. I'm sorry if you don't agree. I just call it like I see it. My current Tahoe is a gorgeous SUV compared to that ugly thing. Sure that's my opinion, but I just don't find it as attractive as the current model.

R377

Yeah, I kinda agree. It gives it a 'big forehead' look.

But overall, great job, especially on the interior. The dash is among the nicest of any GM vehicle.

JEDCamino

So far I don't see anything I don't like. The exterior looks a little bland but good, and I really like the interior!

Z28Wilson

I'm not quite sure I see the differences in "piece-mill" between this

http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/galle...or_photos.html

and this

http://www.gm-trucks.com/gallery/dis...lbum=34&pos=11



Granted the actual pieces themselves look "richer" on the Lexus, as they should be because one's a Chevy and one's a Lexus, but from a purely design/ergonomic/layout standpoint I don't see how one has an advantage to the other.

Threxx

I could explain this better if I were in front of you with both pictures, but try to imagine the assembly or disassembly process for that Tahoe (like if you were doing an aftermarket radio install or something if you're familiar with that process). First just look at the controls and their housings. It is essentially three flat black plastic seperate boxed components, all standardized width, all "pieced" into place. These pieces are obviously not made specifically for the Tahoe; they're from the current GM parts bin and intended for reuse when possible with pretty much any GM vehicle out there with minimal retooling and redesigning of the fascia.

The square nav system doesn't quite fill in the entire height of the center stack and doesn't curve with the console either, so flat blank black plastic pieces are used to fill in on the sides and above. No function other than to unconvincinly pretend that the nav isn't essentially just a generic all in one nav unit intended for one of many GM vehicles.

Then the worst part of all IMO is the masses of fake wood trim used as filler around the rectangular center stack. Now the RX330 is harder to explain, but llook at the way that everything seems form-fitted for the dash. Very little wasted space, very clean looking, and it definitely doesn't look like Lexus just took their HVAC, nav, and radio controls out a generic parts bin, found a way to bolt them into the middle of the dash all in a row, then snapped in fake wood trim filler around everything.

Again... the rest of what I can see of the Tahoe's interior except for the center stack looks great. The center stack is my only issue with it as far as I know now.

Meccadeth

The only thing I like about it is the interior...I think GM has always done a good job with their high-end full-size SUV interiors. But like usual, I'm let down with the styling. I do see a lot of Ford in it like a few others have mentioned.