Tow vehicle suggestions.....Yukon or Tahoe?

[7lazy77]

I own a Chaparral Sunesta 232 deck boat that weighs in at baout 3800# dry plus the trailer. My current tow vehicle is a 2004 Dodge Durango w/Hemi, but recently was pounded by hail & the insurance company totalled it out. I never had any problems towing with the Durango but it was getting a little cramped with my family, so with the recent misfortune I figured now would be a good time to get into something a little bigger. I was considering either a Yukon or Tahoe (2006-2008). Anybody have any experience with either? Any suggestions/recommendations of one over the other?

 

[oldjeep]

5.3 is a turd compared to the hemi, you are going to be pretty disappointed with the performance unless you can get one with the bigger engine.

 

[MTboatguy]

Isn't the Yukon and the Tahoe basically the same vehicle? One badged by Chevy and one badged by GMC?

That said, if you are towing with a Hemi, I seriously doubt you are going to be happy with a lesser powered motor.

 

[jkust]

They aren't the same if you get the Denali Package with the 6.2 liter. The Denali is the only used Yukon I would consider and It would need to be an XL as well. At that age as well you have to get the Yukon D in order to get the 6 speed transmission. The new body started in 2007 and continued on through the 2014 model year so a 2006 as you mentioned is in your range will be dramatically cheaper and everything I said above doesn't hold true in the old body.

 

[Silvertip]

As the owner of a 2001 Yukon with a 5.3 and 140,000 miles I hardly consider it a turd since it spent its entire life towing. How a vehicle tows depends in a large part (a very large part I might add) on what axle ratio the vehicle is equipped with and that applies to any tow vehicle. It takes a bunch of horsepower to overcome a poor selection of axle ratio. The heavier the load the more important this becomes. Let's see -- repairs consisted of a set of front shocks and a power steering pump that popped the shaft on a 30 below zero day when I pulled a hard right to the stops. Axle ratios fall into three basic categories: 1) economy, 2) power 3) compromise. A low ratio (higher gear) makes for poor towing ability. A high ratio (lower gear) makes for better towing ability at the cost of increased fuel consumption. A compromise is just that. If the vehicle is used primarily for towing, then deeper gears may prove more economical in the long run. If you have to have your foot stuck to the floor as you would with an economy ratio, you will likely suck more fuel than with deeper gears.

 

[dingbat]

I'm with Silvertip..... I've been pulling a #6000 boat, 6-7K miles a year with a 5.3 Tahoe / 3.73 rear since 2001. Never had any problems with it. Use Tow/Haul mode and don't look back.

We pulled the boat one day using my daughters 2003 Durango. Never again. It had the motor, but not the suspension to back it up. the vehicle is not designed to tow much of anything.

 

[bruceb58]

I tow my boat that is close to 7K fully loaded with a 5.3L with 3.73 rear end. I tow it up to Lake Tahoe with a mountain pass that is over 7K feet.

 

[jkust]

Ok just to get on the band wagon here. I have had three of the 5.3's, one of them my wife rolled on the freeway several time so it died early and two currently. One is our main tow vehicle and the other is my daily driver and secondary tow vehicle. Like the above comments I haven't had anything go wrong with them but what I will say is that there is a period of time when GM added the 4 cylinder mode which goes by different names, where the 5.3's will use oil because of the 4 cylinder mode system. It is a broadly known issue with multiple different campaigns (not recalls) associated with the oil usage issue. The 5.3 that my wife rolled over was an 04 and so the year or maybe two years prior to the addition of 4 cylinder mode ( I think it was added in 05 but don't recall). That one never used oil. My current two are now starting to use oil as they both are newer.
As to the turd part...I get where oldjeep is coming from as the hemi out HP's and out torques the 5.3 in all respects. They however easily handle my 4000+ boat and trailer combo. What they do do however is add a lot of torque management to them depending on which vehicle you have the 5.3 in. There is a lot more oomph than you can really get at without a PCM reflash.
That said, I'm done with 5.3's because of the oil usage issue and that is one primary reason I would only get a Denali version of the Yukon which is the only version of the Yukon that will come with the 6.2 liter which does not have cylinder management/4 cylinder mode. You cannot buy any Tahoe or Suburban with a 6.2.

 

[bruceb58]

Mine doesn't have the cylinder management mode but if I had one that did, I would have that locked out immediately. You can buy an item that plugs into the OBD port that locks it out while it is plugged in. No ECM changes necessary.

