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

RaceCarRich

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
233
Towed my 8400lb race car trailer (like a brick in the wind) for years with my 2003 Yukon Denali XL. My thought is that is a good truck for someone handy that can fix the little things that goes wrong on older vehicles as there will be many (window regulators, autoride, seat heaters, wiper modules, air bag sensors, hubs, calipers, etc.). If you need to pay the dealer $100+ an hour to fix stuff, steer clear. I think the 6.0L engine will outlast the truck if maintained. Mine has 168K hard miles.

Love the autoride self-leveling feature but I did have to replace the rear shocks a few years ago (not cheap, aftermarkets with lifetime warranty) and just installed my second compressor... ($150-$220 easy fix depending on new or rebuilt).
 

ricohman

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
1,631
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.

Lower gear = higher numbers. Higher gears = lower numbers. And yes, I do gear swaps for a living.
 

oldjeep

Admiral
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
6,455
Lower gear = higher numbers. Higher gears = lower numbers. And yes, I do gear swaps for a living.

Silvertip said:
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.


Pretty sure that is the exact same thing he said.
3.21 - lower ratio (higher gear)
4.10 - high ratio (lower gear)
 
Last edited:

Silvertip

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
28,762
Lower gear = higher numbers. Higher gears = lower numbers. And yes, I do gear swaps for a living.

Isn't that what I said? A 4.10:1 ratio is a high ratio (lower gear but not a lower ratio). 3.36:1 is a low ratio (higher gear but not a lower ratio). The ratio of the first number to the second is what ratio means. 4.10 is a lower gear than a 3.36. These are two different ways of discussing gear ratios. Low gear and low ratio do not mean the same thing. They are in fact opposite. This low gear/low ratio stuff happened when folks began calling first gear in a car or truck "low gear" and 3rd gear was "high gear". They were indeed lower and higher gears respectively, but they were also higher and lower "ratios" respectively. Hence the confusion over the term. Math doesn't lie unless you use or interpret the numbers wrong.
 

keith2k455

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
558
Back on the topic of Yukon and Tahoe tow vehicles....if you want room to haul people, gear and tow, these are great options. When budget constraints exist, looking pretty 2005 these are very good options. Myself, I would go for a Yukon xl Denali or an escalade esv for the 6.0 and extra size since they cost the same as the shorter variant. The thing to watch is mileage and condition. It's pretty easy to find a suburban, but any of these with low miles and autoride don't come around often.

Also make sure to see how the Trans shifts 2-3 at wot. This needs to be smooth with no flare. Any flare or issues with the 2-3 shift means you walk away or buck up 3500 for a Trans.
 

ricohman

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
1,631
Isn't that what I said? A 4.10:1 ratio is a high ratio (lower gear but not a lower ratio). 3.36:1 is a low ratio (higher gear but not a lower ratio). The ratio of the first number to the second is what ratio means. 4.10 is a lower gear than a 3.36. These are two different ways of discussing gear ratios. Low gear and low ratio do not mean the same thing. They are in fact opposite. This low gear/low ratio stuff happened when folks began calling first gear in a car or truck "low gear" and 3rd gear was "high gear". They were indeed lower and higher gears respectively, but they were also higher and lower "ratios" respectively. Hence the confusion over the term. Math doesn't lie unless you use or interpret the numbers wrong.

Just call'em "low gears" or "high gears". Low gears (or deeper) meaning the the 4.56 in my FJ40 and high gears the 2.73 in my vintage 5.0.
I read what you wrote a few times. Its confusing for this old gear head.
As far as ratio goes. The more teeth you have on the pinion the stronger the gearset. A 4.56 pinion is weaker then the 2.73.
Somewhere in the middle in a good compromise. The 4.10 is a good example of that.
I've swapped out many 4.56 sets on Toyota's for the 4.10. But I also installed SM420 trans in those trucks with a 7.2 1st gear.
 
Last edited:

ricohman

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
1,631
Back on topic.
The 6.0 is a great engine. Lots of power and good on fuel.
Good enough that this engine is very popular in the rock buggy scene as well.
If you are going to buy one of these trucks get the 6.0.
 

