Chevy vs GMC

[73shark]

Yep, that's it. Thanks.

Not sure the 07 is going to work the same though. Will have to try it out.

[jimjoe]

Originally Posted by tommyg

now i think i've just confused myself as well...

Yep. Sorry about. I also have a 2005 Ford KR F-250 LWB with the 6.0 PSD. This was the reason being confused.

[jimjoe]

Originally Posted by gmcul8r

I almost completely disagree with the thread starter (JimJoe's) comments!

I drive a Duramax with nearly 500 horsepower and well of 800 lb/ft and also have an '07 Z06, so I might be a little biased too when it comes to the power, but to say that the power is not significant is far from the truth. Well, I guess if you consider only 2 seconds better to 60 not significant.

I do agree with the 15% better gas mileage in the 5.3, this is exactly what I have experienced.

Ok to disagree with me. Seems like our rigs do not behave the same. The 6.2 is good but the 5.3 lacks the power needed for this full size SUV. Also I am a bit biased as I have my Ford with about the same numbers as this Duramax.

As long as it is just city driving, no hills and no towing the 5.3 is fine. And that's what I do. So I am pleased. Btw. I bought the trailer hitch cover for the 'burb. Looks much better now. All in all I prefer the 'burb over the Denali as for the quietness and smoothness of the ride as well as the better fuel economy. The Denali is more fun to drive, though.

[Crazydefense32]

I would say that I would agree with gmcul8r, the 5.3 is great on the freeway and for short jaunts around town, but I drove one around my house up in the Tahoe area which is nothing but up and down hills and actually got pissed off at it because for every hill it would slow down unless I nearly floored it. That is compared to the 5.7 in my 97 Hoe' where although I have to slightly press down to get a little more oomph I dont have to do it nearly as much as the 5.3, and I have a 97, you think they would have figured it out in the new ones. When I test drove the Denali I was very impressed by the 6.2, it was very strong up and down the hills in the area (bay area, not tahoe) and I didn't need to seriously get on the throttle to pass people on the freeway, unlike the 5.3. I think this would all get solved if GM just stuck a diesel in the Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon/XL. Much more torque and hp available! I will probably end up getting the 5.3 (when I find the money) because the Denali is a little to exspensive, but I will definately be adding some performance mods to make up the difference. Also thanks for the review its great to get a real world comparison!!

[Rollin Thunder]

my 5.3 is absolutly the best, twice as much power as my 99 (ok not really but it feels like it) i think the trouble you guys are running in to is the 8 ta 4 cylinder thing, its worth having all 8 all the time for the extra power all the time.

[jimjoe]

Crazydefense,

I never went to the Tahoe region so far as I did some suburban driving with the Denali. Nice said, isn't it?

In the Bay Area I never needed that much power. Maybe while driving 280 and overtaking a 5.3 . Btw. where are you located?

Jim

[jimjoe]

Originally Posted by Rollin Thunder

I think the trouble you guys are running in to is the 8 ta 4 cylinder thing, its worth having all 8 all the time for the extra power all the time.

The 8 to 4 to 8 switch is so quick I never noticed it unless I check the display. Fact is that there is a difference in torque to the 6.2; roughly 20 %. In my opinion the cylinder deactivation would make even more sense in the 6.2 as it obviously could stay in 4 cylinder mode longer than the 5.3.

Jim

[johnebgoode]

Originally Posted by gmcul8r

I almost completely disagree with the thread starter (JimJoe's) comments!
I've had an '07 Tahoe, an '07 Yukon XL, and currently have a '07 Yukon XL Denali.

To me the fit and finish is great, but obviously there is always room for improvement.

[White Out]

The new trucks are MUCH better than those that they replaced. But for those of you that think the interior is any better than "good" need to get out more. I test drove alot of trucks before coming to the conclusion that the purchase of an '07 tahoe would be the best bet since it felt the same as an escalade inside for $15k less. Essentially the Tahoe/Yukon/Denali/Escalade lines are exactly the same with very minor differences ("wood" steering wheel in Denali/Escalade, different color "wood", Escalade has leather on arm rests, Escalade's cluster).

Other vehicles that I test drove included the BMW X5, MB ML500, Porsche Cayenne S, Volvo XC90, Infinity QX, Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, and Land Rover RR; the GM fullsize interiors are horrible compared to these vehicles.

The fake wood, cheap leather (all GM, GTO exempt), quickly thrown together options to compete (compare other's back up cameras), extensive use of rubber interior trim, the Escalade's radio (searching for stations before it can be used), no panoramic sun/moon roof available, and the lack of many options are all points that GM needs to make for the fit and finish of the interiors to be good. While they are at it, the Denali and Escalade's interiors should look distinctively different than the other trucks and at a minimum use a higher grade leather.

I will give the full size trucks some praise though. The TrailBlazerSS's interior was the worst that I have seen outside of an Aveo. My '00 Trans Am WS6 with vinyl rear seats 1/4 leather front seats had a more presentable interior.

Nick

[gmcul8r]

Okay whiteout, you just lost all credibility with me. If you think the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8's interior is better then a Denali then you are definitely smoking something! Talk about cheap!