 

[littlerayray]

I've got a 5.3 sierra it's an 08 and I love never had a problem with oil consumption and it has all the power I want I don't even feel my boat which weighs over 3800# I am very happy with it and will buy another one in the future when this one dies lol

 

[jkust]

Mine doesn't have the cylinder management mode but if I had one that did, I would have that locked out immediately. You can buy an item that plugs into the OBD port that locks it out while it is plugged in. No ECM changes necessary.

The sad thing is that GM does it for CAFE standards as it does almost nothing MPG wise even in the best circumstances in the narrow window of parameters when it actually turns on. The thing is when you shut it off (4 cylinder mode) there then are a whole new set of issues that go along with that. My daily driver that gets the most use, started using oil at about 90,000 miles or so. I thought I was going to skirt the issue like littlerayray above seems to have done. The oil usage issue is amazingly common as it is a flawed system but keep in mind that not all 5.3's are the same...there are several variations of the 5.3 depending on which vehicle you have...Wikipedia lists which vehicle got which 5.3. Regardless, the 5.3 packs a lot of value into it because unlike the 6.2 that only comes on the Escalade and the Yukon Denali, they are in every suv and truck GM has made for so many years. If you want a lot of tow vehicle for a bargain price with all of the appropriate accoutrements such as 3.73 gears, G80 locking rear diff (not limited slip), etc there is a certainly a truck based vehicle out there that will work for your budget.

 

[bruceb58]

Very few have the oil consumption issue. I would still disable that 4 cylinder mode though.

 

[Blind Date]

Love our '07 'Hoe with the 5.3/3:73 for towing. Handles close to 4 tons of SeaRay cruiser great. Ours has the 20" wheels so no matter what you tow you have to run it in "3" because the engine runs so slow in OD. That 5.3 is buttery smooth and I've found the engine RPMs to be spot on for towing. Runs fast enough to have good power, but not too fast that it is over-revving. It actually pulls my big boat down the interstate better than my '04 GMC HD PU w/6.0 gas 4:11 rear end.

We have owned ours since new and it now has a little over 110K on it. I like the short wheelbase for towing because it is so darn maneuverable. and it was my wifes DD when we got it. She simply would not drive something as big as a Suburban. That said, fuel economy is pretty much identical between the short & long WB models, and the longer WB is more stable for towing, plus the extra room. Something to think about that before you buy.

As already stated the Tahoe & Yukon are the same vehicle. For me, I liked the looks the of Tahoe soo much better than the Yukon. Same reason I bought my GMC HD in '04. Hated the Avalanche front end on the Chevy. But if you look at both I think you'll find the GMC to be slightly more upscale on the interior.

The Bad:

AFM - Active fuel Manangement. Google it. You'll find all kinds of oil consumption issues due to the 4 cylinders shutting down. Our Tahoe started giving us issues around 70K. Currently it uses a quart every 1500 miles. Comparitively, the GMC, with a 160K doesn't burn a drop. Anyways make sure you don't end up with a vehicle that you have to add oil to between oil changes.

Autoride - If you look at one with the auto ride suspension make sure it is working. The system levels the vehicle with air shocks in the rear and also adjusts dampening of all 4 shocks using an onboard compressor. Great for towing. The system last about 5 years before the rear air shocks start to leak causing the compressor to run until it burns itself out. It's expensive to fix, even if you do it yourself. They have kits to convert to regular shocks if that tells you anything. The one in our Tahoe is completely shot. But I loved the ride when it worked which is why I will spend the money to fix it.

Rust - I've noticed many of the these 7-8 year old GMT-900 SUVs are already starting to rust in MN. I've got bubbling under the paint in many places in the doors and rear hatch where the outer skin is seamed to the inner door frame . My buddy dumped his '07 Avalanche last year due to this. My '04 has none of this. If your not in the rust belt maybe not a big deal. But GM definitely dropped the ball someplace in the corrosion dept. My '97 Tahoe had zero rust when it was 7 years old. GM went backwards in this respect IMO.

Hope this helps.

 

[littlerayray]

The thing is there are pros and cons to all vehicles find something that works for you and ignore the nay sayers

 

[jkust]

Autoride - If you look at one with the auto ride suspension make sure it is working. The system levels the vehicle with air shocks in the rear and also adjusts dampening of all 4 shocks using an onboard compressor. Great for towing. The system last about 5 years before the rear air shocks start to leak causing the compressor to run until it burns itself out. It's expensive to fix, even if you do it yourself. They have kits to convert to regular shocks if that tells you anything. The one in our Tahoe is completely shot. But I loved the ride when it worked which is why I will spend the money to fix it.

