Which Tahoe-new or old?

[Ufatz]

Got into a debate with a fella yesterday and now seek comments from you folks. Is the 1999 Tahoe a better, roomier and more dependable vehicle than the newer models i.e. 2003 and on? How about engine reliability, safety features etc. If the older model is deemed better it would not be the first time this came to pass. Thanks.

[Macgyver55]

I have the old style with a 5.7 and my brother has the new with a 5.3. Its still being determined which is better, since pulling equal loads they are almost side by side all the way up, at the pumps we use nearly the same amount of fuel (small edge to mine when pulling, his is slightly better unloaded) and neither of us has had a real major issue with either of them. I did put an intake gasket in mine a couple years ago but nothing really major. He had a piece break in his sunroof but otherwise nothing. I also have over twice the miles he does. I have around 140,000 and he is in the mid 60s I think. His also has some niceties I wouldnt mind having, but as far as reliability I couldn't ask for more out of either.

[eyepatrol]

We have owned 2 of them in the past 6 years; a 2000 and now a 2005. Never did have a '99 model, but the 2000 model had slightly more room in it than the '05 does, at least in the back cargo area. The '00 model had a few minor problems (new fuel pump, accelerator pedal sticking), but those occurred and were fixed under warranty. All in all, both have been great vehicles. We put 140k miles on the 2000 vehicle and never had to replace break pads (always were around 75%). The '05 vehicle is a quieter ride. It's also much smoother, but then the '05 we got has basically every single option you can put into it (dvd, navigation, autoride, auto leveling, etc etc). We haven't had a single problem with the '05. Either way, I think Chevy has put out a great product in the Tahoe.

[Bushwacker]

I do think that the pre-2000 Tahoes were built more rugged than the newer ones. The newer ones don't handle fields as well as the older ones do. The newer ones seem to have more of a "car" ride, when the older style has more of a "truck" ride. Not that one is better than the other, but that is the difference I see in them.

[Kodiak]

i had a 95 5.7 tahoe 4dr it was the pre-vortec model and i was NOT impressed with the power of it. Last year i bought a nissan armada and boy this thing tows a lot better than my tahoe ever did. My brother had a chevy avalanche and it has the 5.3 just like the newer tahoes, and i wouldnt give you a dollar for that motor. So i would say the 2--- models of the tahoe would be about the same, underpowered.

[SomethingFishy*]

I have an 02 GMC Yukon Denali with the 6.0L motor. I have under 80k miles on it. I had one problem since i've owned it, it was a seal or gasket and was covered under warranty. Have neve had any "power" issues when towing. I have full intentions of trading this one for a new one before it hits 100k. This thing will also u-turn better than my girlfriends Impala.

[MuskieJunkie]

Quote:

---

Got into a debate with a fella yesterday

---

Sounds to me like that guy owns a 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe.

It's the old "mine is the best, everything else sucks" bragging. Reliabilty is something you could argue all day without a lot of tangible evidence to back it up, in the end they all break. Saftey, no way, Chevrolet may have a lot of problems but they are not going to make a vehicle less safe from year to year, they would get nailed by the magazines. I wouldn't put much stock in one persons case study on the subject.

[Ufatz]

Ha! Musky you are wrong! Guy drives a PowerStroke Ford. LOL And Kodiak, what do you mean a FIVE litre engine does not have enough power!? I don't know either way but I'll bet the Nissan you're talking about does not weigh anywhere near what a Tahoe does so thats a tough comparison to make. Anyway, tell me more fella's. I'm loooking and my gut tells me a mint low miles 99' is a better opportunity than a new Tahoe. Money doesn't matter-I keep getting these suggestions from people who HAVE owned them and they LOVED the pre-90 Tahoes.

Okay. Thanks. Keep it coming.

You too Kodiak!! HA!

[Macgyver55]

Quote:

---

My brother had a chevy avalanche and it has the 5.3 just like the newer tahoes, and i wouldnt give you a dollar for that motor. So i would say the 2--- models of the tahoe would be about the same, underpowered.

---

Sorry, but the numbers don’t lie.

The Chevy 5.3, although a smaller motor than the Nissan 5.6 comes in with numbers not all that different when considering performance. The “underpowered” little 5.3 has 320hp @ 5200rpm and 340 ft lbs. torque @ 4200 rpm in a Tahoe that weighs in at 5500 lbs.

The Nissan 5.6 actually has less horsepower than the 5.3 at 317, but slightly more torque 385lbs. And the vehicle weighs slightly more (200lbs) I'll admit that torque is the more important number in towing. But, you can put a towing package on the Chev and you'll get a 3.73 ratio compared to a 3.35 in the Nissan (couldn't seem to find any optional ratio) and easily offset the torque difference.

All in all I don't think you'd see either one of them pull away from the other, and neither is underpowered by any means.

[eyepatrol]

Macgyver55....I always appreciate it when you put out the numbers for things like this. Puts things into perspective.

Sincerely,

A GM guy.

[JDM]

I'll point out one thing on the brand new body style. They put that front scoop under the bumper and it makes the front end lower than on previous models. I watched a friend take it off going through a plowed field. My 2002 Sub didn't have a problem.

I had a 98 Tahoe and that motor had more pep than the one in my 02 Sub. All of the problems I had with the 98 weren't related to the engine, but to other issues.

I think that GM makes a heck of a good large SUV. I drove the Tahoe to 140K, and the Sub I have has 111K right now. In light of the miles I drive, these vehicles are very reliable.

[ccarlson]

One thing to note however is that the 5.3 was beefed up a few years ago from when it was first put in the early 2000's models of the yukons and suburbans. I too drove one which was an early 2000's and the towing power was poor compared to my old vortec 5.7. The new 5.3 is great. They really did a good job with the upgrade.

I have two late model suburbans. One with the 5.7 and one with the 7.4. Both are great, reliable vehicles with some repairs to the standard things mentioned above. That 7.4 tows like a maniac and the mileage is better than the new hemi's

My next used vehicle will be a mid 2000's suburban with the upgraded 5.3. Wish I could remember what year they improved it. I want to say 2004. Sorry I don't know the specifics.

ccarlson

[CPL]

I've got a 99 Suburban with the 5.7 and 100k miles. All in all I'm happy with the vehicle (had it for 4 years/65k miles) and believe it is adequately powered. My only complaint is that I've got to be careful about the gas I put in it. If I don't get name brand gas (e.g. Shell) it tends to misfire and trip the Check Engine Light.

I've heard (from Edmund's and Consumer Reports) the 2007 GM full-size SUV's are great improvements over the 2000-2006 syles.

CPL