Silvertip

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
28,762
Just call'em "low gears" or "high gears". Low gears (or deeper) meaning the the 4.56 in my FJ40 and high gears the 2.73 in my vintage 5.0.
I read what you wrote a few times. Its confusing for this old gear head.
As far as ratio goes. The more teeth you have on the pinion the stronger the gearset. A 4.56 pinion is weaker then the 2.73.
Somewhere in the middle in a good compromise. The 4.10 is a good example of that.
I've swapped out many 4.56 sets on Toyota's for the 4.10. But I also installed SM420 trans in those trucks with a 7.2 1st gear.

This is getting funny. You just confirmed what got us here in the first place. You say if the pinion has more gears it is "stronger". Yes it is stronger from a "breakage" standpoint, but it is a weaker gear from a towing standpoint. 1:1 has the same number of teeth on the pinion as there is on the ring gear. This ratio is absolutely worthless for towing, great for economy if you can get the vehicle moving and only travel downhill, but you likely would never physically break it. So why not just use the high gear, low gear stuff for shifting and use proper terminology when talking about towing ability and axle ratios.
 

jkust

Rear Admiral
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,942
The thing about these vehicles...they get driven a lot and it is so hard to find a deal on one with under 100k miles or even one that is not a deal with under 100k miles at this point. I'm talking the early years of the new body style and much harder on the old body style.
 

ricohman

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
1,631
This is getting funny. You just confirmed what got us here in the first place. You say if the pinion has more gears it is "stronger". Yes it is stronger from a "breakage" standpoint, but it is a weaker gear from a towing standpoint. 1:1 has the same number of teeth on the pinion as there is on the ring gear. This ratio is absolutely worthless for towing, great for economy if you can get the vehicle moving and only travel downhill, but you likely would never physically break it. So why not just use the high gear, low gear stuff for shifting and use proper terminology when talking about towing ability and axle ratios.

I've removed busted 4.88's and 4.56's to swap in 3.73 in some cases. The 3.73 was stronger and better for towing with a trans with a far lower 1st gear and in one case an underdrive box.
My new F350 can be had with 3.31 or 3.55. Even with the 3.31 its a monster towing rig as the trans has more than enough gears to get the job done. And with the larger pinion you get a stronger gearset. And 860ft lbs of torque is tough on any gearset.
So no, high gears do not make poor towing if used correctly.
 

Silvertip

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
28,762
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

And 25 cubic inches less. Again, "properly equipped" comes to mind. A larger engine coupled with a higher ratio differential that I believe the Toyotas typical run can make a world of difference. How about gas mileage? Could it be that these vehicles are not easily found because they are indeed kept by their owners or snapped up the minute they do go up for sale. I just did a search for Yukons and Tahoes at my local GM dealer and there were again, only three. 2007, 2010 and 2011. Even the local "Well Used" bargain lots and the local Ford/Chrysler dealer have zero inventory. I find it hard to believe early 2000's are all in the bone yards -- especially since I see so many every day on the road. If the OP does find a Yukon/Tahoe, why not hook it up to the trailer and see if it does the job. If not, look for something else or move to the 6.0. It might just be that one persons idea of a suitable tow vehicle is very different than another. Not everyone needs a dually diesel to pull a rowboat.
 

Pony

Rear Admiral
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
4,355
I have a 2004 Silverado with 3.73's and the 5.3L. Most I have towed was a 26ft travel trailer that was probably 6 or 7000lbs easy....and it towed pretty well. Do I wish I had the 5.7 or the 6.0 in the 2500? For that particular instance sure....but for everything else I am glad I have the 5.3.

I have driven a 2500 with the 6.0 and it tows like a dream...it also got 11 mpg towing nothing or towing a house.

I probably get 19 mpg with my daily driving and 14 mpg with my boat (in my signature) which probably weighs in at 2800 to 3000lbs fully....and I mean fully loaded.

As to Yukon or Tahoe.....I think it depends on what you can find a good deal on.

I will say that the rocker panels on my 04' and my neighbors 03' are pretty much toast.....only areas on either of our trucks that have rust issues. Many I have seen in the neck of the woods seem to be the same. I just finished sanding them down, patching, and re painting mine to have a relatively rust free truck. 154k and still running like a champ
 

keith2k455

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
558
Mpg is not something these vehicles are known for The 6.0 in our '03 escalade esv gets about 18 Mpg now, but I had a buddy do something programming for fuel economy and to adjust some of the Cadillac out of the trans. I got about 13.5 before programming.

Towing is a different story. I'm lucky to hit 10 Mpg with my sig boat in tow, but I can easily do 75 if I want.
 