Rust - I've noticed many of the these 7-8 year old GMT-900 SUVs are already starting to rust in MN. I've got bubbling under the paint in many places in the doors and rear hatch where the outer skin is seamed to the inner door frame . My buddy dumped his '07 Avalanche last year due to this. My '04 has none of this. If your not in the rust belt maybe not a big deal. But GM definitely dropped the ball someplace in the corrosion dept. My '97 Tahoe had zero rust when it was 7 years old. GM went backwards in this respect IMO.

Hope this helps.

On that Autoride comment, GM has been using that for years and years in their cars, trucks, Suv's and minivans in some variation or another. I had a 97 Bonneville SSEi back in the day that even had an air compressor built in the trunk which was odd. So far, knock on wood, I've been trouble free with the autoride system on my suv's. I give them longer than 5 years here in MN where things seem to fail early on from harsh and changing conditions. I had a GM minivan (same system) and the air ride shocks went out at maybe 110k miles and about 12 years old or so and the replacement shocks were surprisingly cheap. There is a $5 fix to the air compressor to correct one of the main issues with that as well that is written about on some GM enthusiast sites. When I last shopped for SUV's with the 5.3 here in MN, I was seeing rust under the doors on vehicles that were only 600 days old...yes less than two years old. That forces me to now always buy from a southern state where cars and trucks are generally a better bargain anyway.
The autoride system is absolutely awesome for leveling out the rear when you load up the cargo area and then plop your trailer on. I see Fords and others all summer sagging down in the rear without an autoride style system as I drive up to the lake.
I definitely wouldn't totally ignore any Naysayers especially in an enthusiast forum where people aren't just bi*ching for the sake of bi*ching but are generally substantially more informed and educated on the issues than possibly some other forums.

 

[Silvertip]

Guess I need to take some pictures of my now 14 year old Yukon that has lived in Minnesota. One dime size rust spot on right friont fender lip. Burns no oil and doesn't leak a drop of fluids.

 

[oldjeep]

Guess I need to take some pictures of my now 14 year old Yukon that has lived in Minnesota. One dime size rust spot on right friont fender lip. Burns no oil and doesn't leak a drop of fluids.

You have to admit that a 14 year old vehicle with 140k on it isn't exactly a normal example.

 

[littlerayray]

As long as the load is less then the rated capacity then your good to go

 

[Silvertip]

You have to admit that a 14 year old vehicle with 140k on it isn't exactly a normal example.

So what is your example of a 14 year old vehicle with 140K (from Minnesota). 10,000 miles/year on average is quite average for a two vehicle owner who has been retired for 12 years. My Impala averages 13,000/year. I see four or five vehicles like mine every day and none of them are rust buckets and I'd wager they have more miles on them than mine. Check CarGurus for 2002 - 2003 Yukons and you'll fine three of them within a 100 mile radius of 55060. Lowest mileage is 168,000 and the 2003 has 215K. All are definitely not rust buckets. While you are on CarGurus, check 2001 - 2003 RAM pickups within the same zip code. At half the miles many of these pickups are showing severe rust under the doors and above the wheel wells. Are there nice ones and beaters in any brand? Certainly. But "generalizations" that all model xxx are junk is the reason threads like this never end. Just for the record, I've been behind the wheel for soon to be 60 years. That equates to more than a few miles in many different vehicles -- most of them GM with a few Fords and Chryslers, one Fiat, one AMC and even a Henry J, and a Kaiser thrown in the mix. The last four did not stay in the stable very long. Guess which brand is the ONLY brand that has NOT left me sitting along side the road? Hint: It wasn't Ford or Chrysler. Folks that experience towing problems with any vehicle bought a vehicle that was not properly equipped. Good grief I used to tow a 24 foot travel trailer with a 1978 Chevy van with the lowly 305 (5L for the numerically challenged) and was never in anyone's way. The vehicle was properly equipped. How about we switch the discussion to oil, ethanol or 2-stroke vs 4-stroke.

 

[oldjeep]

I'm not saying they are rust buckets, just that most 2000ish Tahoes have been retired due to old age/miles - as is evidenced by only finding 3 of them in a 100 mile radius I've got 118K on a 2009 and that is more normal mileage for a truck/suv if you are looking at the market.

My only generalization is that the 5.3 is a turd in terms of performance compared to the Hemi he had. Will it pull his load reliably - yup. Will it feel like he is dragging an anchor compared to towing with the hemi - yup.

285HP/295TQ compared to 335HP/370TQ is a big difference. 15% less horsepower and 20% less torque