Looking at a 2015 Tahoe LT

[ddombrowski]

We (mostly wife) wants a bigger vehicle. We currently have a 2007 Honda Pilot and 2 kids in car seats. With a dog in the back hatch area, we have very little room for luggage. She's between a large SUV and a minivan, but leans towards the large SUV.

We still have a handful of cars to look at. We'd like to try to find another "Pilot-like" vehicle with a hair more rear cargo room, but the Pilot was one of the larger ones to begin with so its looking like we'll have to step up to the Tahoe size.

I've been flipping through a few 2015 CPO cars. She wants 2015 and up for the facelift that came in 2015. Overall, the car looks typical - 5.3L V8, 6 speed auto, body-on-frame. 2WD for us. Looks pretty standard to me. Anything to watch out for? Most CPO cars have around 20-40k miles on them.

One thing that caught my eye was a car magazine that said that the magnetic ride shocks came standard on the LTZ models. Sounds overcomplicated and expensive to replace. Should I stick with the LT and regular suspension?

 

[Ramblejam]

Sounds like (relatively speaking) even the LTZ is a bit rough...

"But the Chevy’s old-school suspension doesn’t let it float down the road like the Ford or stay as settled over broken pavement."

Have you considered the EcoBoost Expedition?

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...comparison-test

 

[ddombrowski]

Originally Posted By: Ramblejam

Have you considered the EcoBoost Expedition?


Briefly. Haven't seen it in person yet, but plan to, whereas my wife has already driven the chevy product.

All things being equal, I'd tend to favor the large V8 over a boosted car just for the simplicity/reliability, but I'm not fearful of the ecoboost. Also, I don't remember where I read it but was under the impression that the chevy had a few mpg better economy than even the ecoboost ford, which I thought was odd but haven't had the chance to get to the bottom of yet.

 

[OVERKILL]

Have you looked at the Durango? It is kind of slotted between the two for size.

 

[ddombrowski]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Have you looked at the Durango? It is kind of slotted between the two for size.


Also on the list for me to go test drive, but I don't think my wife was too hot on the car in general. Can't recall why, but probably looks. Not off the table, just not something that jumped out at her. We'll see if we can find one in person to look at.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah, that can be a make-or-break for sure. My wife was the opposite, she absolutely loved the look of the Durango and wouldn't even look at anything else.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Additionally, the new Pilot is larger dimensionally than the old one, very close in size to the Durango. The Durango and Pilot are, in my opinion, the two class leaders of the 3-row SUV market. Here's a brief article on them from Carfax:

https://www.carfax.com/blog/2016-honda-pilot-vs-dodge-durango/

 

[Silverado12]

If the new Durangos are anything like the older ones, it would be a good car to get. My wife had a 2003 SLT 4.7 4WD and it was very reliable. It sucked gas, though.

 

[FirstNissan]

I would personally keep the pilot, buy a roof rack and a hitch cargo tray and save myself 30 grand or so

 

[Rand]

The new santa fe is a 3row. not to be confused with the santa fe sport.

Might be worth a drive.

A minivan with full fold flat seating is pretty nice as a utility vehicle if you need one.

 

[4wd]

One of my sups has 2016 3.5 eB Expedition - they pull a trailer with two big side by side ATV's and a bunch of camping gear ... Only takes his truck if pulling the jeep on that trailer ...

On the other hand, loved our Yukon - but rear drive fully independent (or 4WD) is nice ...

 

[ddombrowski]

Originally Posted By: 4WD
One of my sups has 2016 3.5 eB Expedition - they pull a trailer with two big side by side ATV's and a bunch of camping gear ... Only takes his truck if pulling the jeep on that trailer ...

On the other hand, loved our Yukon - but rear drive fully independent (or 4WD) is nice ...


I currently have an expedition (1998) for towing, but the 5.4V8 and solid rear axle would make it more of a comparison to the current Tahoe than the current expedition.

In researching the expedition, I'm learning that the IRS is a nice feature for handling, and my wife would appreciate that.

We live in Florida, so no need for anything beyond 2WD (said by the guy thats gotten his 2WD expedition sunk down to the axle in mud).

 

[ddombrowski]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Additionally, the new Pilot is larger dimensionally than the old one, very close in size to the Durango. The Durango and Pilot are, in my opinion, the two class leaders of the 3-row SUV market. Here's a brief article on them from Carfax:

https://www.carfax.com/blog/2016-honda-pilot-vs-dodge-durango/


Rear cargo room of the pilot seems similar to the 2007. I don't have the figures off the top of my head but want to say our 2007 was in the mid 40's (cu ft behind the second row seat). New pilot and durango are 47. Basically the same.

Ideally, I'd like another Pilot or a Durango or 4runner, but theyre all around the same amount of cargo room and the dog(s) in the back hatch area are what tips us over into the next category.

 

[Ramblejam]

Look at the comparison test I posted above:

Expedition is in the center, Tahoe on the right. Max points available on the left.

I'm a Suburban owner myself, but given what you're looking for, the Ford seems to be the easy decision here between these two.

 

[cptbarkey]

Minivan, install a hitch with outside luggage tray for the long trips. You'll spend 1/2 of a Suburban's price. Save the other half for diapers and college.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: ddombrowski
Rear cargo room of the pilot seems similar to the 2007. I don't have the figures off the top of my head but want to say our 2007 was in the mid 40's (cu ft behind the second row seat). New pilot and durango are 47. Basically the same.


I apologize; I think your 2007 actually has more room behind the 2nd row. Honda lists it as 47.6 CF behind the 2nd row, while the 2016 is 46.8 CF. I understood the 2016 to be larger, but that may have been biased towards passenger volume.

 

[Tahoe4Life]

Delete

 

[4wd]

Yep - had good luck with our 4x4 Durango - but so did Shell and Exxon.

 

[Tahoe4Life]

Recently bought a brand new 2016 Tahoe LT. I am older and take a lot of long trips now so wanted something comfy,decent on fuel [24 MPG on highway on regular fuel] and easy to get in and out plus a lot more. Plus I really like the way it sits up nice and high.

Looked at used CPO 2016 LT Tahoes and the price of this one was 4K bucks more at Shumacher Chevy in Palm Beach.

I would recommend you rent one for a couple of days to see how you really like it. That is what I did.

If you decide to buy one try get a 15 and a half. Those have 4G Wi-FI and other good stuff.

 

[ddombrowski]

Originally Posted By: FORD4LIFE


Looked at used CPO 2016 LT Tahoes and the price of this one was 4K bucks more at Shumacher Chevy in Palm Beach.



Woah, really? We're neighbors. Thats where my wife went to test drive the Tahoes a few weeks ago. I'm up in Jupiter.

Regarding the new being 4K more than the CPO, are you talking about after negotiation? I don't have a feel for the spread between final price and MSRP on large SUVs, but I understand it to be pretty big.

I looked at a couple of 2015 CPOs which were in the 36-38k range, where as the new ones were stickering at 50+. I'd be interested to know what you paid for yours. I suppose I could always check out truecar as well, I just went into it figuring we'd be getting a CPO used car.

We were set on 2015 and up on the Tahoe for the facelift on the front. Don't care too much about wifi but it might be nice to have.