Ming15237

Seaman
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
69
I have owned and or worked on just about every large GM SUV made. I am also a ASE certified master tech. This being said the 5.3 is not a bad motor, but the 6.2 found in the Escalade and Yukon Denali is the better choice for towing imho. Fuel mileage is virtually identical to the 5.3 but does require premium fuel in the 6.2 . The 6 speed transmission found in the 2008 to 2014 is a far better transmission for towing the the old 4 speed found in the earlier years. We have seen our fair share of intake leaks on the 5.3, but none yet on the 6.2, we have also seen a ton of 5.3's with oil consumption issues, yet none of those issues on the 6.2. The torque of the 6.2 Denali that I just sold which was a 2011 was FAR and away superior to my 2015 Toyota Tundra platinum crewmax with a 5.7 and a 4.30 rear differential. The auto ride on the Denali was also far superior to the suspension on my Tundra. Remember though that the electronic shock absorbers and front struts on the Denali and the Escalade are around $450 per shock from the dealer, and we have seen a "**** ton" of them go bad! My last straw on my Yukon was when the dashboard cracked by the passenger side airbag and also above the steering wheel. The cost to repair that alone is over 1k,! I live in PA, and we use road salt and that did not do anything positive for any of my Yukons! All 08, 09, and 2011 all had rusting problems on the bottoms of the doors, and rear lift gate! This is thanks to GM using Chinese steel and refusing to use seam sealer on their outer door skins! We have also seen a ton of 5.3, and 6.2's with broken exhaust manifold studs on the drivers side rear of the cylinder heads. This is again an expensive repair in the neighborhood of $1k. My 2011 had rear a/c lines beginning to leak as they are made of aluminum and run under the truck in steel clamps which when combined with road salt = massive corrosion! As a person who fixes cars for a living I HATE working on my own stuff, that's why I buy new and keep it 3 years and done! These trucks will last 60k trouble free on average, THEN GM's cost cutting methods will rear its ugly head! Rusting in out environment is common, chrome wheels that flake off into finger slicing sheets of pealing chrome are common, front inner chrome over plastic door handles that flake and again cut the hell out of people are also common issues! When my dash cracked on the 2011 in the same exact place as my 2009 did with only 50k miles on it and the dealer and GM both said sorry, out of warranty, I gave them both the same answer, "not only will I never ever buy another one of your vehicles, but I will never recommend your vehicles to ANY of my customers for this very reason! There is a damn good reason why these Denali's and Escalades can be purchased at 50% of their original value in 3 years time, when their foreign competitors are retaining 70 to 80% of their value at that same age. You are getting what you pay for! All of this being said my Denali towed my 7600lbs boat with ease, much better than my new Tundra does, the electronic shocks are amazingly good at calming the bounce of the ride for a large SUVs, the rear air shocks make it seem as if there is no boat back there! Just watch out for the things I have pointed out earlier in my post and you should be fine. I would never buy one with 100k plus miles on it and think I am going to have a trouble free vehicle, there are going to be issues, that a given. The alternative is to buy brand new and let me tell you the payments suck...lol
 

thumpar

Admiral
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
6,138
My last tow vehicle was a 2003 suburban with 385,000+ miles on it with the 5.3l. My current tow vehicle is a 2000 Yukon (first year of the newer body style) with 248,000+ miles on it. Both have been great towing close to 5,000lbs loaded. The suburban was a little better but if you get a Yukon XL it is the same with the extra GMC touches.
 

Reg312

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
139
You might want to check JD Powers reliability rating on your choice of vehicles. Expedition 5.4 or Sequoia would be my choices.
 

Ming15237

Seaman
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
69
You might want to check JD Powers reliability rating on your choice of vehicles. Expedition 5.4 or Sequoia would be my choices.
The ford 5.4 motor is one of the most worthless "boat anchors" ever made! I have seen so many with spark plug issues blowing out of the cylinder head and timing chain tensioner issues I wouldn't own one on a dare! Their hp rating is dismal, and they must have the hell revved out of them to produce even average power, which is the exact opposite of what you want in a tow vehicle. The rust issue on these vehicles is extremely bad to say the least. The Toyota Sequoia was a great vehicle, but so what under powered, and some early models had tranny issues. We see a few at this time with bad ""TRAC" ecu's, but they are not extremely common. I do think the OP under rated his boats weight by a significant amount. Deckboats are HEAVY due to their construction, and frankly with his trailer included I would be surprised if he his under 6k.
 
Top